Hansard Transcript 1986-Apr-28 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: In view of the unfortunate situation that occurred in my office and in yours this morning, it was discovered that the panic buttons had been removed from various desks and places, unbeknownst to us and probably unbeknownst to many other people. Upon further investigation, I discovered the panic buttons had never been hooked up, at least since last summer.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you refer this matter to the new standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Second, perhaps you would cause a memo to be sent to all members and their staffs to see: (a) whether their panic buttons have been removed unbeknownst to them and (b) whether the panic buttons are connected.

Last, perhaps at the end of question period, the members would like to go to their offices and test their panic buttons to see whether they are in operating order.

Mr. Speaker: I will accept the point of information from the honourable member and do my best to see that this matter is brought under control.

Mr. Ferraro: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: As some members of the House will know, my home-town hockey team, the Guelph Holody Placers, is in the final of the Ontario Hockey League against the Belleville Bulls. We are extremely proud of this. Indeed, we beat them seven to nothing yesterday.

The point of privilege is this: There is a nasty rumour going around that I bet $5 against the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil). I know gambling is not allowed in the House and I want to dispel that rumour. If I were going to bet, it would be for at least $10.

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of privilege.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I ask you to take this under advisement. It arises out of business on Friday last, when we asked a question of the acknowledged key player in the doctors' negotiations. We feel our privileges were abused as a result

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened carefully and I cannot see where that is a point of privilege. Mr. Harris: You have not listened to the fact that the minister refused to answer those questions in the Legislature.

Mr Harris: You have not listened to the fact that the minister refused to answer those questions in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Come to the point of privilege.

Mr. Harris: However, you will note from reading the newspapers over the weekend that he quickly left the Legislature, acknowledged his role and answered questions of the media as a lead negotiator in those negotiations.

I am asking you to take under advisement, as the Speaker of the Legislature, whether somebody who plays such a key role should not be obligated to answer questions in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege. It is up to each member what he does outside the House. However, I appreciate that the member has it on the record now.

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBER FOR YORK EAST

Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Clerk had received from the chief election officer, and laid upon the table, the certificate of a by-election held on April 17, 1986:

Electoral district of York East -- Christine Hart; Province of Ontario.

This is to certify that in view of a writ of election, dated March 6, 1986, issued by the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario and addressed to Frances Mastoras, returning officer for the electoral district of York East, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of York East in the Legislative Assembly of the province, in the room of Robert G. Elgie, Esquire, who, since his election as representative of the said electoral district of York East, has resigned his seat, Christine Hart has been returned as duly elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election, which is now lodged of record in my office.

(Signed) Warren R. Bailie, chief election officer; Toronto, April 28, 1986.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you Christine Hart, member-elect for the electoral district of York East, who has taken the oath and signed the roll and now claims the right to take her seat.

Mr. Speaker: Let the honourable member take her seat.

Christine Hart, member-elect for the electoral district of York East, having taken the oath and subscribed the roll, took her seat.

Mr. Grossman: It is always a special day for all members of the assembly when a new member takes his or her seat in the House. Regardless of which side of the House we are on, it is a special day for us all. On behalf of my party, I should like to welcome the new minister for York East to the House.

Mr. McClellan: Promoted already.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: Did I say "minister"? It would not be for long anyway.

In any case, I do wish to welcome her and assure her that her time in the House will no doubt be less difficult, less controversial and less heated than she found the by-election itself. Although I hurt my knee playing basketball, it was certainly aggravated by walking the streets of York East. York East aggravated other parts of my body as well.

While we will fight the member as hard in the House as we fought in York East, there is no doubt her perseverance and intelligence will serve her well in this setting. We take this opportunity to welcome her here and to wish her well during the coming months.

Mr. Rae: The member for York East (Miss Hart) should enjoy this day because it is one of the few occasions on which everybody says nice things. That has been my experience, although I do not know about others. Perhaps she will be luckier than I have been.

In any event, as I did on election night, I want to congratulate the member for a very fine campaign and for her victory and that of her party in the by-election. I know she will be bringing a strong message, particularly about beer and wine in the corner store. I will be glad to arrange a meeting with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) so that the real views of the people of York East can be expressed to that minister and the government.

Seriously, I welcome the member. She will find, as I am sure we all have found, that for all the comments that are made about how difficult public life is, it has its unique rewards. However long her career may be, and that is a matter for yet more partisan conjecture, I know she will enjoy it and will find that the rather bizarre camaraderie that occasionally extends across party lines will be extended to her as she joins in the life of this unique ship as we continue to float along for the benefit of the people of the province.

I extend my congratulations and welcome to the member. May her stay, however long or short, be an enjoyable one.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Unfortunately, I find myself disagreeing with my friend the leader of the New Democratic Party. I find that people on this side of the House are always saying nice things about everything. This perhaps speaks to his opposition mentality.

