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

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: As the House gathers, I just wanted to pay personal congratulations to the chairman of the cabinet committee on the bicentennial, the member for Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch), who I thought arranged a marvellous dinner in honour of Her Majesty the Queen last Tuesday evening. I certainly enjoyed it very much.

RETIREMENT OF PREMIER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time, among other matters, to acknowledge the presence in your gallery of the first lady of Ontario, Kathleen, known as Kathy, Davis. It has been my privilege and that of many of us to have known Mrs. Davis for many years, and we want her to know that she is very much in our thoughts on this particular day.

As the member for Brock, the occupant of seat 9, I would like to take just a minute to direct our attention to the occupant of seat 8, the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis).

We know the Premier has come to a very difficult decision, which was made known to the people of this country yesterday, a decision which was obviously that much more difficult because of the characteristics of this man. Committed as he is to a very high level of public service, sensitive to what the stewardship of public responsibility means as it is translated into his daily life, it would be no surprise to anyone that he would take a great deal of time to consider the implications of such an important decision. We respect him for those concerns and for that time.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, I might be allowed, in fact I can presume, to speak for all Canadians committed to the whole system of parliamentary democracy in this country, for among many things, Bill Davis is seen as a great Canadian who happens to live in Ontario. There is no question about that. There has not been a city, a town or a village in this province, no matter what its size, which at some time during the course of his visits as a minister and as Premier, and during periods of consultation, has not benefited from his attendance and from his concern.

There are very few people who have not come into contact with this man in one way or another during the course of a quarter of a century of public service. Speaking very personally, I want to indicate that it has been my privilege to have been associated with a man who has made history. There will be many who will analyse that history, those who are charged with the responsibility for its recording and for the analysis to which I have already made reference; but it has been the privilege of all of us to be with a man who was making history, making his contribution, making his presence felt on the body politic and against the background of the commitments that are his.

I have been associated with the member for Brampton, formerly the member for Peel, for 21 of those 25 or more years. Others, as I have mentioned, will have their opportunity to make their opinions known with respect to these important Davis years. History was made. It was made without arrogance, without animosity or rancour, without hostility or stubbornness. It was made rather with an attitude of this wonderful country of ours, Canada, first, in the spirit of very open federalism, with a keen sense of what it means to translate fair play into our political decision-making and with a deep compassion.

As a member of his caucus, I should point out that this man not only led the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario but also was known as our friend. To all men and women over the years who have committed a portion of their lives and their gifts to making this country a better place in which to live, he has served as a tremendous example of characteristics and traits that are certainly worthy of our emulation.

All these public responsibilities were discharged in a spirit of respect and an attitude of healthy debate with those who might have points of view that are different from his. It is on a very personal basis indeed, as Bob Welch from Brock, that I regard the leader of our party, the Premier of Ontario, this man, Bill Davis, as one who represents the highest ideals of public service and conduct. He expected no less from those of us who had the privilege of serving with him.

I suppose the greatest tribute to him has been the spirit in which this decision was arrived at, the fact that in the evolution and development of the particular political party to which we belong, these opportunities are provided to reflect, renew, regroup and think in terms of new initiatives and new emphasis.

Another great tribute to him is the fact that he has built so well, so that those of us who have the opportunity of carrying on in our respective capacities, whatever they may be, can look to the future with some degree of optimism and confidence because of the foundation that has been so well and truly built by Bill Davis as the Premier of this province.

I feel quite privileged to have this opportunity to stand in this Legislature and on behalf of my colleagues as well as on behalf of all Canadians of good will throughout this country who believe in this country as he does, to pay tribute to this truly great Canadian and wish for him, his wife and his family many years of happiness as he responds to what I am sure will be new challenges and new opportunities, to be seen constantly in the service of those principles and ideals which we all cherish and hold so high. Bill, we wish you well.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice and the voice of my colleagues to the millions of Ontarians who have expressed their admiration and gratitude to the Premier on the occasion of his impending retirement from this phase of his public life. I think it is appropriate to do so in this House, the Premier's working home for the past 25 years.

When the Premier made his announcement yesterday, he said, "This is not the end of an era in Ontario politics." If I may, I will allow just one note of disagreement to this statement. It is indeed the end of an era in Ontario politics. It is the end of a time when one man's singular political skills dominated the agenda in the House and on the hustings, skills which have left their indelible mark on the party and on the province he so tirelessly served.

This is not the time to focus on our political disputes; they are legion and they are the stuff of politics. Rather, I would like to take this opportunity to praise him once again for one of the truly courageous hallmarks of a very distinguished career. In their analyses of his retirement, many commentators have said, "Without his support from the beginning, Canada might not have its own Constitution today." Few people would disagree with that assessment.

In a few months the Premier will leave the political stage of Ontario. I know he will leave with his sense of decency and dedication to his province and family still strong and intact. It will serve as an example to those families whose lives are in the glare of public life. To him, to his wife, Kathleen, who has shared, with the same class and skill he has, all his political battles, and to his marvellous family, on behalf of my colleagues I wish you well and Godspeed.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I think it was Adlai Stevenson, whose words I have quoted before, who said -- and I think this is perhaps a good reminder to politicians in all walks of life -- "Flattery is a great thing so long as you do not inhale." I hope the Premier is not inhaling today.

I am also reminded that the very last occasion on which I was a witness at a similar occasion was when many members from all sides of the House of Commons spoke in December 1979, when Prime Minister Trudeau retired finally from political life. All joking aside, the Premier has earned the respect and affection of the members of our party and of millions of Ontarians and indeed of millions of Canadians.

All of us who are in public life and politics, even those of us who cannot understand everything the Premier is trying to say from time to time -- and I suspect that is the majority of us -- have certainly come to have an extraordinary respect not only for his political abilities and his success but also for the success, if I may say so, of the party of which he is the leader. I say this with a sense and more than just a twinge, perhaps with an avalanche, of regret. It has obviously been great.

He has great private abilities as well. He has great public talents, but he has the qualities as an individual that make him a model, I suspect, for many of us in this difficult business.

I do not mind saying that in my private dealings with him I have enjoyed getting to know him a little bit. I have also enjoyed being put to the test and being on my guard even in those private conversations. I have always had the feeling that whatever we were discussing was being quietly stored away for use perhaps on another occasion.

He has great standards of integrity. He has a deep sense of this province. He has not done some things that many of us would have liked him to have done, and from time to time he has even done some things that we regret his having done. But as the leader of my party, I can honestly say to him that we respect him, that we like him and that we are going to miss him a great deal.

But I have a suspicion, and indeed I suspect it is a feeling many of us have, that he will be around. I hope, and I express this hope on behalf of many of us, that he will be around in public life in one way or another to serve this province and to serve this great country of ours, about which I know he feels so strongly.

De temps en temps nous n'avons pas été tout à fait d'accord, nous avons eu nos différences entre nous comme chefs de partis différents. Mais je veux l'assurer qu'il a le respect de tous les Ontariens, qu'il a certainement le respect de tous les membres de mon parti et qu'il a gagné aussi l'affection et l'amitié de tous mes collègues et des citoyens de notre province.

Mr. Speaker, the formality of these occasions and the distance at which we find ourselves perhaps prevents us from doing some things. Nevertheless, I would now simply like to walk across the floor and shake the Premier's hand since, if this were any other place and any other time, that is exactly what I suspect most of us would like to do.

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I think most members will understand, the Premier of this province is not often groping for words. I may grope, but I have never had difficulty using a whole lot of them without too much punctuation and without worrying about split infinitives or dangling participles.

After listening to the member for Brock (Mr. Welch), the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) and the member for York South (Mr. Rae), I almost decided to change my mind; but I recall the words of the member for York South about not inhaling, so I shall not change my mind.

In as simple a way as I can, I want to thank my colleagues in our caucus for what they have meant to me and for what they have communicated to me in the past several days, and to thank the member for Brock for not only his thoughtful, sensitive and, I guess I would say, somewhat exaggerated remarks, but most importantly for his references to my wife, who is in the gallery.

It has been a very difficult few days for the Davis family, but they have been interesting too. Kathleen and Neil were in cabinet yesterday. It was the first time we have had strangers in the House. Kathleen came with me to caucus today. Our caucus was as unanimous and well-behaved as I have ever seen it.

Mr. Sargent: You should have her there more often.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I must say to the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), whose interjections I will really miss, that he might learn something from her.

I made the decision for a variety of reasons. I will not in any way impose upon the members of this House except to reiterate what I have said, that my service, not just to my party but to our province and to this country, has meant so much to me. I have made too many speeches in the past about being an Ontarian, but a Canadian first; I will not repeat them on this occasion.

I have sometimes been described by people in the media as being a little bland. Who knows what that means? I have been portrayed as being a somewhat unemotional person. That may appear to be the case on the surface, but I say today that the past several days have been an emotional period for me, for Kathy and for our family.

Here in this assembly I will continue to represent the views of the government and debate with the members across the floor of the House. I have a genuine respect and affection for those who share this most onerous of responsibilities, the opportunity to serve our constituents and serve the public of this province.

To the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party I give my thanks. To the members of my cabinet and caucus I give my heartfelt appreciation. I have one word of advice for those who wish to succeed to a sometimes rather difficult post: as they address the great nominating convention that will take place fairly soon, the candidate who mentions my great riding of Brampton several times in the address is bound to receive some sympathetic support.

APPOINTMENT OF STEPHEN LEWIS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the members of the House would want me to recognize the passage of an event in the life of another very distinguished citizen of Ontario who, while not from Brampton, has visited Brampton many times. I would point out to the Premier (Mr. Davis) that I have mentioned the riding twice in one sentence.

I am referring to Stephen Lewis, the former leader of our party, who was a member of this House for many years and who was recently honoured by an appointment as ambassador of Canada to the United Nations. Speaking as a member of my party, I am very proud of that appointment.

If I may speak personally, since Mr. Lewis's appointment is one that was held by my father, it is one to which I have a special attachment and in which I have a special sense of pride. I know all members of the House will want to join with me in paying their respects to someone who will be an extraordinarily fine spokesman for all of Canada in an international forum such as the United Nations at a time when a voice of compassion, reason, humour and great humanitarianism is required more than ever.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, I would like to share in the observations made by the leader of the New Democratic Party of Ontario. My colleagues and I feel the appointment by the new government of Canada of Stephen Lewis to head our delegation at the United Nations is an inspired and positive one. We wish Mr. Lewis all the very best in his new responsibilities. It is true to say that some of us will miss him on the radio on Tuesday mornings, and elsewhere.

I recall, as I know a number of members might also recall, that day in late 1978 when, at the adjournment of the fall session, the then leader of the New Democratic Party and the Premier of this province -- I remember it well; I think I had a public comment at the time -- left the chamber together to call the Lieutenant Governor to your dais, Mr. Speaker. I thought to myself: "I think we will hear from that pair again. I think their work is not yet concluded."

I was driving home to Pembroke the other day from Wingham when I heard on the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. news at two o'clock that the new government had appointed Mr. Lewis to that new responsibility. The first two words that crossed my mind were "Bill Davis." When I heard Mr. Lewis on Friday night on The Journal indicating that my private instincts were right, that our distinguished Premier had had a role to play -- I suspect a very significant role -- in that appointment, I thought of that departing scene six years ago when the Premier and Mr. Lewis left this chamber together.

I want to wish Stephen Lewis all the very best in his important new responsibilities. I am sure he will serve our province and our country with great distinction in a very important job.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government and the members of my caucus, I would like to say a few words about the appointment of Stephen Lewis as Canada's ambassador to the United Nations.

Stephen and I were both elected from adjoining ridings in Scarborough in 1963. At times we sparred very vigorously across this House. There were not many things we agreed upon in those early days in this House, but as we came to debate with each other, we came to recognize and appreciate each other. I think the members of our caucus have appreciated the sincerity with which Stephen Lewis fought for those things he believed in.

His appointment to the ambassadorship at the United Nations is a very inspired one. Stephen Lewis began his career teaching in a Third World country, if I recall correctly. He now takes his place in an august world body in which the Third World to a large degree holds the balance of power. His chance to do something for Canada is going to be great and will be very significant.

2:30 p.m.

As we congratulate Stephen Lewis on his appointment, we must also congratulate the Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, who has shown great inspiration and --

Mr. Rae: There is hope for all of us.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I notice the present leader of the New Democratic Party sort of praying he will also be noticed. I am sure he does not figure that the election is already over and has given up already. However, I would suggest he pass along a note if he has any suggested position he would like.

I state again that I think it shows the depth of understanding and the kind of leadership that Brian Mulroney is bringing to this country. This is exemplified by this appointment and by the many other things he will do in the four years ahead as he leads Canada to even greater heights.

Our congratulations go to a former member of this Legislature who now assumes, on behalf of all of us, a very important seat on the world stage.

WORLD SERIES

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I will take only a couple of moments. On the lighter side, tonight is the beginning of the World Series. I am sure the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) will join me. I remember the Premier (Mr. Davis) was in Windsor back in June --

Mr. Watson: Have you taken a special interest in baseball lately?

Mr. Cooke: Yes, I must confess I have taken a greater interest in baseball in the last few weeks. We saw the Chicago Cubs were beaten and so will Fergie Jenkins be beaten.

The Premier was in Windsor back at the end of June and was booed by the great people of Windsor when he said he was going to be rooting for the Blue Jays and expected that they would win the pennant, even though at that time they were 10, 12, 15 games behind the team known as the Windsor Tigers, or more commonly known as the Detroit Tigers.

On the day the World Series is beginning, I would have the Premier accept this hat. Perhaps he will repent and begin to root for the winners, the Detroit Tigers.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that I have no reason to repent. I might also say I will be delighted to support the Detroit Tigers because I believe in family unity. If the member does not understand the relationship, in the Premier's office we describe ourselves as the family. It will be an occasion where I will be totally onside with my deputy minister, who has been a Detroit fan since about age two.

I thank the member very much for the hat. Before anybody decides to present anything else, I am not going to take a walk down this aisle, but I am taking that aisle to take my wife to lunch. I invite the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), in case he feels there is any significance or anticipated hope in the future by his references to a walk I took in that direction, if he wishes to join the two of us, he is more than welcome.

DEATHS OF POLICEMEN

Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I draw the attention of this House to the tragic events of this past weekend in Woodstock. The violent death of Constable Jack Ross is a personal tragedy to me and to the entire community. Constable Ross spent his entire life as a resident of Oxford county with the exception of two years serving elsewhere with the Ontario Provincial Police.

On behalf of my colleagues, I wish to express our profound sympathy to Jack's wife, Ruth, their family and to the other people killed and injured in this wild rampage. We owe a debt of gratitude to the police officers of this province who are paying such a high price to protect us.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with the ordinary business of the House, you will all have noticed that we have new pages with us today and I would like to take this opportunity to read their names into the record so you may thank them at the appropriate time and in the appropriate manner.

Alison Amero, Cambridge; Christian Bailey, Lakeshore; Steve Belanger, Kenora; Lisa Black, Peterborough; Susan Caughill, Dufferin-Simcoe; Brian Friend, Windsor-Riverside; Angela Godsoe, Beaches-Woodbine; Alexander Heath, Waterloo North; Stephen Lajoie, Simcoe Centre; Meredith Love, Grey; Christopher Martin, Durham West; Gary Moloney, Scarborough North; Irene Nahwegahbow, Algoma-Manitoulin; Marianne Olmsted, Ottawa West;

Jennifer Peng, St. Andrew-St. Patrick; Kathleen Pengelly, Erie; Daniel Poot, Victoria-Haliburton; Blair Powell, Parry Sound; Laren Sweet, Brampton; Glenn Tattersall, Grey-Bruce; Kristin Van Horne, London North; Emily Weedon, Don Mills; and Mark Young, York West. We take the opportunity to welcome all these pages to this session.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DEATHS OF POLICEMEN

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, it is on a sombre note that I bring this information to the House, and I would like to add to the comments of the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven). I am sure the members of this House will join me in expressing our sorrow over the deaths of two more Ontario police officers in the line of duty over the weekend.

Constable Jack Ross of the Ontario Provincial Police was killed Sunday when he was shot during a siege at Woodstock. He was a 22-year veteran of the force, a dedicated officer and the father of five children.

Early this morning Constable William Grant, 27, of York Regional Police died when his cruiser was rammed by a young man who later took his own life. Constable Grant's wife is expecting their second child in a matter of weeks.