This is a very happy day for members of our party. All of us who have got to know the member for York East well welcome her as an esteemed and respected colleague. I am sure she will quickly familiarize herself with the rules of this unique institution and make an active and meaningful contribution.

As an interested observer of the York East by-election, I thought it was a very wholesome exercise. There was significant discussion of the issues. There were three extremely fine candidates running there. I would like to compliment Gina Brannan, who ran for the Conservative Party, and Gordon Crann, who ran for the New Democratic Party. In my view, these three people were a compliment to, and indeed uplifted, the democratic system and process. As members of this institution, we can be extremely proud of what transpired in York East. I take special delight in the results, but it was a great comment on the process we all serve and in which we labour together to try to build a better Ontario.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As honourable members are no doubt aware, the Canadian Labour Congress has designated today as a national day of mourning for Canadian workers who have been killed or injured on the job. I commend the congress for this effort to draw into sharper focus the occupational health and safety challenge that faces all Canadians. While that challenge is always evident in Ontario, which has the greatest economic activity of any province in our country, it seems particularly marked now.

The total number of accident claims reported in Ontario in 1985 was more than 426,000, an increase of almost 10 per cent over 1984. The total number of accidents for which lost time was compensated also increased by about 10 per cent. While there has been a marginal improvement in the first three months of 1986, the distressing trend of the past year has persisted, as lost-time claims have increased by five per cent over the first quarter of 1985.

This government is not unaware of the continuing need for determined vigilance when it comes to work-place health and safety. As Minister of Labour, I consider health and safety to be the most important area of public policy for which I am responsible.

In that regard, the government has taken and will continue to take important steps to help ensure that the province's work places are safe for the men and women who work in them. With the possible exception of the period in which the Occupational Health and Safety Act was drafted, debated, passed in this assembly and put into force, I doubt there has been a time in the life of our province where there has been so much positive government activity in the health and safety field.

Despite everybody's best efforts, however, there will continue to be instances in which the health of workers will be harmed and in which workers will be injured and perhaps even killed.

That is why this day is so important. It reminds all of us in this House and in this province of the lurking dangers of the work place and of the terrible toll those dangers can exact from workers, families and friends.

It brings home to all of us the perpetual need, day in and day out, year in and year out, to be ever-persistent in an unremitting effort to quell injury and disease in the work place.

The working men and women of Ontario have the fundamental right to be protected from any harm that might come to them at work. This minister and this government are dedicated to playing an instrumental part in assuring that protection.

I presume the critics will want to say a word on this important day. Afterwards, I ask all of the members to rise and join me in a minute of silent tribute to those workers who have died as a result of work-place accidents and work-place disease.

Mr. Gillies: On behalf of the official opposition, I want to join with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) in congratulating and recognizing the efforts of the Canadian Labour Congress to organize this important tribute to the workers of this province who have died as a result of work-related injury or disease.

We want to recognize the efforts of the minister and former ministers. I think particularly of our former colleague Russell Ramsay, who fought to bring about improvements to occupational health and safety and to workers' compensation benefits for the survivors of workers killed on the job. Members are aware of the improvements that were made to survivors' benefits, the lump sum award and continuing benefit related to the age of the surviving spouse.

While these steps were important, nothing can replace the loss of a loved one to a work-place injury. It is our responsibility as legislators to ensure that everything possible is being done to reduce the number of fatalities and accidents in the work place.

All workers in the province have the right to expect that every possible measure will be taken to protect them and their physical wellbeing from occupational health hazards. We must pay increased attention to accident prevention and refine the system, to bring about the best mix of controls and incentives for workers and their employers.

I do not doubt the sincerity of the minister in his desire to improve the overall health and safety performance in the work place. However, we view with alarm the increase in injuries over the past year, the highest number of work-place injuries in this province since 1974. The percentage of workers who are off the job from accidents is also up, representing a 20 per cent jump from two years ago.

Approximately 200 workers in this province die every year in a work-related incident. We cannot allow this to continue. The vast majority of these fatalities and occupational injuries are preventable and, as such, cannot be justified or tolerated. As legislators, we must not be satisfied until we develop a strategy that will drastically reduce and, I hope, some day perhaps even eliminate work-place accidents.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Every year 1,000 people in Canada die on the job. Thousands are disabled permanently, hundreds of thousands are injured and thousands more die from cancer, lung disease and other ailments that are caused by exposure to toxic substances.

The minister and the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) have both mentioned the latest and most horrifying statistics with respect to the number of accidents in Ontario. Even a neutral political observer would agree that there must be something terribly wrong with the structure of government, the responsibilities of employers and current policies when there are 426,000 accidents in 1985, which is a 10 per cent increase over 1984.

My party's critic the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), who again today is discussing these questions with citizens across the province, has been in many respects the conscience of this Legislature with respect to this issue. No one has fought harder or worked harder. I know the report he is now drafting, following the number of hearings that have been held, will be a landmark document in terms of the kinds of changes that need to happen to make sure that we get a safe working environment in this province and that one day we will take pride in the fact that we do not need to have a moment's silence for people killed that year because no one will have died on the job that year.

I do not think any of us can rest satisfied until that has happened. We are an industrial province. We are what has been called the manufacturing heartland. But there is something terribly wrong in the way in which we organize ourselves in the work place if this level of death is taking place and these numbers of people are getting killed. Something has to change; something has to give.

I do not want to inject too partisan a note into these discussions, but I do want to say that the structures and the policies are not working; no government can take pride in its record or its policies as long as we have the numbers of accidents and deaths we so tragically have in this province.

On that note, it would be appropriate if we all took a moment to reflect on what has happened, and what is happening today, and honoured those who have died by keeping our silence for a bit of time.

The House observed one minute's silence.

WINE PRICING

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I wish to inform the House of a historic agreement regarding wine prices. This agreement arose out of concerted decisions between the Ontario government, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, Ontario and United States wine producers and the federal governments of Canada and the US. This agreement settles long-standing concerns of Ontario grape growers and wine producers who sought a fair opportunity in the Ontario marketplace.

The agreement is based on a new pricing formula which requires the percentage tax markup on domestic and imported wines to be reduced and the imposition of a flat markup. This means that effective May 26, 1986, the markup on Ontario wines will be reduced from 58 per cent to one per cent. The markup on imported wines will be reduced from 123 per cent to 66 per cent. These reductions will be replaced by a uniform markup of $13.50 per case of 12 750-mililitre bottles.

Overall, the effect of the new pricing formula will be to lower the prices of Ontario and higher-priced imported wines, while lower-priced imported wines will be increased in price.

A number of factors have led to this new pricing formula. As a result of concerns it had with marketing practices in a number of Canadian provinces, the US government in 1984 passed the Wine Equity Act, under which Canada has been designated as a country with trading practices said to be unfair to US wine producers. The Ontario wine industry has shown that the European Community subsidizes its wine industry in the range of $1.50 to $2.50 per bottle, creating an unfair competitive advantage which has caused difficulties for the Ontario wine industry in holding its share of the market.

As a result of these and other considerations, especially the Ontario government's desire to implement generally fairer and more competitive marketplace practices, discussions took place initially between representatives of the Ontario and American wine industries and, subsequently, among the governments of Ontario, Canada and the United States. This led to agreement on how Ontario would respond to the points raised by US wine producers.

This agreement, which was based in part on an earlier industry agreement called "the Niagara accord," included the adoption of the new pricing formula.

I should also point out that concurrence was reached on this agreement with Canadian federal trade representatives at meetings held in Ottawa on March 13 and 14, 1986.

All this has enabled Ontario to address the question raised by the US and at the same time to address the concerns of the Ontario wine industry.

We believe all our commitments in respect to the agreement are in keeping with our obligations under the 1979 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

The Ontario government is satisfied that the new pricing formula will make Ontario wine a more attractive product to purchase, thereby leading to an improved market share for Ontario grape growers and wine producers.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Premier, who is rapidly catapulting towards a severe disruption in the health care system, perhaps as early as 12 days from today. Since the Canada Health Act does not require him to take any action for one full year yet, and given the negotiations, would the Premier not agree that the wisest thing to do would be to replace the series of meetings that are now being held once or twice a week, working to an early deadline, and instead to say to the doctors in the province that he will take the balance of 1986 to try to work out a satisfactory agreement with them?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I realize the Tory approach is always to delay, procrastinate and take time. Let us take as an example the Niagara accord, which my colleague just announced. The Tories had been fooling around with it for about eight years and could not come to a conclusion. We believe decisions have to be made, and we believe in full consultation.

The honourable member has been running around the province suggesting there has been no consultation, and I say with great respect that that is patent nonsense. My colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has had a number of meetings. Our position is very clear. As long as we think we may be able to come to an accommodation, we are prepared to do that, but we are going to end extra billing. There are ways to do that, but we do not think the member's proposal at this moment is very constructive; there is nothing new there. All we would do under his idea would be to let it go, pass the cutoff date and lose $150 million at that point.

Mr. Grossman: I am not suggesting the Premier go by the cutoff date. My request to him is a simple one. If he believes in consultation, as he likes to say he does

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We are going to fill in the seats around the member first, so it will not look empty.

Mr. Grossman: I will wait until the chief negotiator has finished giving advice.