This brings to seven the number of police officers murdered in the past year. All of us find this tragic toll appalling. It serves to remind us of the sacrifices made by our police officers as they continue their dedicated service to the people of this province.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express the condolences of the members of this House to the families of all of those officers who died, as well as to the family of the officer who was killed over the weekend in Montreal. The five other officers killed in the last year were Metropolitan Toronto Police Constable David Dunmore, 41; Peel Regional Police Constable Dwayne Piukkala, 24; York Regional Police Constable Doug Tribbling, 49; OPP Constable William McIntyre, 33; and Nepean Police Constable David Utman, 38.

All of us are concerned about the safety of our police officers, and I should like to inform the House of two recent initiatives that will involve examining the issues that affect the safety of police officers.

I have asked Dr. Ross Bennett, Ontario's chief coroner, to conduct an inquest into the deaths of Constable David Dunmore of the Metropolitan Toronto Police force, who was shot to death on September 18, and of the person who shot him. Because charges have been laid in connection with the incident, I am limited in what I can say at this time. However, the inquest will investigate the availability of weapons and the issue of video violence, areas that concern me greatly, as I am sure they do all members of this House.

In addition, I want to advise the members of this House that plans are under way for an early meeting of the committee of police officers and civilians to review police pursuits, which I announced a short time ago. John MacBeth, QC, vice-chairman of the Ontario Police Commission and a former Solicitor General of the province, has agreed to chair that committee, and I have received a number of inquiries from interested citizens offering to help.

The mandate of that committee will include a review of police procedures in stopping a vehicle at the conclusion of a pursuit and, for that matter, of procedures to be followed by the police in the many different circumstances in which the police must take action to pull a motor vehicle over.

2:40 p.m.

The police officers of Ontario enjoy a very high level of support, confidence and trust from the people of this province. They are justifiably very proud of that support, that confidence and that trust. At the same time, police officers in this province are understandably very concerned about their own safety. They want to protect themselves, as well as the public they serve. We must do everything we can to protect them and we will do so in a manner that in no way diminishes that trust, competence and support which they have from the public of this province.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to those of the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) and the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven). I would like to make particular reference to the late Constable Ross and offer my most sincere sympathies to his widow and family.

On occasion, when I travel back and forth between my residence and this chamber, I take the old back country road 97 through small communities such as Bright and Plattsville. On more than one occasion I have had the opportunity to have a pleasant bottle of Coke and a chat with Constable Ross. We seemed to stop at the same little Shell station along the way. He was an officer who loved his work and who held the respect of the community. I feel a personal sense of loss, beyond which I feel a tremendous sense of repulsion at the loss of life among our police officers. I would like to add my condolences to the families.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our caucus and as critic of the Ministry of the Solicitor General, I would like to join in the expression of condolences to the families of the deceased police officers who were killed in the line of duty.

This raises some very profound questions with respect to the adequacy of the administration of the police forces in the province and raises many questions that we will have to deal with in this assembly. I am pleased with the initiatives that have been taken by the Solicitor General, particularly with respect to high-speed chases.

On this occasion I really want to say to the Solicitor General that he has our wholehearted support in joining with him in expressing our warmest sympathy to the families of those officers.

TRANSIT ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to announce that my ministry has been awarded the prestigious Government Agency Transit Achievement Award by the American Public Transit Association.

It was also my privilege to accept this award on behalf of Ontario and my ministry at the association's annual meeting in Washington, DC, on October 2.

The award is presented every year in recognition of "outstanding execution of public transportation responsibilities and contributions to the transit industry."

The awards committee praised Ontario's unique subsidy programs and our involvement in the development of advanced vehicle technology and transit information, communications and control systems.

This is our second major APTA award, since this is the same US-based international organization which in 1972 chose the Premier (Mr. Davis) as Transit Man of the Year.

I would also like to point out that the Toronto Transit Commission was honoured with the 1984 APTA Management Innovation Award for the transit system whose specific operating programs have demonstrated innovative concepts and effective problem-solving techniques that are adaptable for use by other systems.

This recognition of Ontario's commitment to providing the best possible service to our urban transit riders is most gratifying, especially coming, as it does, from our peers in the transit field.

ANNUAL REPORT, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, 1983-84

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have one other brief statement.

I am pleased today to present to the House my ministry's annual report for the fiscal year ending March 1984. Because of some unforeseen production delays, the report, I must say, is a little overdue, but in my opinion is well worth waiting for.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out some of the highlights. They include awarding a $38-million contract for the twinning of the Burlington Bay Skyway; planning for the GO advanced light rail transit interregional transit system; continued progress on Scarborough's intermediate capacity transit system; celebrating the St. Lawrence Seaway's 25th anniversary; and tabling two significant documents on trucking, the Uffen report and Responsible Trucking.

These are a few of the accomplishments outlined in the annual report. I trust the members will enjoy reading the report that will be put in their mailbox.

Mr. Conway: It is a big announcement; here it comes.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, they are testing me.

Mr. Sweeney: You know what they say about the heat in the kitchen.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes. That is why I like microwaves.

Interjections.

TRADE WITH U.S.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I wish to report to the House on the recent decision of the US administration to reduce its steel imports and to bring to members' attention the significant and active role played by the Ministry of Industry and Trade to defend Ontario against the threat of US protectionism.

In late 1983 and early this year, the US steel industry launched a concerted lobbying effort to restrict steel imports across the board. The potential negative impact on Ontario of such measures could have been severe. Fully 80 per cent of the Canadian steel industry capacity is located in our province, and the proposed actions threatened to jeopardize about $900-million worth of our steel exports and thousands of jobs in Ontario.

I am relieved and happy to report that three weeks ago President Reagan rejected steel import quotas in favour of more selective measures to manage excessive import surges into the US market. Assurances have been given that Canada-US steel trade will not be affected by any such measures.

This positive outcome did not just happen. Joint efforts by the Canadian steel industry and the Ontario government helped to convince US policymakers that Canada is a fair steel trader and that measures taken against Canadian steel would actually hurt the US. I believe our efforts on behalf of the industry were also instrumental in stimulating a more active federal government stance on this critical issue.

Specifically, the government of Ontario undertook the following major commitments:

The Premier visited Washington in February and raised Ontario steel concerns with key administration officials and congressmen.

My parliamentary assistant the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) visited Washington in April to promote greater sensitivity on the steel issue among senior congressmen.

Senior representatives in several of our ministry's US regional offices visited or contacted congressional district offices of key congressmen regarding our steel concerns.

I went to Washington in June -- that made the difference -- and again emphasized our steel concerns to selected administration officials and members of Congress. I followed this up with a series of telephone conversations to keep our arguments front and centre in their minds.

Our government also made calls to many subsidiaries of US companies in Ontario to request that US head offices speak out against restrictions on Canada-US steel trade.

The Premier wrote to all the Great Lakes governors on the steel issue in August.

The Ministry of Industry and Trade actively participated on the steel task force established by the federal government and the industry.

Let me conclude by indicating that although the steel threat has subsided, I do not believe that protectionist tendencies in the US are suddenly going to disappear. We must remain vigilant. But we have established effective relationships in Washington and we have helped make Congress more aware of the special nature of our relationship with the US. This is an investment which should pay significant dividends in the future.

My ministry looks forward to working closely with the federal government and industry to maximize our effectiveness in defending US market access for our exports.

2:50 p.m.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, during the last few years of difficult economic times, other jurisdictions were forced to cut back social service programs. I am proud to say, however, that not only has this government continued to meet its commitment to assist those in real financial hardship, but we have improved our levels of assistance to those in need. In this we are unique in North America.

In this regard, I am pleased to tell members about a new package of improvements and benefits my ministry will be introducing, effective January 1, 1985, to assist Ontario's socially disadvantaged. The total provincial cost of these improvements will amount to $61.8 million. As members know, these costs are shared with the federal government under the Canada assistance plan. This new improvement package brings the combined value of enhancements alone to our income maintenance social assistance programs over a three-year period to $175 million.

Let me point out that I gave my commitment to municipalities through the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario some 18 months ago that we would give them the earliest possible notice of planned increases to our social assistance programs. My purpose in announcing these improvements now is to aid municipalities in planning their budgets and administrative adjustments for the coming year.

This improvement package was developed by the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. Grossman) and myself during the summer months after the Treasurer's presentation of the Ontario budget in May.

Mr. Rae: There is one delegate.

Hon. Mr. Drea: What was that?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: If the member does not have the courage to repeat it, it is not my problem.

In his fiscal plan for the province, the Treasurer provided contingency funds so that together we could work out this new program in the provision of social assistance across Ontario. The Treasurer's financial skill has enabled us to ensure that significant new benefits will be available to blind, developmentally and physically disabled people wherever they live.

In keeping with our policy of ensuring that increases are provided to those in greatest need, recipients with dependent children and those with high shelter costs have been given special increases under this new package. In addition, $4.2 million of the total package has been allocated to provide dental coverage to the blind and to developmentally and physically disabled recipients of family benefits.

Let me run through the remaining highlights of the improvement package.

First, under this package the majority of single people and heads of households on family benefits and general welfare assistance will receive a 4.5 per cent increase in their basic allowance.

Second, dependent children of recipients will receive an average 7.5 per cent increase in their portion of family benefits and general welfare allowances. This will provide extra assistance to some 180,000 dependent children. Let me add that our higher increase for children is evidence of our commitment to ensuring that parents receive the financial assistance they need to provide adequately for their children.

Third, the maximum shelter subsidy for single people with high shelter costs will be increased to $100 a month, up $10 a month. At the same time, the shelter subsidy for families with high shelter costs will be increased to an overall maximum of $155 a month, up $15 a month.

Finally, recipients in remote parts of northern Ontario will be eligible to receive up to an extra 20 per cent supplement to their assistance to defer the high costs of basic needs in the far north.

Since they are protected from rapidly rising shelter costs, about 36,000 recipients who board with friends, relatives or others not operating for a profit will not receive any increase in assistance at this time. However, since the majority of these recipients are handicapped, they will qualify for the new dental coverage.

I am proud of the fact that during difficult economic times the province did not cut a single social benefit or program. Instead, as a result of the prudent management of the resources available to us, both human and financial, we have been able to enhance, expand and make improvements in our social assistance programs.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I will ask a question of the Treasurer, if I can pry him loose for a moment.

Mr. Conway: I think they are working a deal, assuming Darcy does not come in. If Darcy comes in, Larry is in trouble.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: I have a question to the Treasurer about the financial policies of this government. The Treasurer will be aware that in the last couple of weeks there have been significant plant closures in this province. Just to refresh his memory, they include Alcan in Kingston, 485; Wabasso in Welland, 490; Black and Decker in Barrie, 550; and Burns in Kitchener, 600. There have been more than 2,000 announcements of lost jobs in the last two weeks.

He will be aware that unemployment is up over a year ago. In spite of his prophecies of an economic recovery, there is no solace for the unemployed in this province. In fact, the unemployment numbers are going up.

My question to the Treasurer is simply what answers does he have for the more than 2,000 people who were laid off permanently last week and where is the economic recovery for them?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as is always the case, the performance of the economy is going to vary from industry to industry and community to community. Government economic policy is pointed quite properly at the total provincial economy with particular situations being dealt with -- and I might say very effectively -- by my colleagues, the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay).

In terms of reflecting on the recovery, we should remember that the budget predictions are not only proving to be accurate, but if anything, a little bit understated. We will end up at about five per cent growth this year. We will create at least the 125,000 jobs we predicted in the budget. Those are measurements all other provinces envy.

There will invariably be plant closures even in the strongest economy. It happens today in the United States; it happens in Japan. That is the way it goes. It is always a tragedy in those circumstances for the employees involved.

Happily, in this province the Ministry of Labour has put in place a series of initiatives whereby the ministry is able to come in and assist those employees immediately. If performance to date is any indication in terms of other plant closures, I am confident the good works of the Ministry of Labour will be able to relocate many of those people into other jobs.

In addition, in terms of looking at job alternatives for those people and other people, in order to put the whole picture into perspective, while Ontario has seen those unfortunate announcements in the past couple of weeks, Ontario has also seen, in the auto sector alone, announcements of $2-billion worth of new investment coming on stream next year and the years following. By rough calculation that will create at the very least five to six times the numbers of jobs the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) is talking about being lost in these unfortunate circumstances.

These things balance off in an economy such as ours, but happily in this jurisdiction those things not only balance off, but we net up very well ahead.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, the minister may choose to redirect this to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware, through the initiatives which are involved, of the details with respect to each of these projects, and particularly as it affects my constituency the matter of the Burns plant, where it was commented upon that the announcement of closing might be a bargaining ploy, but on the other hand, it might be a long-term decision of the company?

Is the minister becoming involved as Treasurer with some of the general areas of growth and alternatives in these very large closings where they have a major impact on a community, or are the details and initiatives being developed only through the Minister of Labour, concerned as I know he is with attempting to sort out each of these difficult themes when they do arise?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member might want to address some of the specifics with regard to that circumstance to my colleague, the Minister of Labour.

Before inviting the member to do so, I would point out that those circumstances are shared with all of the ministries involved. Often it goes far beyond just the ministries of Industry and Trade, and Labour. Often it goes to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, invariably to the Ministry of Treasury and Economics and to other ministries where appropriate.

3 p.m.

In our case, those details are shared with me, both as Treasurer and as chairman of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development. BILD, as members may recall, has community economic transformation agreements, a $20-million initiative coming out of the budget this year. Those are intended for those larger communities that have undergone a major transition in terms of losing a significant employment base and that may have an alternative developed in order to replace that particular circumstance.

My colleague is a member of BILD and he would share that with BILD. If a transformation agreement might assist a community in recovery, together with the other things the ministry does, that too is considered by us. Yes, it is all shared.

Mr. Breithaupt: The Minister of Labour might wish to comment on the bargaining ploy theme and the other areas of interest.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Treasurer redirect that question? The Minister of Labour, briefly, please.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting in just a few minutes' time this afternoon with the president of the Burns company, who has flown here from Calgary today. Later in the day I will be meeting with the union executive of the local at Burns.

Earlier in the piece the Burns company was prepared to shut down the operations. We persuaded them at that time to hold off until they had completed their negotiations in the Winnipeg plant. They consented to do that, and once they had completed those negotiations, they began to negotiate again in the Kitchener area. Unfortunately, the parties were a fair distance apart. Negotiations broke down and a decision was announced to close the plant.

That decision was announced, but we are meeting a little later today and I go into meetings optimistically. Regrettably, one only hears about the losers with respect to the plant closures, but there have been a fair number of winners. As the Treasurer pointed out, BILD has been successful in helping several businesses that would otherwise have disappeared.

Guelph Engineering in the same area comes to mind as one that has been kept alive through the efforts of the Minister of Industry and Trade and his ministry in the hope that it will be able to be a viable operation. Abitibi-Price, now St. Marys Paper Inc., in Sault Ste. Marie is another one that was assisted by BILD. As a result, there was a big headline in the local newspaper on the weekend that St. Marys Paper Inc. has made a profit for the first three months of its existence and is planning on making a profit for the next three months of its existence.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer as well to the plants that were listed, to the 1,250 workers at Massey-Ferguson, to the fact that at Stelco now they are laying off the workers who were called back for summer replacement and to the fact that we have an awful lot of the older workers in the plants that have been shut down who are still out of work as we checked through on them in some of the Hamilton plants.

I am wondering if the Treasurer has any word for us with respect to future policy that will take a look at some more responsibility, before these plants are closed, for the workers who are involved and some additional opening up of the processes or public justification, so we will know why and who is going to benefit from the consolidations and the plant rationalizations that are going on right across this province.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, those questions should properly be addressed to the Minister of Labour. I refer them to my colleague.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Labour has been relatively successful in encouraging a good number of these plants that are closing to go beyond the minimum standards set out in the Employment Standards Act. This is small solace for the workers who are being terminated, but at least there have been notices that have been greater than called for, there have been enhanced pension plans in many of the cases and there has been severance pay beyond what is called for under the act. We go into each meeting we have where there is a closure on that basis of trying to improve the terms of the closure, so the traumatic effect will be lessened to some degree for the workers.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, in his response to my leader's question, the Treasurer indicated we can expect that plant closures are going to take place from time to time in some industries. I point out to the Treasurer that we are not talking about "from time to time" or "some industries." During the last three weeks, I believe, we have had a closure of a metals production plant, a paper products plant, a small appliance plant and a meat-packing plant. They are absolute closures. It has also been drawn to the Treasurer's attention that there are rather massive layoffs in other areas.