If he believes in consultation, as he says he does, and if he puts peace in the health care system and the patients of this province ahead of a political victory, as he should, why does he not protect his $53 million and the patients by simply saying to the doctors, "Instead of a series of rushed meetings this week and next week before May 7, why do we not negotiate till the end of 1986," still leaving him enough time to implement the legislation if he so chooses?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member says it is going to happen, and I gather there is a rally planned for May 7, but that is by no means a cutoff date for any discussions. I do not know where the member got that idea. We will continue to discuss this matter. I appreciate his taking the Neville Chamberlain approach. He thinks that there will be peace in our time and that if we delay this, something magic will happen next fall or next spring. There is no evidence to suggest that. We are most anxious to resolve this problem, but we are not persuaded that his idea of today is going to be constructive in doing that.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Just out of curiosity, what is the Premier's timetable? We hear what he says here in the House today in answer to certain questions and then outside he says something slightly different. I gather last week he said it was conceivable that the discussions could go on or that the legislation could be delayed at least until the fall.

Since the Premier seems to be in a mood today where he is saying how decisive he is going to be -- by contrast with other days and other weeks -- can he tell us precisely what his time frame today is for the government and precisely how much longer patients in this province are going to have to shell out $1 million a week in extra bills which they do not want to pay, which in many cases they cannot afford to pay and which, in the view of the majority, they should not have to pay?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My time frame now is the same as it was last week, the week before and the week before that. Let me be precise. I am not in a position to give the honourable member a precise date. I am not prepared to stand here and say it is May 6, May 17 or whatever. But I am saying that as long as we feel meaningful negotiations are going on in good faith and there is a possibility of a negotiated settlement here, we will continue to discuss that. We will not discuss it for ever. I have told the member before that we would like to see a resolution of the matter this spring. I would like to see it tomorrow ideally, but I cannot suggest that would happen. I would like to see a resolution of this matter this spring. That is the line towards which we are working. I am not in a position to give the member a precise date, as I know he would like.

Mr. Grossman: If that is the case, then I ask the Premier whether he would be willing, to satisfy the legitimate concerns of the patients of Ontario, to simply say to the OMA that if it is prepared now to commit to meaningful and real negotiations with his government through to early fall -- to use the words of his chief negotiator -- he would commit to the OMA not to bring forward the legislation until early fall?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend insults the OMA by suggesting it has not been involved in meaningful discussions thus far. The member cannot spring forward and fall back at the same time. We are hearing so many strange signals from those people. I am very sorry about the member's recent injury, and I hope he is feeling better today; but when he was away, does he know what his colleague was saying in this House and otherwise? I gather he has changed his position a couple of times on it over the weekend. That is not particularly constructive in these discussions, which are meaningful. There are some differences of opinion, and they are serious differences of opinion. We are hoping for a resolution, and if he has any good ideas today or tomorrow, even if they change over the next couple of days, we will be very happy to take them into account.

Mr. Grossman: If we do, we will send them to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott); maybe he will share them with the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), or maybe he will not.

I have another question for the Premier. On these negotiations, can the Premier confirm that he has offered the doctors of this province a substantial portion of the $53-million refund he is so jealously protecting from Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As the member knows, we have taken the position that we are not discussing in public the details of any discussion with the OMA. When the OMA wrestled the member to the ceiling more than four years ago, he is the one who said that one should never negotiate in this House. That was constructive advice.

We are searching for creative proposals and suggestions, and the doctors may have ideas on how to work with these things. We believe there are a number of design flaws in the system that we have to work on now and in the long term. We want to work with the doctors in that regard. l can tell the member I am aware of what he has read. Those discussions have not been made public by anyone in this government.

Mr. Grossman: Let us try to clarify this bungled negotiation and whether the Premier has given away the $53 million. I refer him to the words of his chief negotiator, the Attorney General, when he said last Friday, "If you have seen the 10-point program you will report what it says and you will recognize that it says nothing about money." Let me now read from point 2 of the government's proposals put to the OMA a week or so ago: "The government, with a substantial proportion of the recoveries from the annual federal holdback of $53 million, proposes establishing a fund for supplementary payments to designated Ontario physicians, with the OMA and the government determining the criteria for payment from this fund."

In view of that offer, which presumably was made on his behalf to the OMA, is the Premier now prepared to clarify his initial response and acknowledge that he has offered to give away "a substantial proportion of the $53-million holdback"?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Is the member criticizing me for giving away the store? Is that his position right now? I find this absolutely incredible. I have said in the past and the minister has said in the past that rewarding excellence is something this government believes in. There are possible ways to do that with respect to the OMA. To the best of my knowledge, specific amounts were not discussed, but the minister may be able to add to this. I find the line of questioning strange, to say the least. The member is taking a different position from what he has said in the past and every day he takes a new position.