The point the Treasurer must address himself to is that since we have closures over such a widespread geographical area and in such large numbers, the economic recovery plan he put in his last budget is simply not doing the job. Does the Treasurer now have in hand, or will he soon have in hand, a second proposal that will do the job?

Are we going to get another economic statement before this year is out or in the very near future, or are we going to stand aside and watch more of these plants close? Where will the next one be? Ottawa? London? Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, without apportioning responsibility or credit for the excellent growth in Ontario this year to the budget, the private sector or anything else, I would have to say that we must have been doing something right because we will far outstrip the rest of Canada in terms of performance. The statistics will verify that.

The reality is that those plant closures would be of concern whether they were in one area or spread out as the honourable member indicates they are.

Mr. Sweeney: It is symptomatic of the problem.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With respect, if the member looks at what is behind those closures, I do not believe I have heard provincial policies advocated here by his party or the New Democratic Party that would have prevented them. For the most part, those closures are occurring for the same reasons that plants are being closed all over the world as the process of rationalization continues.

Mr. Sweeney: There has been an immense loss of jobs.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I could pretend that is going to stop or that it is going to be easy, but it is not. This process is going on everywhere. That is why we are talking about economic transformation, and the object of our exercise is to make sure that new jobs come along in other industries and that those industries rationalize and become more efficient so the number of closures is reduced.

Having said that, let me emphasize that there is nothing in those closures which indicates there is either an epidemic or anything structurally or fundamentally wrong with this economy.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is no doubt aware that according to reports, both the tenants' and landlords' groups withdrew this morning from phase 2 of the Thom commission hearings.

My question to the minister is this: What purpose does he now feel will be served by continuing? Obviously this hearing has been discredited by the major participants and they are not taking his commission seriously.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think I share the underlying disappointments that there have been some tenants' and landlords' groups, not all by any stretch of the imagination, that have indicated they will not be taking part in phase 2. That is regrettable; it does not serve the process well.

As the honourable member will have read in Saturday's newspaper, the commissioner has indicated he still feels the process should go forward and he is going to deal with a number of essential matters that struck at some very important issues with respect to rent review and rent control.

I also understand that when he commenced his hearings, he indicated the present evidence being given will terminate in a short while and it is his intention to adjourn for a time. Perhaps as time goes on we will get a better idea of whether there is going to be a return to the commission by those who have indicated those views.

Mr. McClellan: How much time is enough time?

Mr. Rae: How much time does he need? It has been two years.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Does the minister not agree that this process has been discredited substantially through a number of premature announcements by himself and others and through the lack of information conveyed in any kind of a public way?

I will just take the minister through the chronology of his own involvement in discussions in this House with respect to the Thom commission while people are waiting on tenterhooks trying to figure out what kind of shape the legislation will take in this province.

As of November 1983, it was reported that we were supposed to have a report at the earliest possible date, later that year or early in the new year. That was a year ago. On April 27, the minister indicated the report was being printed. Less than three weeks later, he retracted that statement and said the report would be ready relatively soon.

In May, the minister said sections of the report were at the printer and he expected to release it by December. By the end of June, the story changed again. The minister indicated he would wait until all of the phase 1 report was in before recommending any changes to the Legislature.

Clearly, the whole process has been discredited. The minister has not been aware of the status of that report, where it was, what phase it was at and whether or not it was being printed. Today, a year or so after we expected some results, there still is nothing. Does the minister still feel this process has any credibility?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not think the real issue for the Leader of the Opposition is whether the process has credibility. It was a process that involved many people and the discussion of significant issues. Those who followed it clearly understood that it was a complex issue, one on which there are divided views in society.

The problem for the Leader of the Opposition is that the history of this government is one of continuing to refine rent review and its practice, administration and procedures, even over the past two years. That troubles the honourable member, because it is working; it is providing a degree of tenant protection that troubles him.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, if the process is working so well, why does the minister not just abolish the Thom commission, bring in any legislation that is necessary and get on with it? It has been a two-year circus. It is time to bring it to a close and get on with some good legislation. Why not just abolish the commission?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the opening mood of this session seems to be changing a little. The blue suit that the leader of the third party is wearing has not influenced his thoughtfulness on this issue.

It is also clear from the comments I heard during the process of the Thom commission review that it was a very thoughtful process. There will be a report issued and the government will give it consideration.

Mr. Rae: When?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I understand it will be available before the end of this month and will be released. We have no intention of delaying it.

I did not say, nor did I intend to imply, that the rent review system is perfect. Nothing is perfect, not even the honourable member. I have to tell him that. I know his wife may not agree with that, but not even he is perfect. I say that with a great degree of humility.

We will continue to refine the rent review system as we have done in the past. We will continue to increase the staffing and to improve the procedures as required. I await the Thom commission's report and the government's consideration of that report.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, the minister is no doubt aware of his statement to the House on November 16, 1982, in which he indicated that the rents registry was a very important matter and that he gave high priority to it.

He indicated at that time: "I would like the commissioner to give early attention to steps that could be taken to permit the use of section 33 of the Residential Tenancies Act. This section provides for such a registry."

He went on to say, "In the expectation that we will be able to introduce comprehensive legislation no later than the fall of 1983, the proposed rent restraint bill will be sunsetted...."

Since the minister thought he would be in a position to bring in comprehensive legislation about a year ago, will he now stop dithering and bring in comprehensive legislation with respect to the establishment of a rents registry?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am awaiting the submission of a report from the royal commission inquiry, which the government will then consider and process.

Mr. Rae: Is the minister saying that a report will be ready for publication at the end of this month? Can he tell us when he received a copy of any interim report or any recent report from the Thom commission?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The information I have at present, and I thought I had said it very clearly, is that the report is now at the printers. Towards the end of August or early September, a rough copy of it, prior to going to the printers, was forwarded to me by the commissioner. It has not been subjected to government scrutiny other than through my own ministry. When the report is tabled, it will be reviewed by the government and a process to review it established.

Mr. McClellan: You have had it since August.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: What kind of game are you playing?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If there is some implication that I have been withholding information, clearly the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and I know there were one or two --

Mr. Speaker: The member for Bellwoods did not have the floor. Pay no attention to his interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Then I wish he would remember that.

Mr. Rae: I can understand why the minister is so touchy. He has had a report from the Thom commission since August and has not indicated that publicly. He has not indicated in any sense what the contents of the report are or what his government intends to do.

On November 16, 1982, the minister said he wanted interim reports without undue delay. He said the government wanted to act on his advice without undue delay, and I am quoting from his own words. He said he wanted interim reports, wanted to move, wanted a final report, but we are now only halfway through the entire process. We have yet to see the big picture from Mr. Thom.

How can the minister possibly justify this incredible delay? Why does he not just shut the commission down and get on with the legislation so many tenants are waiting for?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It will come as no surprise to the leader of the third party that royal commission reports are tabled and then released, after which they are given consideration by the government through a variety of processes. That will happen with this report. The leader of the third party knows the personal commitment I have to continuing to refine rent review legislation in this province as needed.

Mr. Rae: At a snail's pace.

Mr. Peterson: When will he release this thing after all the false starts? The minister is, and I do not want to be uncharitable, very close to losing his credibility because of the various -- shall I say? -- false trails or bits of false information he has given us along the way.

As I understand the issue today, he is telling us he has had the report since August. He is studying that or censoring it; I do not know what he is doing with it. What is he hiding? Why can he not let that report from an independent commissioner come before this House for other people's scrutiny? Is he going to scrutinize it or change it before it becomes public? What is he up to?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I take offence at that, as I am sure the commissioner would. He and I have had no discussions about anything to be changed, altered or anything. This is a rough draft, prior to its going back to him for proofreading, prior to its going to the printers. I take personal offence at the suggestion that there would be any interference with him, as he should. The member should not get involved in that kind of nonsense.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, speaking of nonsense, can the minister explain to the House what conceivable excuse there is for his failure to make sure the report of the royal commission was released within a week or so of its receipt? He received this report, as he has just said, in August 1984 after breaking promises to have it produced in the summer of 1983, the fall of 1983, the late fall of 1983, the early winter of 1984, the late winter of 1984, the spring of 1984 and June 1984.

What kind of game is the minister playing? What conceivable excuse does he have for failing to make sure this report was released to the public? Now there is to be no election, maybe he can release it.

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps to change the tenor of this discussion, I want it very clearly understood I had indicated to members of the press that prior to any decision about an election that report would be released without delay. There has never been any deception about that.

When there was an error on my part last spring, I apologized for it. I really did. I did not understand that it had not gone to the printers. If the honourable member cannot accept that, I understand that, because he has a different temperament and a different mood from others of us. He tends to be a little -- is "aggressive" the word I am looking for, or "hostile"? I do not know which word one would use, but he certainly has a different attitude from some others when they get into a discussion about things.

I want it made very clear that this report, when I receive it, will be prepared, tabled and released for this House and for the public to consider. There is going to be nothing secret or hidden about it, and fundamentally I think the member knows that.

Mr. McClellan: No, I do not know that at all.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Then you do not know very much.

Mr. Rae: It seems clear that in addition to being a lifetime bencher, Mr. Thom has now been appointed by the government to be a lifetime royal commissioner. I am not sure that is what the tenants of Ontario expected on November 16, 1982, when the minister made his statement.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Is that a question?

Mr. Rae: No, that is just a comment.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry and Trade. The minister made some very fine remarks recently at a conference that was sponsored by the Premier. He said, "The key to this breakthrough," and he is talking about openness and participation in the work place, "is to drop once and for all the notion that labour is a commodity to be bought and sold in the marketplace," words that no member of this House, I suspect, could possibly disagree with.

Given the fact that the most important investment the workers of this province have is their jobs, precisely what steps is he taking? In the light of the layoffs that have occurred, which have already been discussed with the Treasurer and the Minister of Labour, precisely what steps is he taking to ensure that the workers at Alcan, at Wabasso, at Black and Decker, at Burns and at Massey-Ferguson are no longer going to be treated like commodities? It is clear that those companies are treating those workers like commodities and his government is powerless to do anything about it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, every time there is a closure I think we are as concerned about it as the honourable member is. What I have to keep my eye on, though, is what is happening overall, what the net change is and what direction employment is following in the province. I would say that in the last year we have seen half a million people return to jobs and probably more inquiries and, indeed, more decisions to make investments in Ontario than we have seen for quite a while.

This in no way overcomes the concern I was trying to express that day, and the concern was that we have two opposite poles when it comes to attitudes towards jobs. It seems to me that we have polarized our approach and that the time has come when we should undo that, when we should have confidence that labour should talk to management and vice versa, that management should be making investments in more productive equipment, because only with more productive equipment, not more productive people, can we make more secure the jobs we sometimes lose.

Those jobs at Wabasso were lost in large measure to other countries of the world; I think the member knows that. They were lost to nations that to some degree were dumping products or selling products, depending on one's definition, into our country and getting around the bilateral agreements the feds had made with a number of countries in the world. It is very hard to protect ourselves against nations that have lower-cost labour; but I think we can, and we have proved we can, improve the efficiency of Ontario firms by a judicious mixture of investment, retraining and trust.

Mr. Rae: I was asking the minister in all sincerity, because I wanted to know whether he really was speaking to the problem. In the press reports after the Massey-Ferguson layoff it was reported that one worker, Mr. Nick Kurk, has been laid off 54 times by that one company since 1950.

The Treasurer has travelled widely in the world; in fact, he has been travelling extremely widely recently. The Minister of Industry and Trade has travelled. I am sorry, I cannot think of him without thinking of that plaid jacket, but I will try. As the minister has travelled across the world, he knows there are a great many countries with which Canada is competing -- West Germany and Japan, to mention two -- that would never for an instant allow a worker to be laid off 54 times in 34 years by a company the size of Massey-Ferguson.

That is the real question; that is the real issue. What is the government going to do to ensure that the workers in this province are treated with some respect, even at the time of a downturn, even at a time of high competition? We all recognize the difficulties. The question is, who is going to share the benefits and who is going to share the burdens? What is the government going to do to ensure that the young Nick Kurks who are starting work today will not be laid off 54, 55, 60 and 100 times before they retire? What is the minister going to do about that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: In the case of Massey-Ferguson, nothing outside of a market change will help. But let me look at those countries to which I do travel --

Mr. Rae: That is not true. You could handle layoffs differently.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Let me tell the honourable member that there are people in all of those countries who would give their eye-teeth to be in our country and I meet them every time I go there. Every time I travel around this world, I realize how lucky we are in this nation. The member can dwell upon all the faults we have, but I want to tell him that the people in those countries think this is the place to be.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the minister said nothing could be done about the situation pertaining to Massey-Ferguson. Would the minister not agree that Ontario's farm policies have left us behind all of the other farmers in Canada and that if we had any leadership in the agricultural policy area, any support for the minister in the cabinet, we would have programs that would leave some money in the pockets of our farmers so they could buy some combines, some tractors and some farm equipment, and make employment in Brantford and Toronto for Massey-Ferguson and the other farm equipment manufacturers?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, my colleague will probably check the record and recognize that I did not say the words he alleged I said a moment ago. He would also be aware, living near Brantford as he has for some time, that the markets for those Brantford machines are not Ontario; they are in the United States, they are in Europe, they are in South Africa and they are all around the world, so let him not try to lay it on us.

Mr. Rae: It is nice to hear from the minister that he does not think Ontario farmers need to be able to buy our agricultural machinery. It has to be the height of absurdity --

Mr. Nixon: What kind of a response is this?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: -- for a minister who has some feeling for what is going on in this province to make that kind of a remark.

I would like to come back to the minister and simply ask him this: he gave a speech at this conference, which was duly reported in all the newspapers, saying there was going to be a new era in relations between workers and managers in Ontario. That was the headline. Just after he gave that speech, we had layoff after layoff announced by the large companies in this province. So we see the words from the minister were just that -- sheer, empty rhetoric; sheer, empty words without any meaning whatsoever in terms of job security.

What specific steps does the minister intend to take to protect the most important investment the workers in this province have: their jobs? I am not talking about investors in the United States, or Germany or anywhere else; I am talking about Ontario investors who have an investment in their jobs. That is their most important investment. What is the minister doing to protect that investment?

Hon. F. S. Miller: If my friend recalls the most recent budget, the Treasurer did say he was giving my ministry a $30-million fund to help one of our very important sectors, the auto parts sector, to become more competitive and to make sure jobs stayed in Ontario. That program is in its final stages of preparation and should be ready very soon.

I think the principles can be applied further, and frankly there are lots of things that can be done, providing members realize one of the most efficient uses of capital is not necessarily in having corporations pay taxes, but reinvesting it in the plant and machinery which protects jobs for the workers.

DISEASE RATES AND POLLUTION

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. As the minister will be aware by now, a new study conducted by the Department of National Health and Welfare has produced some rather alarming results which confirm what many of us in the Niagara Peninsula have felt was probably the case for a number of years, that the rate of deaths from certain kinds of cancers has been shown to be significantly above that of the provincial level.

In view of this latest alarming report, is the minister prepared to make a promise in the House today that he will provide funds immediately for an epidemiological study to determine the association between the disease rates found in the just-released study and contaminants in the regional environment, and that he will provide funds for the hiring of a full-time epidemiologist for the Niagara regional health services department to conduct research into the links between environmentally related diseases and pollutants in our part of the province?

3:30 p.m.

The minister would be aware this has caused considerable alarm, not just recently but for some period of time, but that alarm has been increased by the most recent report which hit the headlines in the last couple of weeks.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, it is particularly timely for the honourable member to raise that question with me, in so far as my colleague the member for Brock (Mr. Welch) met with me this morning for about an hour on that specific issue. Obviously, it is a matter of concern to me. It is clearly a matter of concern to him, as it is to the member and others, not only in that area but anywhere in the province where there is some suggestion of a particular epidemiology in a community.

Although I have not yet had a chance to review the report personally, it is being reviewed by staff in my ministry. In commenting at this point, I emphasize it is my understanding that the news report on the contents of the report is perhaps not fully balanced in that there are actually some rather positive things that can be drawn from the report which ought to be of some reassurance to people in the Niagara area. Nevertheless, I am not suggesting it ought not to be treated very seriously.