Mr. Rae: It is fair to say that what is on the table is an open secret. Can the Premier explain why the government was so determined to make a very large financial offer to the OMA, when there was no mention at any point in the throne speech or during the whole discussion of health care about doctors' incomes being one of the underfunded problems in the health care system? In all the OMA ads I have heard on commercial radio, I do not recall having heard a doctor say, "I am not getting enough money and that is why I am mad at the government." If that is the case, why is the government trying to throw money at doctors as a solution to the problem?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not in a position to comment on the specifics that have been discussed. I read the same things that the member reads. To be helpful, they are wildly inaccurate. In this business there is a lot of speculation daily about what I do, what the leader of the third party does and what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) does. That is part of the business we all are involved in. In these discussions we have seen a minister who has stayed steadily on course and has kept constructive discussions, and we are going to find a resolution.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier has referred to his steady-as-she-goes former Minister of Health. If he will acknowledge that the Attorney General was wrong and that this document does reflect his offer to give away a substantial proportion of the $53 million, will he invite his Minister of Health to stop misleading the public by suggesting, as he did in his comments to the standing committee on social development, "The recovery of the penalties will build a 300-bed acute care hospital or provide 500 more chronic care beds or pay the cost of running five trauma units for the seriously injured"? Will he tell his Minister of Health that he has given away his right to put this case to the public because he offered a substantial proportion of the $53 million to the OMA?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect to the member, the facts in the newspaper from which he is reading do not accurately reflect what has gone on. If the member has a question, all he has to do is ask the minister, who is sitting here. Why not ask him what is going on? He will be very happy to tell the member.

2:40 p.m.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Today the minister took great pride in talking about so much positive government activity in the health and safety field. On Friday I was in Timmins and once again heard of the extraordinary evidence with respect to cancer and to conditions in the gold mines in Ontario and the alarming new evidence of a virtual cancer epidemic in many of our mining communities.

Given that fact and the fact the government has had a report since 1983, pointing out that workers who have been in the gold mines and uranium mines have a far higher incidence of stomach cancer than the general population and that number is growing and growing virtually daily --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Rae: -- can the minister explain why to date the Workers' Compensation Board has not recognized a single case of stomach cancer as being connected to working in the mines when the evidence is literally overwhelming that it must be the case?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member should know the Workers' Compensation Board has not yet decided that the evidence is overwhelming that the causal link is there. That is part of the second phase of the Muller study. There is an amount of research now being done by the board for the United Steelworkers to get numbers going back a very long way. We continue to look at these matters, but as I am sure the member would wish to acknowledge, the relationship between gold mining and cancers, the kind the member has raised, has perhaps not been established yet. These matters may carry forward to appeal and can be referred to the new Industrial Disease Standards Panel.

Mr. Rae: The evidence with respect to stomach cancer is overwhelming. Since the minister has struck out on that and there are people and families today that are not receiving compensation and should be, can he explain why, when the government has had studies with respect to the gold mines since the 1960s, and again in 1976, 1978, 1983 and 1984, clearly establishing that rates of lung cancer, specifically for gold miners, are catastrophically higher than expected in Timmins and Kirkland Lake, and those people and their families are still not being compensated

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Rae: -- there has not yet been a lung cancer case recognized by the Workers' Compensation Board with respect to gold miners?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think the member would wish to wait the additional couple of months until phase 2 of the Muller study is completed; because as the member knows, the 1983 study, which he so glibly points out has established all of this relationship, did nothing of the kind. That is what phase 2 of the Muller study is about. I wish and hope the member would be willing to wait the additional period of time until the phase 2 report is out.

If there is that kind of relationship, if it is such that workers' compensation benefits ought to be paid to any or all of those miners in the gold mines, the uranium mines or the mixed ore mines, then in this government's opinion, not only ought compensation to be paid but also it will be paid. Let us wait until the studies, which will definitely establish the relationship one way or another, are released.

Mr. Rae: There is a pile of studies that have been sponsored by the Ministry of Labour right up to this ceiling, and still this government will not act when it comes to an issue as basic as what is happening to the health and safety of miners in this province. Those are the facts.

The minister will be aware, since he is so acquainted with all of the different reports, that in the 1978-79 mortality study done for the federal Department of National Health and Welfare, it says, "Large excess lung cancer mortality among males in Kirkland Lake and Timmins was not expected. Other components of the air in underground mines which may contribute to the risk of lung cancer include arsenic, diesel fumes, thoron and its daughter products." The ministry has known about that with respect to thoron and its daughter products since 1960.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Rae: With respect to arsenic, can the minister explain why, when as recently as March 1986 arsenic was finally designated as a designated substance and when the regulations were published, mines were exempt from this particular regulation?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am aware of exactly the point the member makes. Frankly, the decision was made to exempt mines. It is a decision which we are looking at and, as we will with --

Mr. Rae: The minister made that decision.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I understand the point my friend makes, but the tying in of the relationship has actually followed designating that regulation. Not only with arsenic but in any other area, this government is going to continue on an ongoing basis to review not only those substances which it is in the process of designating, but even those substances and the exposure levels which are now in place. We are not afraid to go back to take a second look. If changes are appropriate, they will be made.

Mr. Rae: It is hard to know what one can say about a minister who publishes a regulation on March 27, 1986, and then says he is looking at it again.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with respect to free trade. No doubt he will know from reading the papers that the Senate finance committee has approved the fast-track talks on bilateral free trade by the overwhelming vote of 10 to 10. Can the minister give us the categorical assurance of his government that, in the event the auto pact decreed between Canada and the United States is a subject of those negotiations in any way, Ontario will urge the federal government to withdraw from the talks?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We have always made it very strong that we do not believe the Auto Pact should be one of the things that is placed on the table.

Mr. Rae: That is not quite what I asked. I would like to ask him specifically about this since he knows what the position is.

The position of the federal government now, stated very clearly by Mr. Mulroney, and the position of the United States government is that there are no preconditions. Given that harsh fact, what now are the position and response of the government of Ontario? The government of Canada has said everything is up for sale and everything is on the table. Now that is known, what is the minister's position with respect to the auto pact?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Our position is the same as it has been in the past, that is, that the auto pact should not be put on the table.

Mr. Brandt: Can the minister indicate whether he has conveyed his concerns about the auto pact to his federal counterparts? If so, what has he said to the Prime Minister of this country with respect to that concern and any other concerns covering other industries that he may have some suspicion could be affected negatively by free trade? Will the minister let us in at this time on what he has discussed with the federal government?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Not only the matter concerning the auto trade but all the other issues about which we are worried have been expressed to the federal government.

Mr. Rae: Let me try again.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: If the auto pact is the subject of negotiations, what is the minister going to do then?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: That is hypothetical. We would have to deal with it when it happens.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Sarnia.

Mr. Brandt: I am trying. I want to wait until it dies down.

My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology as well. Last Thursday in the House, with reference to the same issue of free trade, the minister stated, "My position is the same as the Premier's." I am still trying to find out what that position is, but it is the same as the Premier's.

2:50 p.m.

If this is the case, can the minister indicate how, in a recent speech he delivered to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, he was an enthusiastic supporter of free trade? He indicated many of the opportunities that would present themselves to this province if there was freer trade between ourselves and our neighbours to the south. At the same time, the Premier has mentioned again and again that up to 300,000 jobs could be lost in this province if we had a free trade agreement.

Which position is the government taking? Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Perhaps the member should have checked the speech closely. He mentioned it last Thursday as the speech I gave in Washington. I have not been in Washington for approximately 10 years.

Mr. Gillies: He did not say that. He said the chamber of commerce right here.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: He did say that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: When I spoke to the chamber of commerce, I was for increased trade with the United States. We are all in agreement that we want increased trade with the US.

Mr. Brandt: I have the minister's speech and it was to the chamber of commerce. I was incorrect and I apologize for stating the speech was given in Washington.

Mr. Timbrell: You said the chamber.

Mr. Brandt: We are speaking of the comments I made last Thursday. The minister is correct that I indicated he gave the speech in Washington. I have the speech here and it was not delivered in Washington. We have that cleared up.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a supplementary question?

Mr. Brandt: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The minister says in his speech: "I believe that two-way trade is vital in our strategies to reshape, rebuild and rejuvenate our industries. Together as economic partners" -- the reference must be to the United States -- "we can get back into fighting form."

Will the minister once and for all clarify where he stands and where his Premier stands? Frankly, I do not know where they stand.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Just as you and I are for increased trade with the United States, all of us want increased trade with that country. Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Port Arthur is being very reasonable and is waiting to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister outline clearly for the House the items his government has told the federal government cannot be on the negotiating table?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: l believe where we stand on the subject of free trade and the topics we feel should not be on the table are a matter of public record.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Premier relating to the massive downsizing and permanent layoffs announced by Algoma Steel last week, which could result in a 25 per cent unemployment rate in Sault Ste. Marie within a year. Is he going to take action to maintain the steel jobs we now have in the Sault and stimulate new economic activity in that area, or is he going to adopt the federal Conservative approach of providing retraining and relocation so that workers from northern Ontario can move to southern Ontario? What is the government's policy? Is it moving jobs to the people or moving people to the jobs?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are very concerned about the economic vitality of northern Ontario. As the honourable member knows, this is not the only problem there that has been faced for some time. This government is spending a great deal of time canvassing its options in that regard. As the member says, our responsibility is to widen the economic base. It is something we are very concerned about. We are doing an inventory of every single option we have available to us to bring a co-ordinated policy to that problem. I understand there will be discussion of this issue in the emergency debate the member is proposing this afternoon. I know the ministers are very well prepared to discuss some of these options and initiatives with him and will welcome his views.