As soon as we have had a chance to finish the review of the report, and I hope that will not be a protracted exercise, it is my intention to discuss or have my senior staff discuss the matter with the medical officer of health in the area with a view to looking at an appropriate course of action with respect to studying the epidemiology that is suggested to determine what an appropriate and responsible course of action might be.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I am certain the minister understands that this only confirms the study of the same kind which was done on the United States side in the immediate area of the Niagara frontier.

Will the minister not agree that the results of that study in the US and the one that has now been made by the federal government emphasize the need for the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of the Environment as well as his ministry, to become much more aggressive in eliminating pollution sources in Ontario and in encouraging US authorities to conduct a massive cleanup of sources of pollution on the American side of the border, and in that way address ourselves to treating the cause rather than waiting for these situations to develop?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think any such report invites fairly careful assessment before one draws conclusions from it, in that one cannot jump to a conclusion as to what the cause might be. The purpose of pursuing an epidemiological study is to see if there is any causal relationship that can be implied or established.

I am not familiar in any detail with the American study to which the member refers, but I hope the reports that have been in the press in the community which the member, his colleague and my colleague represent have made it clear that the type of illness that has been identified is not the type one would anticipate, given our long-standing concern about the Niagara River.

It would seem that if there is any environmentally related effect, something other than water would be contributing to the kind of cancer that is being cited.

The report also has to be looked at carefully in terms of the scope of the data that have been looked at to date to make sure the conclusions applied are accurate. I will give the member this assurance and I shall not back down from this assurance: we will move without delay to pursue whatever the appropriate course of action might be.

Subject to further information and advice, I am willing to assume at this point that is likely to indicate an epidemiological study, and see what that can provide us with by way of information. Then we can determine whether there are other specific actions that may be taken by me, by my colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) or by the government in some way collectively. We are not going to let that suggestion lie unnoticed or unattended to.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, in view of the comments the minister has made and without prejudging the results of any epidemiological study, is he prepared to consult with the Minister of the Environment to ensure that proper methods are used with respect to storing and spraying agricultural pesticides and herbicides in the Niagara Peninsula in order to ensure that the use of these kinds of agricultural chemicals may not in any way be contributing to the overall effects we have seen in this recent study?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, knowing something of the practices of my colleague's ministry, it is my belief and understanding that measures have already been taken to ensure the appropriate and safe storage of any potentially dangerous chemicals.

If there is any particular information the member may have that he would like my colleague to review, I am sure he would be quite happy to do that. I do not think it is my place to assume the minister is other than totally vigilant at the moment. Knowing the gentleman, I am confident he is, and I am sure the staff of his ministry is as well.

I would ask that no one confuse the purpose of an epidemiological study. If the indications from the report are correct, it seems to me this is the type of situation in which an epidemiological study would be indicated if there is an indication of a particular set of symptoms whose cause must be determined. We are very often asked to do epidemiological studies when there is no indication of illness. This is the reverse and probably a correct situation.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, it has now been three months, going on four months, since the Canada Health Act penalties came into effect. I wonder whether the Minister of Health could inform the House today of his response on extra billing? If he cannot tell us today, when is he going to respond to the Canada Health Act and either outlaw extra billing or run away from the doctors and maintain it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, there is no change in my position from the discussions we had earlier on that subject. I have been continuing to examine the impact of the act. There are holdbacks in effect, not penalties yet. If the circumstances have not changed in three years' time, we will know whether there is a penalty to be imposed.

I would want to have some discussions with our new government at the national level. I want to make it clear this would not be with a view to trying to exact unreasonable concessions, but to explore its interpretation of some of the regulations upon which the previous government had placed a very restrictive interpretation.

Before we make a decision, it is important to know precisely what it is we are deciding upon. I can assure the honourable member of something he is already aware of: with the reputation for sensitivity of this government to the people of Ontario, their needs and particularly their interest in a high-quality and universally accessible health care system, our decision will be taken with great care and reflect all that sensitivity.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: The minister refuses to make a decision on this matter. He has said in the past he would respond to the act and we were expecting some kind of statement. Perhaps what has held up his response to the Canada Health Act is that we are not now going to be having an election.

Until this point, about $15 million has been held back by the federal government because this government refuses to outlaw extra billing. At the same time, the government says it cannot afford a program of home care for the frail elderly, the extension of the assistive devices program or northern health care transportation. How can the minister justify holding back on these programs and saying he cannot afford them, while at the same time he is foregoing at this point $15 million in federal transfers?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the way this question was formulated reflects not only a less than complete understanding of the federal legislation, but also a less than desirable understanding on the part of the critic of what I have said with respect to the programs he has made reference to.

I have not said, to the best of my recollection, that any of the programs he has referred to were being held up because of a lack of resources. That is not the case, although in the detailed designing of any program resources have to be taken into consideration.

What he keeps referring to as a penalty on the part of the federal government is not at this stage a penalty at all; it is merely a holdback. Those resources are still readily available to us. If we comply, the question to know for sure is what the federal government might expect of us by way of compliance in order to have access to those funds.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Can the minister report to this House on the current state of negotiations between the Ontario Public Service Employees Union local representing the 7,600 community college teachers and the Council of Regents representing the management of the Ontario community college system, in view of the fact that we are now eight days away from a strike date that would have a disastrous impact on the 120,000 full-time and 600,000 part-time and evening students in the community college system?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it would be unfair to have Hansard record that such a disruption would directly affect the education of part-time students within the college system. That is not likely so for the full number, since many of those who are attending in that way are being taught by sessional teachers who are not members of the bargaining unit.

Mr. Bradley: Will they cross the picket line?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They have done in the past, but I do not know whether that would happen.

It is my understanding that both parties to these negotiations have indicated they would be willing to begin to talk again in the very near future. I am aware that the mediator who has been appointed by the College Relations Commission has indicated that when he feels this willingness can be translated into positive action, such a meeting will be held.

Mr. Conway: Is the minister satisfied that Mr. Ian McArdle, the negotiator for the Council of Regents, is performing in an appropriate and professional fashion on behalf of the management team? Second, does the minister intend any personal action or intervention to encourage a proper climate for the resolution of this grave difficulty on or before the strike date a week tomorrow?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have no information whatever that would lead me to believe there has been any question of the professionalism or the quality of the activity that is being pursued by Mr. Ian McArdle in this situation. I have no indication that this is a matter of concern, as far as the bargaining unit of the trade union goes at any rate.

As a matter of fact, I have already met with the executive committee of that trade union some eight or 10 weeks ago at its request to talk about certain matters that were of concern to it, and I have no further intention at this point. I shall do whatever is best to resolve the issue when required to.

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister and her cabinet colleagues are always concerned about youth employment, does she not think this would be a very serious situation if all those teachers and instructors wound up on strike? Would she not consider back-to-work legislation?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it has always been my experience that the best agreements are those which are negotiated between the parties. It is my strong belief that is precisely what should happen in this situation as well.

AMATEUR HOCKEY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. The minister is aware that there were 48 spinal injuries in the last eight years. Of those 48 spinal injuries, at the date the survey was taken, 25 young men were confined to wheelchairs as a result of hockey. Since that time there have been two more.

Is the minister aware that the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association has now introduced a new rule? A player gets a two-minute penalty for striking someone from behind. I might say that of those who are confined to wheelchairs, 14 were struck from behind. Now that the CAHA has introduced a new rule -- if a player hits someone from behind, he receives a two-minute penalty, and if he injures the hockey player, he gets a five-minute major -- would the government go on record and indicate to the hockey establishment that is not good enough, that there should be a five-minute major for hitting someone from behind and that if a player hurts another youngster, he is suspended?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Sudbury East knows very well, because he has been very much involved in this whole question of violence in hockey and has done a study that we have looked at with considerable interest, it really in all likelihood would be very inappropriate for this government to second-guess the CAHA with respect to specific rules and regulations, for example, to impose a five-minute penalty instead of a two-minute penalty for this kind of an infraction or the other kind of infraction.

That is not to say we are not very much concerned about this continuing question of the safety of our amateur players. We certainly have been looking at this. We are looking in a more comprehensive way at how the hockey association might learn and improve, governing itself better than it has, and how it might reduce the still unacceptably large incidence of very serious injuries. I do not debate the statistics at all; they are serious injuries. We are looking at that. We are working with the sports science people and with the sports medicine people.

Quite frankly, I could not even imagine how we could introduce legislation here to say they have to impose a five-minute penalty instead of a two-minute penalty for hitting from behind or whatever. Quite apart from that, what we do want to do is work out with the governing bodies in hockey some kind of a better policing mechanism that they set up and that they have some control over rather than us. We are working at that very hard. We have been working at it over the summer and we are going to continue. Frankly, I am optimistic that in the course of the next several weeks we will have some announcement to make about a special kind of an instrument, some kind of body that will be set up to look after these matters.

Certainly, I fully appreciate the concern the member for Sudbury East has expressed and that he has taken on this whole question. He is not alone in his concern.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Since we pay as a society $1 million for each quadriplegic, since we know that 14 of those young people who are quadriplegic today were struck from behind and since we also know from Manitoba that since that rule was imposed they have reduced the accident insurance claims by 30 per cent for serious accidents, surely we cannot hide -- and I am not suggesting legislation -- behind the fence, so to speak, any longer when we are not only paying the bills, but there is tragedy for the kids.

As a society we cannot allow that to happen any more. I want to know where this magnificent body is that still is not in place -- the last one did not cover half the kids in hockey -- and what we are going to do to say to the hockey moguls, "We have had enough and as a society we will not tolerate it any longer." When are we going to have the courage to do that?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: As I indicated before, we are very actively engaged in setting up this kind of policing instrument. I say again that I frankly cannot see how a Legislature such as ours can set the rules as to how hockey should be played. I can appreciate that there are social and economic tragedies when these accidents occur. We have spent a lot of time and a lot of money trying to get hockey to appreciate better the dangers that are involved and we have done so in many different ways.

I must admit that I am very close to the member for Sudbury East in his feelings about the governing bodies in hockey, but I stop clearly and well short of having this government send in a referee-in-chief or someone who is going to control the game. However, the member can be sure that we will take the necessary steps to put in place a proper body that will reduce the incidence of violence in this game.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I speak as one who has been involved in athletic endeavours for a number of years both as an active participant and as a coach. Would the minister not consider requiring the sports governing bodies to set up a computerized system whereby they can keep records on each of those athletes and have everything tabulated in such a fashion that he could have a complete record indicating the frequency of the injuries individuals have suffered so that we could, at a given time, come along and bar an individual from competing because of the cumulative effect of the injuries he has suffered?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that, partly as a result of a financial grant from this government on a number of occasions, precisely that kind of monitoring is already being carried out. It is being carried out at Sunnybrook Medical Centre and at the University of Waterloo. As time goes on, they are developing some profiles and trying to analyse precisely what creates the injuries. This kind of work is going on and it is going on because of financial assistance and moral support from this government.

USE OF LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, the so-called paper tiger. He will be aware of the Runnymede development at Victoria Park Avenue and Gerrard Street. With respect to that development, my question is about his decision not to hold public meetings so that citizens could make some suggestions as to the development of that shopping centre on a former landfill site.

Can the minister tell us at this time what his ministry is so concerned about that, as a condition to the issuance of the licence or approvals by his ministry to Runneymede, it requires that Runneymede indemnify the ministry for any explosions or whatever that may take place in future, and can he tell us whether this is the type of agreement his ministry requires of a developer when it is unsure of the facts on which the proponent is making application for approvals?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, we were quite assured of the facts in that particular instance. We worked with Scarborough with respect to the development. It was a very co-operative undertaking where the city proposed the development in conjunction with the proponent and worked co-operatively with my ministry.

I can assure the member we knew what the conditions of the soil were. We knew what difficulties there were. If the honourable member is suggesting we have some kind of undertaking between the developer -- in this particular instance, Runnymede -- and my ministry for an infinite protective clause, there is no such thing that would cover that kind of thing.

Mr. Elston: It is registered under the title.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: It cannot protect it for ever, though. We do have certain undertakings that my ministry entered into in conjunction with the municipality, but we do not have an infinite protection clause in the agreement.

PETITION

COMMUNITY COLLEGE LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to the House. It is to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads in part:

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

"We, as students, urge the parties involved in the present faculty negotiations to consider the consequences to our futures as consumers of this service in the event of a strike."

This petition is signed by 2,245 people at Fanshawe College. There are some students in the social science department in particular who have worked hard to gather these names. I would like to read into the record their names as signers of the petition: Ginette Houle, Bill Bancroft, Mark Grant, Sharon Stiles and Sandra Wilson. Of course, these people worked in concert with the president of the student council, Ron Kirschener.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

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

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments: Bill 101, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Van Horne from the select committee on the Ombudsman reported the following resolution:

Resolved that supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Ombudsman be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Office of the Ombudsman program, $5,596,000.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that Mr. Di Santo and Mr. Breaugh exchange positions in the order of preference for private members' public business and that the requirement for notice as provided in standing order 64(h) be waived.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this means that Mr. Di Santo's resolution will be debated this Thursday rather than that of Mr. Breaugh as was indicated in the order of preference.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I thought I should indicate to the House that we will be adjourning at six o'clock today rather than at 10:30. There will be no meeting tonight of the standing committee on resources development to consider estimates.

4 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 43, An Act to amend the Off-Road Vehicles Act.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, this short bill has been in Orders and Notices since earlier in the year. We did not get time to deal with it prior to the summer recess.

There are two main objectives to the bill. One is to redefine or more clearly define the word "highway" as it relates to off-road vehicles. The second important part of the bill is that persons under the age of 12 years would be allowed to drive such vehicles not only on land occupied by the vehicle owner but also, under the close supervision of an adult, on other lands. Those are the two amendments we have before the House today.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Liberal Party to support Bill 43 and to review briefly the process that led to this amendment.

On June 7, 1983, the government introduced for first reading Bill 61, An Act to regulate Off-Road Vehicles. The vehicles intended to be covered by the act included trail bikes and similar all-terrain vehicles but not four-wheel vehicles. The general theme of the act is to require all owners of off-road vehicles to register their vehicles.

During committee consideration of Bill 61, on October 18, 1983, my colleague the former member for Prescott-Russell, now a very distinguished member of the House of Commons, moved an amendment to section 3 of the bill to ensure that no person under a minimum age of 14 years shall drive an off-road vehicle. This prohibition excluded persons driving on the land of which the owner of the vehicle is the occupier. Section 4 of Bill 61 prohibited persons under the age of 12 years from operating an off-road vehicle except on land of which the owner of the vehicle is the occupier.

At the time Bill 61 was debated in committee and the foregoing concerns about age were expressed, the minister indicated he would consult with interested parties during the following few months and, if necessary, adjust the new sections by amending Bill 61.

I was concerned about section 4 of Bill 61 and raised my objections with the minister regarding the perhaps inadvertent effect of the bill of preventing young persons from operating an off-road vehicle in supervised motocross racing.

As I indicated to the minister at the time I was expressing my concern, a privately owned recreational business in my riding known as Hully Gully has for some time now been operating a closed-course racetrack that specializes in motocross and all-terrain vehicle racing. Consequently, it has participants under the age of 12 years operating off-road vehicles in the various races. As I indicated to the minister, all the participants in these well-supervised racetracks must wear the prescribed approved helmets and protective gear, and if they are minors they may only compete with the written consent of their parents or guardians.

For more than 10 years, Hully Gully has been developing and training racers for motocross and other forms of off-road motor sports and it has always maintained the highest standards of safety. I know that for a fact because I attend many of the motocross races and I know how well supervised they are at Hully Gully. Since Hully Gully is a closed race course and rigidly controlled and participants compete of their own free will for enjoyment, I felt Hully Gully and other similar supervised racetracks should be given an exemption to section 4 of Bill 61. This would allow use of off-road vehicles in a safe, controlled area with all the necessary provisions made for the operator's wellbeing.

I congratulate and commend the minister for taking my concerns into consideration. I must say I think perhaps other concerns were expressed by the owners of some of the recreational parks. The minister did take our concerns into consideration, and he introduced Bill 43 in April 1984, making relatively minor changes to three sections of the act, the most important one being section 4 concerning the minimum age of drivers. We now have a bill which reads as follows:

"4(1) No owner of an off-road vehicle shall permit a child under the age of 12 to drive the vehicle.