Mr. Foulds: If, as he indicated in his answer to my colleague the member for Sault Ste. Marie, the Premier realizes Algoma Steel's layoffs are part of a concerted attack on the economic capability of northern Ontario, particularly in the manufacturing sector, can he tell us why Canadian Pacific is allowed to get away with its withdrawal of commitment and capital in Algoma Steel and in Great Lakes Forest Products in Thunder Bay? What specific steps will he take? Will he bring in legislation to impose a one-year moratorium on the plant closure at Thunder Bay, as was requested by the union, since he was so ready to bring in legislation last week to force workers back to work?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure I see this matter in the same -- may I use the word "conspiratorial"? -- terms in which my honourable colleague opposite sees it. These are two extremely difficult situations at the moment. The ministries have been involved from the beginning. The waferboard plant in the member's home town is a serious one. The negotiations broke off this weekend. We did have a labour negotiator --

Mr. Foulds: Robert Joyce.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Joyce was there. We stand ready and willing to provide any other assistance we can by way of an arbitrator or whatever.

The member will be aware that there is a fundamental difference of opinion between union and management over financial matters. It might be constructive to have an objective view of the situation. I know the management is pushing for certain concessions to try to make that operation competitive. In a way, it is a labour-management situation at present, but at the same time it speaks to some general competitive problems throughout northern Ontario.

These matters are of enormous concern to this administration. As the member and his many colleagues who have brought this to our attention before say, this is not an isolated thing. There are major changes going on in the mining business, the forestry industry, the steel business and others. It is part of our initiatives with respect to the federal government for changes in respect to steel imports into the country and many things. I assure the member --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: I am sure the Premier is aware that layoffs across the province in the early months of this year are up by 65 per cent from the same period last year, but in Sault Ste. Marie they are up by 450 per cent. We take some comfort in the fact that the Premier is looking at options, but could he tell the House his immediate plans to help in the economic adjustment and improvement of that community?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is absolutely right in his figures. He will be aware at the same time that in the last year 173,000 net new jobs have been created in the province. That is no consolation to the people of Sault Ste. Marie, as I am aware, but it speaks to some of the problems we were talking about earlier. I have asked the ministers and the ministries to canvass every single option we have with respect to Sault Ste. Marie. I cannot tell the member there is one dramatic thing that is going to put a Toyota plant into Sault Ste. Marie, although I would like to see it if we could do it.

We are going to work with Algoma, as we have been doing. The ministers are going this week and there is a committee of deputy ministers going next week. I have asked the ministers to look at how they can contribute, however small the contribution, to try to broaden the economic base of Sault Ste. Marie. It is a very worrisome situation, to which I say to the member in all candour I do not have an easy, instant solution.

TOURISM COMMERCIAL

Mr. Rowe: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Can the minister confirm that the latest tourism TV commercial for his ministry was filmed indoors with a man-made lake, an artificial waterfall and an artificial general store?

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, we have a new agency in place in this province. I do not know where they were filmed.

[Failure of sound system]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rowe: I thank the minister for that artificial answer.

In view of the fact that there are more than 200,000 natural lakes in Ontario and perhaps 1,000 or more functioning general stores that are real, can the minister explain why he would allow such a decision and why most of the footage was shot on a holiday Easter weekend, probably at double time and a half? If this is true, it is not only Ontario that is "incredible" as the minister's new TV ad says; I suggest it is the minister who is incredible in wasting taxpayers' money.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the honorable member that the agency is continuing to film, even

[Failure of sound system]

Mr. Harris: On a point of technicality, Mr. Speaker: The microphone did not appear to be working. I do not know why Hansard would be prejudging and not answering, as right as they might be.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I noted it was not working, and I hope it has been recorded somehow.

3 p.m.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Swart: My question is for the Premier. He was quoted by the Canadian Press and other media last Saturday as saying his provincial government "does not have control over gasoline prices. They are a federal matter." I am amazed how he could have said that and meant it seriously.

Has the Premier forgotten that the House passed legislation in July 1975 to control the price of gasoline, both wholesale and retail, and that in debate it dealt with the issue of constitutional authority? All parties, including his party, agreed the province could exercise such power. Can he tell us where he got his current legal interpretation that he cannot exercise such power to control the price of gasoline?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am going by memory, but my mind is not as swift now as it was 10 years ago. I thought it was with respect to the Isbister report on the freeze on prices coming down the pipe for a 90-day period just prior to an election. Am I right'?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think that was it. The honourable member will recall we were heading up to an election or something like that, and the former government wanted to make a statement about the whole matter.