"(2) Subsection 1 does not apply where the child is driving the vehicle,

"(a) on land occupied by the vehicle owner; or

"(b) under the close supervision of an adult."

The minister has met the concerns and the requests of the owners of the recreational parks, and they are most happy that the minister has seen fit to bring in the amendments that were needed to rectify this situation.

I must say the Association of Municipalities of Ontario also responded to the minister's bill and recommended that any legislation governing motorized off-road vehicles apply to all classes of motorized off-road recreational vehicles; that vehicles used for off-road maintenance purposes or for a purpose ancillary to farm operations be exempt from the provisions of the legislation; and that any exempt vehicle used for a purpose other than that on which the exemption was based be subject to the provisions of the legislation.

I think AMO's concern and our concern pertain to the young farm boy who is requested by his father to assist with the work around the farm and often has to take an off-road vehicle from one farm to another to do the chores. I still have a little concern in that regard. Any young person under the age of 12, unless he is able to cross the farm land to get from one farm to the other in an off-road vehicle, may be prevented under this bill from helping his father out with the daily chores.

As the minister well knows, many of the farmers are most reliant on their sons and daughters to help with the farming operation, particularly if the farmer has had to look for another source of income to meet with his very heavy obligations in connection with his farm business. A lot of the farmers are away during the day working at some other job. When the young son or young daughter comes home from school, very often he or she will jump on to one of these all-terrain vehicles, or off-road vehicles as they are referred to in this bill. They may travel down the side of the road to get from one farm to the other to do the chores. Under this bill, that type of practice would have to stop.

4:10 p.m.

That was one of the concerns AMO had, and it remains a concern of mine, although I am not too sure how many young people under the age of 12 are actually involved in some of the heavy work in connection with doing the daily chores on the farm. Perhaps the minister can comment on that and tell me if this bill is going to prohibit young people under the age of 12 from travelling from one farm to the other to do the chores for father so they will be done when father comes home from his other job.

The proposed changes in Bill 43 do not substantially change the child protection thrust of section 4. The clause requiring the close supervision of children under 12 years appears adequate. It must be said that no one really knows what an appropriate age is and, in the final analysis, individual adults may exercise common sense.

It also should be pointed out that there is some ambiguity and conflict among sections 3, 4 and 5 of the act. It is not clear whether a person without a permit issued under section 5 is allowed to drive an off-road vehicle. Subsection 3(1) states: "No person shall drive an off-road vehicle except under the authority of a permit...." Section 5 requires that a permit holder shall be at least 16 years of age. Perhaps "under the authority" includes the permission of the owner and permit holder, and the minister might give some clarification in connection with this matter.

With those few comments, I once again want to congratulate and commend the minister for listening to the concerns that were expressed when the bill was debated in the House and in committee and when he received comments from people who were operating these recreational parks and closely supervising the races in which eight-year-olds and 10-year-olds participate and, I must say, operate a vehicle as well as many of the adults.

I invite the minister, if he has some free time on his hands, to come to the good county of Huron, to come to Hully Gully --

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am going there on Friday.

Mr. Riddell: Good; I am glad to hear it. I do not think he will be seeing a motocross race when he comes, but if he has not been to a motocross race and if he wants a good afternoon's entertainment, he should just come to Huron, to Hully Gully, and I can assure him he will see the finest entertainment. If I know he is coming, I will be there; we may even go out for dinner afterwards and find some other --

Mr. Samis: Careful.

Mr. Riddell: Once again I thank the minister very much for listening to the concerns we expressed and for bringing in this amendment, which greatly concerns many people.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, we on this side will be supporting the bill as well. I just want to preface my remarks by saying first of all that it is good to see the minister back here after his battle with the British press. He seems to be rather unscathed. I would venture the opinion that he is almost a victim of the sensationalist tabloids over there, which obviously must be totally bored with what they are doing to conjure up a major campaign against our poor, friendly -- I would not say "helpless" -- victimized member for Oakville.

Second, it is always nice to see a bill introduced by somebody who is not going to be a candidate for the leadership. I am sure the minister will announce very soon that he will not be a candidate.

Third, the change in the opposition side here is remarkable. I could never conceive of the possibility of the former transportation critic of the Liberal Party suggesting that he go out to dinner with the minister, and I could hardly conceive of the minister accepting such an invitation from the former critic.

Fourth, to show members how dramatically things can change, I am sure the minister deplores the absence of the former Liberal transportation critic here and the spice he injected into the debates, personal and otherwise, about transportation matters. But we do recall rather vividly in our debate on the previous bill how that member and the former member for Prescott-Russell had threatened virtually to filibuster on the bill in opposition to what the minister was seeking. So obviously September 4 has brought a few changes in this place as well as in Ottawa.

We on this side see the bill as a compromise. Obviously the minister has responded to the flak he has received during the past year on the previous bill; obviously there has been a very effective lobbying campaign. We on this side have taken the position that we are prepared to try this compromise out because the other one was rather exclusive. This one does allow for children under parental or adult supervision, and we are prepared to give that a run. We hope the minister will take a look at this a year from now to see how it works out, whether it is in parks or private situations.

I again call to the minister's attention the whole question of safety training and education in the use of these vehicles. I would like him to amplify what his ministry is doing to try to instil some sense of safety and training by either the adults or the children, what sort of publicity campaign or educational campaign his ministry has, and whether he has had any discussions with the manufacturers of these vehicles as to whether they are taking any responsibility for educating the public in terms of the proper use of those vehicles and the safety aspects.

I also suspect the passage of this bill will have implications on the whole question of insurance rates for the vehicles, which is a very murky area and has been for the past year.

I ask the minister to address these three points in his closing remarks. Beyond that, we will support the bill.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on Bill 43.

I have to agree with the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) that the minister may have been victimized by the press, but not over the allegation that he touched the small of the back of the Queen and the elbow. It was not the British press, but the Toronto Globe and Mail and the Windsor Star, writing all these stories. I believe the minister. If he says he did not touch the Queen's elbow, I want to say --

Mr. Nixon: He did not say that. He said, "Where is the picture?"

Mr. Mancini: I see. That is quite different. I thought he had actually stated that he did not touch the Queen's elbow, and I was ready to believe the minister.

I have been getting a lot of inquiries concerning the Off-Road Vehicles Act, and actually a lot of complaints. Some of the complaints have been rectified by this amendment, Bill 43, but there are other areas of complaint that the minister should be aware of, particularly in the cost of insurance for off-road vehicles.

The minister will know, because I believe he owns a farm, that prior to the original Off-Road Vehicles Act, when one bought insurance for a farm the off-road vehicles were covered under the insurance policy in a general way and one did not have to specifically buy insurance for those really neat three-wheelers the farmers are using. They are advertised on television. A gentleman farmer is seen jumping on his three-wheeled motorcycle. He is telling his wife he is going to work out in the field, but actually he has a fishing rod and a pail hooked up near the side of the machine, and we all know what he is going to do. That is just something of an aside.

Vehicles such as the one just described were originally covered by general insurance policies and the farmers did not have to pay any extra money. Now, because of the original bill and because nothing has been done about this matter in Bill 43, farmers and others are still going to have to buy separate insurance policies for these off-road vehicles -- this is the way it was explained to me by people in the insurance business -- and they are being charged outrageous prices. For example, I am told it is not uncommon for a person to have to pay $130 or $140 to insure an off-road vehicle just because of the government regulations.

4:20 p.m.

I have also been visited by people who are in the off-road vehicle business, and the original legislation -- and it has not been addressed by Bill 43 -- has had a detrimental effect on their business, because once a father brings in his daughter or son to a place of business where they are going to buy an off-road vehicle, the person selling the vehicle informs the purchaser or the person he thinks will be a purchaser that he must have insurance. The current rates are now around $130.

The purchaser finds these things outrageous. As a matter of fact, so do I. I think $30 or $40 would be more than enough to properly insure these types of vehicles.

If we look at snowmobiles, some are worth $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 and I guess they can weigh into the thousands of pounds because they are very heavy pieces of equipment. When we compare the snowmobiles to the off-road vehicles, we have a much more expensive piece of equipment, a heavier piece of equipment, and we find the insurance rates are pretty well the same.

I want to say to the minister that we are imposing an additional cost on the farmers they may or may not be able to bear at this time. We are imposing an additional cost on the young people who wish to have off-road vehicles purchased for them and who wish to use these vehicles for their leisure and enjoyment. We are also hurting the off-road vehicle business.

I am sure the minister has heard the same argument I have put forward today and I am sure he has heard it personally. I am told his riding is quite wealthy. Is the minister's riding the wealthiest in Ontario, or Canada, still?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would not know.

Mr. Mancini: Anyway, I am sure there are just hundreds of off-road vehicles in the minister's constituency and I am also sure that he --

Mr. Nixon: His constituency fund is the biggest.

Mr. Mancini: Yes. Is he running for something?

Mr. Nixon: No; he just likes to have lots of money on hand.

Mr. Mancini: Just business as usual; he likes to keep it business as usual.

Anyway, I am sure the minister has also received letters about these matters. I was hoping we would address this problem in Bill 43. Maybe this is not the right bill to address that problem, but it is a problem and I think we should deal with it.

The off-road vehicle business employs people in the manufacturing end, the sales end and the service end; there is no reason why we should take advantage of the general public, or have the insurance companies take advantage of the general public, just because under regulations made by the government they are now forced to submit to all of these things that were required in the original act.

With those few comments, I will take my seat and hope the minister will have a response later on.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the minister brought in off-road vehicle legislation to regulate off-road vehicles. There certainly are potential dangers in their operation, both for the users and the people in the area.

When the legislation went through last year, there was considerable discussion about whether there should be an age limit for off-road operation of small motorcycles, trail bikes and so on. I remember the debate ranged from whether it should be 14 years or 12 years or whether we should follow the snowmobile legislation where there is no age limit if the operation of snowmobiles is off-road, on the property of the owner of the vehicle or if it is on other people's private property with their permission. The compromise worked out in the bill was to put the age at 12.

I have one constituent who has a child who was learning to operate this kind of vehicle from the age of eight. He certainly felt his child was quite competent to operate such a vehicle off-road and he should be entitled to, if he wished to do it. He made the point that his youngster was very interested in the kind of competitions these vehicles engage in and that the younger one starts in most competitive sports the more likely one will develop the kind of skills needed to become a champion.

He also felt that when his child had started at that age he was learning good, responsible driving habits from a very young age when he was perhaps more impressionable than if he was starting to learn at the age of 12 and over. His arguments impressed me that there was a good case for allowing children under 12 to operate such vehicles as long as they were supervised closely by either a parent or an adult. That is in the amendment the minister has brought in.

I will commend the minister for bringing in an amendment to a section of the bill that appeared to concern a lot of people when it went through in its original form and for responding to their concerns. I understand there was a petition with more than 2,000 signatures from the Toronto area asking for the introduction of Bill 43. The fact that the minister did respond indicates that he apparently does listen to constituents when they express concerns and express opinions.

If they were irresponsible opinions, of course, I would not expect him to respond but, from the arguments of my constituent and those of the petitioners, it seems there is a good case for allowing children under 12 to operate these vehicles as long as they are under close supervision.

I submit that this kind of amendment will encourage good, responsible driving habits in those youngsters. They will learn at an early age how to handle those vehicles. I hope the parents will see that they do not start off driving the largest ones and the ones that can go 40 miles an hour. I am sure they will bring them along gradually on the smaller vehicles and teach them good driving habits before they move up to the larger and faster vehicles.

Along with my colleague the member for Cornwall, I will support the bill and our caucus will also be supporting it. We think it is a useful amendment and I am glad the House came back to put this through this year.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief comments in response to the honourable members. I thank them for their input and support for these amendments. Certainly these amendments have been drafted, as I said we would do when the original bill was passed, as a result of considering input over the period of a year. We have had a considerable amount of such input, as has been mentioned here, by way of petitions, letters and meetings with people involved in the operation of these small off-road vehicles. We have responded to their needs.

Since this bill has been introduced outlining the amendments and since we have distributed that to those who had concerns, to my knowledge we have not had any requests for further amendments. It seems these amendments have satisfied all the people who had those kinds of concerns.

My friend the member for Cornwall mentioned the annual review. As with all legislation, we are continuously reviewing this legislation. If other aspects come up that need review or if after this amendment bad results develop because of youngsters riding these things, even under adult supervision, we will consider any other amendment that might be deemed feasible.

4:30 p.m.

He also asked what we were doing about training. We have developed a special brochure on off-road vehicles that is distributed like our Driver's Handbook, like the handbook for snowmobiles and other things.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am sure the name is probably there. Along with Her Majesty, we have given it royal assent.

With regard to insurance and the matter relating to farmers brought up by the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), there no doubt is a cost to insurance, but I have not been convinced that we should not require insurance on these vehicles. I can understand that there is in some cases a general farm liability policy, which I used to have on my farm, to cover combines, tractors, manure spreaders and all other implements, that would perhaps cover these if they were deemed to be farm vehicles.

Now that we have designated them in a special way and required insurance, I can see the problem. On the other hand, I am advised that if the vehicle is used only on the farm it still can be insured under that policy as a farm vehicle and a special policy is not required. Of course, if a farmer is allowed to take the vehicle on the road to go from one farm to another, when he does that he gets into the requirement for registration and a separate policy, which I understand can cost anywhere from about $100 or $110 up to the figure the member quoted, of $125 or $130.

I have a little trouble relating the weight of the vehicle to the cost of insurance. To my knowledge, insurance companies rate policies on accident experience and payout experience.

Mr. Nixon: We do not want insurance by the pound, do we?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I hope they do not sell it by the pound or my insurance would be quite expensive. In any case, there is the cost for insurance, but that is part of having the insurance requirement to protect the general public. If the vehicle is used only on the farmer's land for running back and forth to his fields and so on, it does not require an insurance policy and can be insured under the general liability policy.

I think that answers the comments that were made. The member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) mentioned the under-12-year-olds going from farm to farm. I doubt if there are many under-12s who would be sent out alone on one of these machines to go from one farm to another to do the chores. That is always possible. I know I was sent out with an old Fordson tractor to work in the fields before I was 12 years old, without supervision, but in this case of going down the road one has to be 16 years of age to drive on a highway in any case. This amendment really does not affect that.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to carry on exactly where I left off on May 22, the last time we discussed the budget presented by the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman).

Mr. Stokes: You are not going to be nearly as provocative this time.

Mr. Cousens: I will try to refrain from any provocation of the honourable member, who has lost some hair since I last saw him. I lost a lot more a lot sooner than he did, but he can just clip it off and grow it again. I cannot do that, so I respect the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) for that and many other things.

This is a day when many of us are coming back to the House. Looking at the budget, it seems to be a long time since we addressed it.

Mr. Mancini: It looked worse than it did before, did it not?

Mr. Cousens: It looks better now.

Today we see something of the continuity in the way our government has managed the economy and the business of this province. We look with pride on the leadership the province has had under our Premier (Mr. Davis). Even though today we realize that it marks the end of a significant era in the province as our Premier moves into retirement, each of us has a great sense of confidence in the leadership being provided not only by our Treasurer and by our cabinet but also by the civil servants who support these people.

I believe that in spite of the fact we have a feeling of sadness today, there is also a feeling of optimism and the knowledge that we will go forward with a sense of direction and also with good leadership as well as it can continue to be provided not only by the Premier as long as he stays but also by our Minister of Treasury and Economics.

It is no accident that Ontario's economy has been thriving and growing and that confidence is increasing. We are seeing an increased sense of confidence by the marketplace in the government's management of the fiscal affairs of this province by virtue of the way the economy is beginning to come back. We are seeing it in the way inflation is being fought and wrestled to the ground. We are seeing it in the way interest rates are being kept low.

The foundations of Ontario's success are solid, and even now, with the changes that are being forecast, there is no reason for alarm by the marketplace or by the communities we serve. The business community, the social community and every person in Ontario can know that things are in good hands here in this province of ours.

As I was presenting my points that fateful May 22, when I had to cut my remarks short because the clock ran out, I was commenting in some detail on the importance of the government's efforts to fight deficits, on the importance of spending and living within our means and on how important it was that our government continue in the direction we have already started: keeping the deficit down.

According to a recent report by the International Monetary Fund, among the seven major industrial economies Canada is running the highest deficit in relation to the size of its economy. That is really something. The only country whose deficit is running at a higher level than ours is Italy, whose deficit is nine per cent of its gross domestic product.

Mr. Mancini: Be careful what you say now.

Mr. Cousens: I do not want to say anything about Italians. I just want to say that Canada should be the leader in the way we manage our economy and our resources; but, as it is, we are going to have to fight our way out of this deficit hole so that we can better live within our means.

According to federal estimates, the Canadian net public debt stands at about $150.9 billion, or about $6,011 for every Canadian. In per capita terms, the people of Ontario's share of the Canadian net public debt is about $52.9 billion. According to some critics, Ottawa's figures underestimate the size of accumulated debt, which they put as high as $209.8 billion. In 1983-84 this would have been equal to 53.9 per cent of the gross national product.

We in Canada have come to live beyond our means. It is something that not only governments but also individuals have done. You just have to look at the way they use their plastic cards: Chargex, American Express or any of the other mechanisms they use to get quick, easy money. The unfortunate thing is that each person who goes and builds up that debt has the responsibility of paying it off.

We here in Ontario realize, and certainly our Treasurer realizes, that the debt we have started to accumulate must begin to be addressed. We must make it smaller so that we live totally within our means. This has to be an objective of government.

This whole document in the budget of 1984 entitled Economic Transformation marks a real effort by our government to do something to live within our financial means. That is important. Certainly governments must get their financial situation under control when things start to get better.

4:40 p.m.

We are in the post-recession period now and this is the time for governments such as ours to get their financial affairs in order. This is certainly the hope I see within this document and it is certainly the hope we have for future generations, that they do not have to pay for the excesses that our governments have had and that our population has had prior to 1984. I see the effort that has been made within this budget as very responsible. It is an effort for all Canadians and all Ontarians to continue to maintain and control their expectations of government.

In a recent case in my riding, in the town of Vaughan, when Vaughan Hydro was seeking more money, it was able to come to a solution.

Mr. Martel: Like Ontario Hydro. They have kept theirs at five per cent, have they not?

Mr. Cousens: Indeed, they are worth more money, but Vaughan Hydro settled this weekend in a very close vote. The increase for that Hydro is 4.1 per cent, quite within the boundaries and guidelines our government has been trying to give.

Mr. Martel: What about Ontario Hydro?

Mr. Cousens: I am talking about a key hydro utility that serves --

Mr. Martel: It got 8.5. They kept within bounds and limits.

Mr. Cousens: The member is just getting warmed up.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for York Centre has the floor.

Mr. Cousens: We are seeing the responsibility being carried by people out there within our jurisdiction and within our province who are trying to live within responsible means.

Mr. Martel: Yes, it is in your power, but 8.5 per cent for Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Cousens: I am proud of my riding. I am proud of Vaughan Hydro and the employees who have worked out that agreement.

Mr. Martel: No, you were talking about the Ontario government. Come on. Do you think that is right?

Mr. Cousens: There has to be more of that kind of spirit for our government to prosper and for this economy to prosper.

Mr. Martel: Yes, 8.5. What a spirit.

Mr. Cousens: Perhaps the Speaker wants the member from Sudbury to take the floor?

The Deputy Speaker: More of the debate and fewer interjections would be fine. The member for York Centre has the floor.

Mr. Cousens: I am trying not to be provocative.

Mr. Martel: He is distorting. It is 8.5 per cent for Hydro.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Sudbury East will have his opportunity for debate.

Mr. Cousens: I think the member should withdraw the word "distorting." I was making a presentation on that.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member for Sudbury East want to make a correction? I think the member is going to retract.

Mr. Martel: I really do not want to, but if you insist, Mr. Speaker, I might consider it.

Mr. Cousens: I thank the member and tell him I am proud of what is going on within my riding. I hope the unions in his riding are making the same kinds of presentation that speak of the kind of control and fiscal responsibility that Vaughan Hydro has certainly been able to settle on.

There is one other point I would like to make with regard to the whole budgetary process. It has to do with the fact that we in Ontario have made a significant advance in the recovery of our economy, and I think we can look to the future with optimism. I would like to see more of the process the Treasurer talked about here when he brought out the point on economic transformation, on innovation, enterprise and small business.

Certainly, the efforts that are going to be made by the small business people in our province to be able to lay a base, to add to their manufacturing and to build for the future can be helped by the assistance that has been offered through the budget we are discussing today, the fact that we have research and enterprise at universities being expanded, the whole business of technology diffusion and of auto parts investment.

We have to see a continuing effort to restore the confidence of the small manufacturer, who can then go to the bank, borrow money and reinvest back in his business, so our manufacturing sector in this province can be stronger than ever. What we have seen in this budgetary effort is that we are taking steps in the right direction, to focus on retraining, to retrain the existing labour force, as well as trying to get the new youth out to work.

I sincerely hope our government does not try to become too involved in the world of industry. Government can continue to build an environment to allow industry to succeed and prosper. I genuinely believe too much government involvement leads to disincentives, inefficiencies and waste. I hope the programs that are enunciated in our budget will continue to build an environment for economic success.

I am pleased with what the budget talks about. It talks about predictions of a 4.7 per cent increase in real economic growth and about an 8.9 per cent increase in personal income. This is what we all want to have, so there can be growth and people in our province will have the financial means to enjoy a good lifestyle and a good life within this province.

There are many things to be said on the budget. I see it as one of the real foundations for the success of our province today. Optimism and confidence are high because people see the efforts that are being taken by Ontario as being the right kind of efforts that stimulate and promote the growth in the economy that makes Ontario strong.

Ontario is already the largest manufacturing sector in Canada, and we will continue to have that, especially with the kind of leadership we see coming from our own Treasurer and Minister of Economics. As we look to the future, we know there has to be a continuing thrust in the kind of directions that are enunciated in this document. We will continue to fight the deficit, but we will continue to provide not only social services for people but also services for industry and manufacturing to succeed, so that our tech centres can provide those services and the advice and counsel to allow them to go out and buy the kind of equipment that will allow them to be strong, especially with competition increasing.

We are talking about a world that is changing so quickly, a world that has great changes going on south of the border. If only more people realized the kind of legislation being passed by Congress in Washington, which is going to be more and more restrictive of people like ourselves from Ontario, Canada and other countries selling into the United States, they would see it means that we in Ontario have to be all the more keen and conscientious to take advantage of every marketing opportunity we can; it means we have to be competitively strong and keep the prices of our products down; it means we have to work harder than ever.

I see what our government is doing as supportive of that effort, but I also see it as something where we as legislators, going back into our communities and talking to our own merchants, distributors and manufacturers, can kindle that spirit of desire so that they will want to succeed.

We do not know how lucky we are. All we have to do is look around the world and see that many other countries do not have what we have. We have a solid base for growth. We have confidence and a market. If we can just nurture that and build upon it, I believe we in Ontario can have not only the best economy in Canada but one of the best economies in the world.

Since I spoke on May 22, there was a federal election, and some of the concerns we had at that time as to the whole federal scene have possibly changed. At least we will see new efforts being made. I just hope Ontario can continue to have a very close, warm, good working relationship with Ottawa so that we in Ontario do not act as a small, separate entity but can work with our federal government in a good way to build a strong economy for this country.

Ontario has had a good policy when buying for its own civil service and for the government. It has been a buy-Canadian policy. As a Canadian and as an Ontarian, I like to believe we have to put Canada first. Anything we can do to build this country and this province is synonymous with the kind of success that I know has been important to our Premier, our Treasurer and to all honourable members.

We look to the future with optimism in this party. I look to it with great optimism, knowing that we have a basis for growth. I look forward to seeing us continue to do the kinds of things we have done, to manage the future and manage change in a way that can continue to instil confidence in the minds and hearts of everyone we seek to serve.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member who just took his seat mentioned a number of important events that have occurred since we adjourned in June.

He mentioned the federal election, which was a minor setback for the Liberal Party. The campaign was an interesting one in that the Premier himself took a leading role. I was quite interested that he was so strongly supporting Mr. Mulroney, now the Prime Minister of Canada, when the Prime Minister had three specific policy positions firmly entered into by himself and his colleagues which I would have thought the Premier of Ontario would have difficulty supporting.

4:50 p.m.

As a matter of fact, I was watching the responses during the campaign and was particularly interested that at the outset of the federal campaign the Premier of Ontario really took a position in direct opposition to his federal leader. I refer to the call for world oil prices by Mr. Mulroney and the federal Conservatives. The national energy policy established by the previous Liberal administration, which was designed to repatriate ownership and control of our petroleum industry and make Canada self-sufficient in petroleum, was rejected by the Conservatives.

They did not go so far as to say Petro-Canada should be sold off, but they did say Canada should move to achieve world prices for our oil production. This was Mr. Mulroney's bow to his supporters in Alberta and the other oil-producing provinces, particularly Saskatchewan, but it is something we in Ontario are not quick to accept. The present Premier has always rejected that, understanding we are a consuming province. In fact, the election his good friend Joe Clark lost was on the basis of an 18-cents-per-gallon increase in the taxes on petroleum. Members may remember that election, which returned Mr. Trudeau as Prime Minister for an additional almost five years.

It was interesting that on the basis of world oil prices the first response of the Premier was to call on the then federal government to review gasoline prices in Ontario with an eye to removing the fluctuations, which he indicated he felt were unfair. It was very difficult for those of us in opposition to take him seriously since a major component of our high gasoline prices in Ontario is the eight-cents-per-litre gasoline tax this administration has imposed.

Members will recall that before the election of 1981 the gasoline tax was a specific number of cents per gallon. As I remember, it was 19 cents per gallon. As the Premier and his colleagues in the Treasury benches went to the people for the election, they indicated they hoped there would be no new taxes. One of the things that concerned them specifically was the cost of gasoline. Yet after they were returned with a majority government -- with your support, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact; it may embarrass you now, but we might as well face that fact -- one of their first acts was to change the gasoline tax from a specific number of cents per gallon to an ad valorem tax based on the fluctuating price of gasoline.

Since the price is not fixed and at least to some extent is a result of competition in the marketplace, in order to have the gasoline tax have some sort of stability the tax is established by the Minister of Revenue and his advisers on a quarterly basis. At the most recent fixing, I understand it was just over eight cents per litre, depending on the time at which the calculation is made. This is just about 36 cents per gallon, to put it back in the antediluvian units some members opposite have to have in order to understand just what the units are. At 36 cents per gallon it appears this administration, at the same time indicating it did not want to increase taxes -- and as a matter of fact in the last budget clearly stating no taxes would be increased -- has under the carpet and behind the door increased the gasoline taxes by 100 per cent since the people of Ontario responded to the Premier's call to help him keep the promise.

As a matter of fact, eight cents per litre is bigger than the federal-government grab from petroleum and almost as big as that of the government of Alberta. Alberta does not have a motor vehicle fuel tax in the same sense we have, but it does have royalties on the wellhead production of the petroleum since under the British North America Act it owns that particular natural resource.

It is interesting when one looks at Alberta's ownership of a source of energy, because the same does not hold true for the uranium that comes out of the ground in Ontario. By federal order in council some years ago, uranium was designated an energy resource crucial to the whole of Canada and comes directly under federal jurisdiction.

I will be referring to the uranium a little later in my remarks, but in this instance Brian Mulroney called for world oil price. Without stepping on the toes of his new federal leader, the Premier has rejected that. It may have been one of the reasons he felt he did not want to continue as Premier of Ontario. It would be difficult for him to cope with such a situation when Mr. Mulroney finally gets to the point where he, too, tries to keep the promise.

Mr. Ruston: Too hot in the kitchen.

Mr. Nixon: Yes. Actually, this whole statistical background is courtesy of my colleague the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston), who has really been one of the experts in opposition in this important matter. But the whole matter of energy in Ontario, going back to 1973, has been a crucial issue, a very important matter, and I have been surprised that the Premier, giving what leadership he has in the last few months, has not seen fit really to do something for the good of our own people.

I might as well get into this topic now. It has to do with Ontario Hydro and the provision of electrical energy, over which we do have 100 per cent direct control. Although the Premier's former campaign manager is no longer chairman of Ontario Hydro, there is no reason to believe the Premier, through his many communications, is not at least able to communicate with Ontario Hydro. It was particularly surprising that when Ontario Hydro applied to the Ontario Energy Board for an increase in hydro rates in Ontario of about 9.2 per cent the Ontario Energy Board rejected that and forced them to, or at least indicated that they should accept an increase not of 9.2 per cent, but just something over eight per cent.

Members are aware that the Ontario Energy Board cannot dictate to Ontario Hydro. As a matter of fact, I do not suppose anyone can. Certain people such as the Premier and the former Treasurer could make suggestions to Ontario Hydro, to which they always responded positively, but under the present administration they appear to have been almost completely out of public control almost for the last decade. Ontario Hydro is now planning to increase its hydro rates by almost double the rate of inflation. It is unfortunate that is so, but we know that Ontario Hydro has been subject to some very serious errors in judgement and, beyond that, sheer bad luck.

I for one happen to be very impressed with the accomplishments of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and Ontario Hydro. These two great, world-class organizations, working in conjunction and partnership, have established the safest and most efficient nuclear reactors in the world. I do not believe there is any doubt of that. As a matter of fact, comparisons with all of the nuclear reactors in this country, the United States, Japan, Korea, France, the United Kingdom, Italy and, as far as we know, the reactors in the Soviet Union indicate that ours at Pickering and, particularly, the Bruce plant are the most efficient and I believe the safest anywhere. That does not mean that our commitment of billions of dollars is in the long run going to be seen to be a wise investment, but for the time being I am still prepared to say the Bruce plant was a useful and important commitment in support of technology which is the best in the world.

5 p.m.

The problem we have experienced in Pickering -- and the Speaker and members who have followed it very closely are aware of it, too -- is engineering misfortune. I cannot blame the Premier for the fact that the garter retention springs slipped out of their proper placement because of inequalities in pressure and temperature and allowed the calandria tubes to sag, touching the container tubes, or whatever, and this produced some sort of electrolysis or hydridization.

My honourable friend the minister in the second row, who is looking at me, would explain this in greater detail if members were particularly interested, but the result was that the tubes ruptured and there was a very serious leakage and the shutdown of two of our major reactors. It is going to be many months before they are back in production, about a year and a half as a minimum, and the costs will be in excess of $700 million.

That figure does not seem to be impressive when we talk about Ontario Hydro, where the costs are in the astronomical range. That was a piece of bad luck. We are hoping it does not signal the kind of flaw in engineering that is irreparable. I was glad to read in the reports available to me that the same design problems have not occurred in the reactors that were built later. However, when one looks at the problems Ontario Hydro has been experiencing, that is one of the minor ones.

I had the great pleasure of driving into eastern Ontario for a nominating convention a few days ago, to Napanee, where another winner was nominated at that time. A large throng was gathered in the local high school. The word had got out that I was going there to speak, and I was really delighted to realize that our representation in the House from eastern Ontario is going to be strengthened and expanded even further whenever the new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party calls an election.

I drove past Wesleyville generating station. There is another town there, Bath, which has what they call the Lennox generating station. These large oil-fired stations have not been brought into service by Ontario Hydro. There has been a commitment of about $750 million in building them. Because they were based on oil as a fuel, they were uneconomical before they were even commissioned. One was fired up a couple of times, but these things are sitting there and will never be used.

It is amazing to see the intricacies of the engineering and the commitment of the workmen and technologists in building those things. Ten thousand years from now, when the new explorers of North America come over whatever lake is going to be there, they will come upon these things and say: "Look at these marvellous temples that were left by this society thousands of years ago. Here is all this hardware and all these control panels that must have been some way of worship." They are not going to be used in any way.

One of the amazing aspects of this is that Ontario Hydro says, "How did we know the price of oil was going to go up?" Those generating plants were completed long after 1973, when the Arab sheikhs decided to put us on the rack, and long before Premier Peter Lougheed decided he wanted to make his province the richest in Canada and that he was going to push his federal Tory party for the world price at our expense. It was simply bad judgement.

The worst part of it is that Ontario Hydro entered into an agreement to take 20,000 barrels of heavy oil a day starting back about 1981 and going to 1992. That agreement was entered into with Petrosar, and naturally Ontario Hydro cannot take the oil because it has decided not to use any of it.

Now, 20,000 barrels a day is quite a lot of stuff for the lawyers to hide behind the bushes. With Hydro not accepting this fuel, the only course open to Petrosar when an arm of government rejected a contract entered into in good faith was to sue Ontario Hydro. One can imagine that the cost of the oil we are not using is astronomical and fearsome, surpassed only by the cost of the lawyers for Ontario Hydro and Petrosar who, during the lives and careers of scores of lawyers, will be mediating, meeting, going to court and going through all the hearings at all the inflated prices that are associated with that profession, all at the expense of the poor consumers of electrical energy who even this year are experiencing increased power rates at double the rate of inflation.

I am talking about the problems Ontario Hydro has been experiencing. I understand the lawsuits for 1981 and 1982 alone have resulted in a $100-million bill, and this is going to go on until 1992. Naturally, Ontario Hydro is following the example of other crown corporations and anybody caught out in a situation that is embarrassing and has immediately countersued Polysar Ltd. The basis of that suit is that Polysar was not able to produce and deliver the 22,000 barrels a day that Ontario had originally ordered.

The whole thing is just a nightmare and it is a further indication, in my view, of the mismanagement of that crown corporation.

A few years ago I had the great honour and pleasure to be a part of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs. One of the reasons it was first established under the chairmanship of Donald MacDonald, who was then the member for York South, was that the heavy water installations that were built at public expense by Ontario Hydro on the Bruce Peninsula, at the Bruce atomic site, were running far past their original cost specification and were extremely late in their completion.

We had the interesting opportunity to inspect the situation very closely and found the cost overruns were enormous. One of the recommendations coming out of that committee was that Ontario Hydro ought to immediately mothball their work because the projections for power in Ontario indicated the heavy water production from these unbelievably complex and expensive installations would never be needed.

I was critical of the cost of the select committee, and I am prepared to be more critical as time goes on, but in this instance our recommendation resulted in the then Minister of Energy first rejecting the recommendation and a few months later accepting it when it came from Ontario Hydro itself and mothballing the installation. Here is an instance where an additional $800 million to $900 million was just wasted by the inadequate planning of Ontario Hydro under the supervision of the then government of Ontario. They pretty well relinquished that responsibility and supervision in recent years.

A sidelight to this that really boggles the mind, to coin a phrase --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Some minds are easier to boggle.

Mr. Nixon: All right. The member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) may have heard it before; but she has heard everything before.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No. I just said some minds are easier to boggle; that is all.

Mr. Nixon: All right. It has to do with the provision of fuel for our atomic reactors. The nice thing is that this is an indigenous fuel: the uranium comes out of the rock in Ontario even though, under the situation I described a few minutes ago, it is not a natural resource controlled by the provinces as other natural resources are. It is mined by two or three important and large companies, the largest and most important controlled by Stephen Roman, a one-time or sometime Liberal.

The uranium is bought by Ontario Hydro under the terms of an agreement entered into a number of years ago, that agreement being reviewed by the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs. As a matter of fact, it was added to the terms of reference of the committee by the Premier himself, who realized this was going to be a very difficult, knotty problem for him because the contract had to be approved by the cabinet.

After review, the tame Tories on the committee nodded and said: "Yes. We think the arrangement proposed with the uranium producers is a good one." The two opposition parties admittedly did not agree, except we agreed that the contract proposals should not be entered into. There was every indication that the supplies of uranium around the world were going to be such that the price would come down.

5:10 p.m.

An interesting footnote, Mr, Speaker -- and I mention it before you yourself interject with it -- is that in those days there was a cartel established by the government of Canada, the already late-lamented government of Canada. It had established a cartel of international proportions, which was endeavouring to fix the price of uranium at a very unnaturally high level. This was, I suppose, to the advantage of Canada, which through Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. was selling uranium in other areas of the world and we wanted the price to be high.

Here was uranium coming out of our own mines, being used in our own atomic reactors, and its price was unnaturally elevated. The contract entered into by Ontario Hydro with Steve Roman and his mining buddies, and approved by the Premier, was one that allowed the price to go up but not come down. It really is the most absurd situation one could ever imagine.

My honourable colleague who does not happen to be in the House just at this very minute, the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), has repeatedly put questions to the Premier about this matter. The Premier usually just dismisses it with a wave of his hand. The result this year alone was that Ontario Hydro bought uranium from Steve Roman and his cronies for $230 million. The same uranium bought on the world market would have cost Ontario Hydro $73 million. This contract goes on for many years in the future.

In Darlington, we are building the largest series of atomic reactors in the world, bar none. There may be something in Minsk or Pinsk that is pretty big, but there is nothing like the concept and size of the Darlington installation. We are not serving the consumers of electricity in any useful and constructive way when we saddle them with the additional costs of the original and continued fuelling of uranium at such an unnaturally elevated price.

I have met Steve Roman. As a matter of fact, I had a luncheon with him once. He is a bright, capable guy. He has community spirit in some respects. He is building a basilica on his own property north of Toronto which looks down over the metropolitan area. He was able to persuade His Holiness himself to go up and give his papal blessing to this beautiful building, which I understand is an exact replica of Steve Roman's church back in his home town of what is now Czechoslovakia.

The man has qualities that are admirable and interesting. But what he does best of all is wrap governments around his various fingers and make money. The only time he was stopped was when he wanted to sell Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Co. Ltd. to American interests. In those days Pierre Trudeau -- thank God for Pierre Trudeau -- stopped him. They passed legislation, which finally moved on to become the Foreign Investment Review Agency, and stopped the loss of this particular company, which is a huge company of world proportions, to foreign ownership.

Mr. Roman has been unbelievably successful. Members have all read his story about coming here after the war and working as a farmer. He undoubtedly has extremely great talent as an entrepreneur and is a person who has been unbelievably personally successful. I am not arguing with him. He is doing the best he can, and believe me, his best is very good indeed.

The other side of that bargain was the Premier. There is no way we should have entered into a contract that is so one-sided. I am very much concerned when we look at Ontario Hydro and see that once again a very serious error was made. It seems to be difficult to repair it. It is just as if we are saying: "We will let the time go. We have unlimited money fire-hosing in and out of Hydro, and we will simply keep transferring these many millions of dollars to Steve Roman and his corporate bank accounts."

I say again, I am not blaming him. He is not a Liberal, that is for sure. His nephew is an independent member of the Parliament of Canada with sort of Tory tendencies, I would expect; so he has a pretty good pipeline into the federal government as well. I do not know, but I certainly think the consumers of Hydro ought to be more concerned over these matters than they have expressed in the past.

There is one further area pertaining to Ontario Hydro which I feel is a serious condemnation of its judgement and of the administration of this great utility. Members will recall that I and other members from all parties have asked a number of questions in the House about the planning and erection of 500-kilovolt power lines from the Bruce atomic plant into southwestern Ontario.

It is interesting to note that it is now estimated that because of the inadequacies of the planning and administration of Ontario Hydro and the inadequacies of the leadership of the government of Ontario, the lines to carry the power out of the Bruce will not be in place when Bruce B, this great bank of four enormous world-class generators, goes into production.

In fact, we will have everything in place -- the fuel rods doing their thing, all the little neutrons bouncing around, the heat energy being taken to the turbines and the turbines ready to spin -- but there will be no transmission power lines to take the power out to the market. There have been 20 years during which this should have been planned, the property acquired and the lines built. Ontario Hydro, in my view, has done its best to come forward with a routing of those lines.

I do not want to go through the whole story of this, other than to recall that during the last election campaign, the one in which we all were supposed to help the Premier keep the promise, probably the most important promise of all, in view of what we are seeing now, was that we would not permit Ontario's effluent of acid oxides, sulphur dioxide and so on to increase beyond a certain level.

As a matter of fact, one of the largest single emitters of the gases that result in acid rain is the enormous coal-fired power plant at Nanticoke. It is just 30 miles south of me and almost within sight of the farm of my colleague the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller).

The Nanticoke power station is fuelled by coal bought largely in the United States, although Hydro is trying to work a little bit of Alberta coal into it too. Of course, it wants the coal to be low-sulphur, but that is an additional cost. Once again, this is the largest thermal plant in North America, and if it is not the largest in the world, it is very close to it.

It was built by Ontario Hydro engineers. They had some difficulties, you will remember, Mr. Speaker, when they were putting an enormous rotor into one of the generators. It was manufactured in England. It had come all the way across on the water and up the St. Lawrence Seaway. An enormous crane had lifted it out of the boat and trundled it across to this huge power station. They were just about to lower it in when something slipped and the blooming rotor fell and hit the floor. Then they had to lift it up, put it back on the boat, send it down the St. Lawrence Seaway, send it across to the United Kingdom and remanufacture it. These things happen. Even Ontario Hydro, with some of the best engineers anywhere, has experienced probably more than its share of what can only be called, with members' permission, screwups.

Anyway, these things have happened, and the consumers of electricity have said: "Well, at least the power is on. Our houses are lit, our television is coloured and the beer is cold, so I guess we can pay an extra few cents." But when you have everybody in the province facing these increases in power rates, it certainly is time for us to express a serious concern.

5:20p.m.

In the speech from the throne in 1982 it was clearly stated that to keep the promise of the reduction in the emission of acid gas by Ontario Hydro, scrubbers would be designed, ordered and installed at Nanticoke. There has been an argument about this because various ministers, including the present Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) and the Premier, who is touchy about this -- and well he may be -- have said, "No, we promised to keep the emission of acid gas down to a certain level."

As a matter of fact, their intention was to leave Nanticoke the way it was and to use it as little as possible, because when you fire up those big boilers and start putting in hundreds of tons of coal containing sulphur as an impurity, day by day, there is going to be a huge emission of acid gas.

It is very difficult for us to argue with the real villains in this, the huge power plants and industries in the Ohio Valley, that they should cut back on their acid gas emissions when we are so bad here. As a matter of fact, Ontario Hydro's failure to do this has been the single most difficult hurdle for Canadian negotiators to get over when they talk to their opposite numbers in the United States.

The Americans simply ask, "What about your problems with Ontario Hydro and to some extent with Inco in Sudbury?" which my friend, who is valiantly keeping his seat wondering when I am going to come to an end to my remarks, wants to nationalize. I am not sure what that would do to the gas emissions, but knowing my honourable friend it would probably make them worse.

The Premier has a real problem. His advisers have said that once Bruce B comes on stream we will have lots of electricity and we will not have to worry about Nanticoke. His promise -- that word that means more to him than all others, and I admire and congratulate him for having that reputation, even with, let us say, one of his more severe critics -- he is going to have a problem fulfilling that promise because the electricity cannot come out of the Bruce Peninsula. We have invested more than $10 billion there. While some electricity is coming out -- a very significant amount -- when Bruce B comes on stream much of the power is going to be bottled up because of the inadequate leadership of the government of Ontario.

I liked Hugh Macaulay. He had a lot of difficulties when he was chairman of Hydro and he quit rather precipitately when it looked as if the problems he was going to have to face as chairman of Hydro were going to be insurmountable. The promise to keep the acid gas emissions down within the levels promised was not going to be able to be kept. The government had not been able to go forward with its commitment to install the scrubbers at Nanticoke and, because of the awkwardness and inept leadership of the government of Ontario, the transmission lines would not be built.

As a matter of fact, my colleague, who by coincidence does not happen to be here at this moment, the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock), on the very first occasion when it was announced that these power lines would come out of the Bruce peninsula across to Barrie through his constituency, through Grey county, and then would come down to the Brampton area and cut along Highway 401 and down through Norfolk county, through the great farming areas there, and curve up around to London, as soon as that decision was made, the member for Grey wrote to the Premier and appealed to the cabinet to review that decision. He said there was no proper notice to our people that would indicate to them they should even appear at the meetings held in Stratford, Ontario, in order to protest that the lines would interfere with their property and their livelihood.

You have heard the argument before, Mr. Speaker. I know you pay attention to all these debates and forget nothing. At that time, the member for Grey said the notice was inadequate and, therefore, the cabinet should order a rehearing. At the time, the Premier and the Minister of Energy rejected that. There were many arguments, questions and indignation meetings. Many months later, with all the involvements of my favourite profession, the legal one, and all these people going day after day to interminable hearings, with all the appeals, delays and adjournments these professionals could think up, finally the Supreme Court of Ontario said the decision to build the power line as planned was thrown out because the notice was inadequate.

The suggestion is that the member for Grey could replace all of the brains in the government and Hydro too. He was right and they were wrong. He has a better sense of justice and a determination of what is necessary to the province than all these great minds that sit in the Treasury benches. There is only one of them there now and another, who is kind of partly great, joining her.

It really is difficult to understand why the government should not be supporting Ontario Hydro in a more effective way, giving it the kind of legislation that would enable it to put the power lines where they should go. With Ontario Hydro having just had a succession of fiascos largely attributed to decisions forced upon it by the government of Ontario over these years, this is a matter that must concern us in this House.

Many members will recall the debate that accompanied a government bill to make Ontario Hydro a crown corporation. I well remember the arguments put forward by the New Democratic Party in support of the government at that time. It was up to the Liberal opposition to indicate it was a mistake to take the control of Hydro so completely out of this chamber. The community as a whole is aware of this and the debates are often discussed by people to whom I talk.

I think during one of his earlier incarnations the Premier himself was a vice-chairman of Hydro. In those days there was always a cabinet minister or a person who could speak in the House for Hydro. He could receive the questions and try to respond to the criticism because the idea that it should be divorced from this place and out of the control of government was not acceptable.

We have seen other crown corporations at another level of government bring huge losses on the taxpayers, unbelievable losses. It was something we could have avoided if the Liberal alternative had been accepted. As members of this House we would have had a forum other than this one, which is talking mostly to empty seats and a few interested ministers.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We accept your position on regional government.

Mr. Nixon: That is a really good topic. We will get into that next.

The Deputy Speaker: It is perhaps closer to the subject.

Mr. Nixon: I wanted to put my objections to Ontario Hydro's policy and practice on the record of the Legislature. When the Premier's successor finally runs out of time in a five-year term and decides to go to the people, that is going to be a prime issue.

Almost as an aside, I was also interested that another crown corporation is one that is going to have to command our more careful attention in the near future. I see my colleague the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) is here. He is the critic of the Ministry of the Environment and a very good one indeed, as I am sure we would all agree.

I want to recall briefly to the House and even to one of the previous Ministers of the Environment, who as usual is in his place paying attention to the business of the House, that I have a growing concern about the Ontario Waste Management Corp. and its leader, Dr. Donald Chant.

I was all set for an election to be called yesterday and I was thinking of what has happened since the election three and a half years ago. One of the big issues then was industrial waste and what to do with it.

Members may recall that the first solution announced by the Honourable Harry Parrott, whom we miss in this House -- he would make a good Liberal; I am going to talk to him about that some time -- was that the government was going to take some of this industrial liquid waste, mostly polychlorinated biphenyls, bring it into the great riding of Brant in the township of Onondaga, spend $12 million putting it in big cans retained in cement walls and store it in perpetuity.

5:30 p.m.

My own feeling is that the research done at the Royal Military College was getting along to the point where it could dispose of polychlorinated biphenyls in a way that would use the plasma arc. Is that what they called it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Plasma torch.

Mr. Nixon: Plasma torch.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, that was the arc. I am sorry. Torch is the new one.

Mr. Nixon: All right. It was going to use electricity to do that. I was pressing for this and I have often been surprised that the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) seems to be so reluctant to put forward the cause of the plasma arc or torch, which is the result of research funded by the government and the taxpayers of Ontario, not the Minister of Health. He is pointing to his own noble chest.

It has often been a source of amazement to me that we have not been able to progress in that connection. I cannot help feeling that the local member is not doing his duty in putting it before his colleagues or those people --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not approved technology.

Mr. Nixon: What do you know about it?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Just what I have read.

Mr. Nixon: Pardon me. I am sure the Minister of Education should know about everything. She would not be Minister of Education if she did not.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I should know about some things, anyway.

Mr. Nixon: All right.

But, as members recall, there was immediately formed a very viable committee in Onondaga township which was successful in getting the government to reconsider this cockamamy scheme to store PCBs in this particular beautiful rural area. It was probably also a result of the fact that the government had another brilliant overnight vision. It could use the property it had bought some years before in South Cayuga, which it had bought for a new city, a dreamscape, a vision of a former Treasurer that had never materialized. Here was this piece of property where it could take the PCBs, spend the money to control industrial wastes -- solid, liquid and so on -- and set up its laboratories, its incinerators and its permanent storage facilities for the materials it could not otherwise control.

There was once again a substantial local outcry. This is in a beautiful area of farm land owned by the province by mistake and bad judgement; it is right on the shores of Lake Erie with the Grand River running nearby. So the pressure came on the Honourable Harry Parrott, then Minister of the Environment, in an almost unrelenting and fierce way. His colleagues sat down with Harry and said, "We have to do something," and somebody got the bright idea that Donald Chant, a very highly regarded professor of environmental science, zoology and so on at the University of Toronto, might be persuaded to establish some sort of commission to look into this.

I remember the day it was announced. I really felt somewhat betrayed, since Dr. Chant had been a completely independent spokesman, often critical of the government and of various ministers and very quick to support any elected person by providing impartial information. When the government got up and said it had hired Donald Chant to do this work, to begin with I felt politically let down. Then I thought: "All right, if he is prepared to take this on, then maybe there is a solution. Maybe this is going to pass out of politics, where it really should not be and where it is only because of the incompetence of the administration in dealing with this serious issue."

So Dr. Chant was hired at the highest salary of any public servant in the province, including everybody in this room. He was given carte blanche, a blank cheque, in order to carry out his responsibilities and to get the government off the hook.

Frankly, it worked, because it was impossible to criticize Dr. Chant. "After all," he said, "I know what I am doing." The people in Pollution Probe were somewhat shocked that he had more or less taken the Queen's shilling, or whatever it is known as. But he said -- I heard him say it in the estimates and I was and really still am prepared to accept his assurances -- that he would do all the scientific research necessary to locate the areas of the province where such a waste disposal and/or storage site could be located; and he has done this, at least to some extent, over the intervening months and years.

I was not too shocked when the Provincial Auditor brought to our attention that he had furnished his boardroom with a set of chairs each costing $780, and so on. I have a feeling that anybody who comes from the realm of academe is not very sensitive about cost in something like this. They know that over the years -- the University of Toronto has certainly had this impression -- any money needed was always forthcoming; that is, until recently. As an academician, he was never trained to think that in a case like that one should do anything but have the best, and certainly he has responded to that.

I come to the area about which I must express my concern. This all started back about 1980 with a series of incorrect decisions and costly delays by previous Ministers of the Environment, with the whole government of Ontario trying to help its beleaguered colleagues. Once they got Dr. Chant front and centre the worries disappeared. All the stories about, "We have to get this poisonous material looked after immediately," and so on, seemed to disappear. Donald Chant was the antidote for all those problems.

I am warning any members of the government who are around that they are about to run out of time with this solution. Dr. Chant is out of the university ambit now. Many people who become involved with the responsibilities of government tend to have these things become ends in themselves and not vehicles to accomplish the solutions for which they were established.

I express that concern and I give warning to anyone who is interested that it is going to be my intention to continue to examine this minutely and on a day-to-day basis, because it is time for a solution to be brought forward.

Another interesting footnote is that, on the maps already prepared by Dr. Chant, one of the areas for suitable storage and a location where the servicing of the liquid and other industrial waste can take place is near Brampton. It may well be that with its magical protection about to evaporate in thin air, that location is going to be seen to be a bit better than it was in the past because it is right in the centre of where much of the pollution is produced.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few months and years. Solutions are needed and we are going to have to hear from the Ontario Waste Management Corp. and particularly from its chairman because he, in his person and his reputation, has bought the government freedom from the criticism that should have been its because of the mismanagement of this tremendously important matter.

I have a couple of more items that I will continue with. I want to say, and perhaps I should have started with these remarks, how much I enjoyed the visit of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth. I feel I should mention this because I am sure the members are aware that her special responsibilities included a visit to the Indian reservation of the Six Nations. I was particularly delighted that those advising Her Majesty on planning this visit put that forward because the Indians of this community, which makes up the largest reservation by population in Canada, came there over 200 years ago.

5:40 p.m.

The Iroquois, as they are sometimes called, more properly the Six Nations, were an extremely interesting society. They were strong warriors and so well organized that 300 years ago over a large area of North America they imposed peace of a type that in many respects we must still honour. They organized themselves through their Longhouse religion, assigning special responsibilities to each of the clans in the Six Nations: the firekeeper, the doorkeeper and so on.

They established a procedure whereby chiefs of the various nations would meet around their council fire, and while they would argue and debate the very intricate and important decisions taken in those days, since they were really emperors of all they surveyed, they did not resort to authoritarianism or dictatorship. They did not even resort to democracy, since they never took a vote. They would discuss and debate until they reached a unanimous decision.

That sounds like the sort of thing we should be doing here because, when the arguments are put forward in a compelling way, it is sometimes possible that even an intransigent would change his or her mind.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member misunderstood their process. He keeps talking as though there is consensus.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nixon: What is this? As a matter of fact, I have decided to adopt that method. I have decided to adopt it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has the floor.

Mr. Nixon: Still.

Mr. Speaker: Right.

Mr. Nixon: I should mention that while the Six Nations found their homeland -- I suppose one could call it to some extent their hunting ground -- in the Valley of the Mohawk, in what is now New York state, they used to come up here hunting and in war parties. In many respects, they were responsible for the decimation, if not the practical elimination, of the other Indian tribes in this part of the world. They were great fighters and great allies of George III.

Sir William Johnson was the Indian agent and was very highly regarded by the Indian community. Just a few days ago, I visited his well-preserved home in the Mohawk Valley, and the stories about the great Indian encampments and consultations 250 years ago are still definitely on the record.

But the high regard the Six Nations held for the British crown -- at least the representatives of the British crown -- found them fighting against the rebels at the time of the revolutionary war. When peace was finally made and the British crown relinquished its sovereignty over the American colonies, the Indians found themselves in what one would call a strange position. They had fought on the wrong side and they had lost the war.

The American settlers -- the relatives of many of us here, I suppose -- were aggressively moving into the Indian lands which were among the most beautiful and most fertile in North America. The Indians found they had to vacate. The governor on this side, Governor Haldimand, with the concurrence of the Colonial Office in the United Kingdom, made an arrangement and an offer to these Indians. He offered them the land in what is now Ontario -- it was then called Quebec, as members know -- and the land was six miles on each side of the Grand River. Led by their great chief, Thyendanegea, Joseph Brant, the Indians came across at Niagara and took up their lands in this part of what I suppose was then British North America.

Members can imagine the depth of feeling that was present in the forecourt of Her Majesty's Chapel of the Mohawks, which is an Anglican Church chapel near the city of Brantford but on Indian land, when the present elected chief, Wellington Staats, rose in his full costume and addressed Her Majesty. I will tell members that it was quite moving when he said, "Two hundred years ago, my people gave up all they had -- their land, their farms, their homes, their hunting ground, the places where they had lived for time immemorial -- and had come across to another country because of their loyalty to the British crown."

It was a great education for those people, in the presence of Her Majesty and the Prince, the Premier, Mrs. Davis, leaders of church and state --

Mr. Stokes: I looked for the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and I did not see him.

Mr. Nixon: I was relegated to a bullpen nearby.

Mr. Stokes: I particularly looked for his presence there.

Mr. Nixon: I appreciate the member for Lake Nipigon's worry, but when there are so many cabinet ministers who want in on the act, what is one going to do when one is just the member for the area?

Mr. Ruston: That is right. So many cabinet ministers.

Mr. Nixon: The honourable minister, the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean), was present but he did not shoulder his way on to the stage. Actually, I do not want to be critical because I do not feel critical. It was a great event.

As a matter of fact, a committee headed by the Indians themselves, with substantial assistance from people in the city of Brantford and the surrounding community, had collected money from all over the country to refurbish this frame church, which is the oldest Protestant church in Canada by far; it was built 200 years ago.

Mr. Worton: Anglican.

Mr. Nixon: It is Anglican. My friend from Guelph points that out, being one of the many Liberal Anglicans I know. It is beautifully refurbished and the Indians are properly proud of it.

In a place of honour is the communion service that was presented to the Indians by Queen Anne almost 200 years ago. The fact that Her Majesty was able to come there, assist and take part in the rededication of the chapel was a great event. Everybody there, particularly the Indians, recognized it as such. I just want to be sure the member understands that while there were many great events, including the state dinner we attended with Her Majesty, that in my view should be seen by a reasonable observer to be one of the greatest. We were absolutely pleased and delighted.

I have another piece of information for you, Mr. Speaker. Because of certain changes in our caucus, I now find myself having the great honour and special responsibility of being Treasury critic. I was hoping to get Education, but that is too important. The Treasurer was walking down the hall surrounded by a group of Tory back-benchers who looked to me as if they were forming a campaign committee. I do not know whether that was so. He was just going down to the great caucus room they have just across the hall from my office. There were such great rounds of applause and cheering that I thought he might have made his announcement already, but I guess that was not the case.

I noticed in the paper that when asked about it, the Treasurer said it was a very serious matter -- I am paraphrasing -- and he would have to go home and consult with his wife and family. There is some doubt as to whether he is going to be a candidate. I can see he is wondering about it because it is an extremely heavy responsibility and he might feel somehow inadequate to take it on without a lot of consideration.

I notice there are several people over there acting with a more serious demeanour than is customary. I was glad to see the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) so free and easy and smiling. It is an indication that he is not worrying about anything. The Minister of Education, however, does look tense and concerned.

Actually, it is interesting to watch because one of my favourite ministers -- and I really like them all -- is the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling). He is quite a good fellow. He is not too good on freedom of information and a few things such as that, but he is a very personable guy. I noticed even during question period, which was pretty much to the point -- important and interesting right from start to finish, I thought -- the minister was going to the prospective candidates, one by one, and one could see they were deeply involved in important discussions.

He was talking to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), he of the well-coiffed hairdo. They have a new barber in Timmins or wherever. He is all set to go. He is an interesting person. He is different. He is aggressive. He takes a different approach to things such as his estimates and he does not mind getting some criticism from time to time.

5:50 p.m.

Some of the ministers, such as the Minister of Education, are so put out by criticism that they just cannot live with anything but a bunch of sycophants from the ministry saying, "Yes, Minister; yes, Minister." I think it is unhealthy when ministers are in office too long. A period in opposition would be good for the minister's soul; it really would. So we are planning to do her a favour. Just wait for it. It will not be long.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Do not do me any favours. Just pronounce the words properly.

Mr. Nixon: Baloney; sycophant. You mispronounce digoxin.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I do not.

Mr. Nixon: Oh yes, you do. I am worried about the leadership in education that we have in this province. There are even spelling mistakes that I sometimes see in the minister's speeches.

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: I am very concerned about this. I see the member for Carleton-Grenville moving from prospective candidate to prospective candidate. The member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) is annoyed at me. I said he was the worst Minister of Education we have had in 20 years and he did not like that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He has never been the Minister of Education.

Mr. Nixon: I meant Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is what you said about me, not about Dennis.

Mr. Nixon: No. I never said that about the Minister of Education. Actually, I am one of her many defenders on this side. I think we like her better than some of her colleagues, because she gets them into trouble all the time.

Hon. Mr. Dean: That is not so.

Mr. Nixon: Anyway, we actually saw the Minister of Education in the news a week or two ago. Members will remember that time, when they were asking her about separate schools and whether people who were not Catholic could go in. She did not say, "The Premier told me what is going on." She has never said that, and a lot of people think he does not tell her. I do not know whether that is true or not.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not true.

Mr. Nixon: It is or is it not true? Actually, we got the distinct impression when the Premier made his announcement about separate schools, that 180-degree volte-face, that the minister herself had just said a day or two before that somebody else was setting back the cause of separate schools by many months, in fact, years.

I cannot quote her directly, but I felt kind of bad about the situation because the Premier does this from time to time. I have a feeling that hardly anybody in the caucus knew what he was going to do before he spoke to them, just above five minutes before he came in here and decided his position on the separate schools had changed.

My own feeling is that in spite of that kind of personal rejection, which must irritate the Minister of Education, she should set that aside and think seriously about the leadership. The Tories are looking for a good woman. There she is, a fighter --

Mr. Watson: At least we have some in our caucus.

Mr. Nixon: We are working on it. We have watched the minister's political career with interest, of course.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Just wait until Lily joins you.

Mr. Nixon: I am glad the minister is prepared to accept the fact that she will, because Dr. Munro will be a great addition to our caucus, and so will another 50 members whom we are looking forward to.

I know the House leader of the New Democratic Party is anxious to get talking about the nationalization of --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Is he going to talk about Inco?

Mr. Nixon: Perhaps. Just so we can round out the clock -- I see the government House leader is coming in to do his duty -- I should probably say I am looking forward to my responsibilities as Treasury critic. I feel the Treasurer is going to be more vulnerable perhaps than he has been even in the past. It may be that he will not be present as much as we would like, but it is extremely important that we ride herd on his statements.

As a matter of fact, I well recall that the budget a few months ago was based more than anything else on new initiatives for youth employment. I was interested to see that on Friday, Statistics Canada released the labour force data for September 1984. Its report says, "In Ontario the unemployment rate among those aged 15 to 24 years increased from 12.2 per cent in August to 14.9 per cent." This is particularly difficult to understand when during September many of the people who would have been on the unemployed list have returned to school. It means the level of employment has gone down seriously. The actual number of unemployed young people in Ontario is now standing, according to Statistics Canada, at 156,000.

I think members are aware that at the time of the budget, the Treasurer brought forward a 10-point program, which he said was going to come to grips with this matter. I have the feeling he considered that not only a vehicle to correct one of the most serious problems in the employment situation in this province but also one that he could pedal along in his leadership campaign. After all, there is nothing like going out as a politician and saying one is doing things for young people. We all agree education and opportunities for young people are among the principal reasons we are here and doing our duty.

In bringing my remarks to a close, I simply want to say that the Treasurer appears to have failed dismally in this as his principal responsibility. One of the things I regret is that he has taken such an outstanding Canadian as Ken Dryden, brought him into his ministry, set him up in an office and not properly supported him.

The financing for most of these 10 programs has not been forthcoming in a way that would enable them to be established during the summer months and into the fall when they are so desperately needed. I have a feeling the same 10 programs will be announced on more than one occasion in the future.

Once again I serve notice to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Treasurer in his absence -- he is meeting with his committee even now, no doubt -- that this is one matter we are not going to let him get away with. We have 156,000 young people in Ontario who are not in school and who cannot be gainfully employed. This is a matter of utmost urgency and one that all of us as members of this Legislature must apply ourselves to solving.

I resume my seat with my thanks to you, sir, for your kind attention. We look forward to an interesting few months as the Progressive Conservative Party selects a new leader and as we approach the now-delayed election in Ontario. My colleagues and I have no doubt about the outcome. We expect to win the responsibility of government and are prepared to do so.

While members may feel my comments today have been more critical than they would wish, there are many people on the other side to tell the ministers how great they are. That is one of their problems. They were warned against inhaling that stuff; unfortunately, most of them have not heard the warning soon enough. It will be up to us as the official opposition to continue to put forward the positive alternatives in concepts, principles and new people with new ideas. We face the future with confidence and enthusiasm.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I notice the time, but I would like to make three quick points and then adjourn the debate.

I was wondering what the Liberal position is now that my friend the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), who used to scream for 30 for 22, moved way down there. I am not sure what position the Liberal Party is about to take. I am wondering whether it wants 30 for 27. I do not know. I just thought I would throw that in; maybe the honourable member will answer.

Second, when my friend was speaking and referred to George III, the interjection was "Turnip George." I thought that was how George III was known historically as he led the United States into its great revolution and separation from England.

Finally, I would like to quote a rather famous Liberal friend of the former Liberal leader from Ontario, Eric Kierans. I believe he once said when he did the report for the Manitoba government then headed by Ed Schreyer: "You cannot nationalize what you already own. You just take back the possession to operate it yourself." I am paraphrasing what Eric Kierans said. I read his book seven or eight times. It was so inspiring I had to read it seven or eight times. He said the only way a state could benefit from its resources was if the state processed the resources itself. That was from none other than Eric Kierans.

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

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

October 9, 1984