Mr. Speaker, may I refer this question to my friend the minister responsible? He may be able to add to this.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am delighted to respond. The honourable member may know that legislation is no longer on the books. There is no question that if we as a body wanted to institute such legislation, we could. But I should tell him that in provinces such as Nova Scotia, where they have regulated gas prices, they are paying more than we are paying in Ontario.

Mr. Swart: Now the minister is admitting the Premier made a misstatement of fact when he said the province does not have the power to control retail prices.

Will the minister admit the absolute futility and ineffectiveness of everything that he and this government have done about gas prices to date? The minister will recall he stated publicly last week that the oil companies should bring gas prices across the rest of Ontario down to the 37 cents that was listed in Toronto at the time. Instead of doing that, two days later the oil companies took the 37-cent price up to that of the rest of the province, 41 or 42 cents per litre. That is real performance on his part.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Swart: I have a supplementary. If the minister has any sincerity about bringing gas prices down and protecting the consumer, why does he not stop posturing, quit passing the buck and actually implement legislation, which he now says he has the power to do, and use it to bring the price of gasoline down?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will get to the throne speech some time.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: As usual, the member confuses some of the issues. I am saying that right now there is no legislation in Ontario that can control the price of gasoline.

An hon. member: Then bring it in.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We could bring it in if there were a great cause to do it.

I should also tell the member that, if he will recall, about a month ago I predicted the price of fuel in Ontario would be 37 or 38 cents by the end of April or the beginning of May. This morning, if he drove anywhere in Toronto, he would have seen prices at 36.9 cents.

I am very concerned about the price of fuel. I have been working with the oil companies, and we are continuing to monitor it.

Mr. Baetz: In view of the fact that the minister is still hanging on to his empty and vague promise of some weeks ago that by tonight or tomorrow the gas prices would be 36 cents a litre, how can he explain that in Ottawa-Carleton they were paying 48 cents a litre? And what is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The price of fuel is declining, and I am not happy with the state of the price of fuel. I am working with the oil companies. The Premier has made a statement that I agree with completely. The statement of Shell Canada that it will not pass along savings is totally unacceptable. However, the honourable member has to understand that we are working on it and that the price of fuel is coming down. I am not happy with where it is, but it is coming down in Ottawa as well.

LES DROITS DES FRANCOPHONES

M. Guindon: J'ai une question pour le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones. Je veux savoir ce que le ministre fait, en ce moment, pour garantir à la majorité francophone de Kapuskasing ses droits?

L'hon. M. Grandmaître: Je veux rassurer le député de Cornwall que je suis très au courant de la situation à Kapuskasing. J'ai écrit, la semaine dernière, au maire et aux membres du Conseil municipal et je dois l'assurer que mercredi prochain, lors de leur réunion, ils prendront une décision, une décision du Conseil et non pas du ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones.

Mr. Guindon: I have a supplementary question for the minister responsible for francophone affairs and Minister of Municipal Affairs. With the present confusion in Kapuskasing concerning the ability of a municipal council to designate a community officially bilingual, what is the minister doing to clarify this matter?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: At present, the Municipal Act gives councils or municipalities the right to be serviced in French or in English. That is very clear and simple; it is in section 108 of the Municipal Act. Some 31 municipalities in this province have declared themselves officially bilingual, and Kapuskasing can do the very same thing.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Ramsay: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister is well aware of the hard times that agriculture is suffering. Symptomatic of that, a good example would be the Depression-era prices we are receiving for wheat right now. But those commodities in Ontario that are surviving, staying barely afloat, are those that are supply-managed.

Now we have free trade talks beginning, and as the minister knows, everything is on the table; there are no preconditions. Is the minister prepared to allow supply-managed commodities to go the way of everything else that seems to be going with these fast-track talks?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: This ministry has a committee established, working in conjunction with a national body, to make a study of each sector of our agriculture industry that could be impacted detrimentally by free trade. We are going to know exactly where the benefits and the costs are going to be if we enter into free trade discussions. If it appears the costs are going to exceed the benefits, such as losing supply management, then we will be there at the bargaining table, through our Premier (Mr. Peterson), telling Mr. Mulroney what impact this is going to have not only on Ontario but also throughout this whole country. We will be there and we will make sure we protect the agriculture industry.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Ramsay: I am very glad to know the minister will be there. I am not sure the invitation has been extended; let us hope it is.

The minister is well aware that especially these supply-managed commodities in Ontario are the very ones for which the United States has the capacity to replace all our production. It is not a matter of being hurt or of what the cost is; we are talking about total replacement of that production in Ontario. What are we doing to prevent that replacement of this industry in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The simple answer would be that we are not going to lose our supply management programs because of free trade negotiations. We are going to be there to protect a program that has prevented the chaos they have in the US, where they have to sell a million dairy cattle and then buy back 400 million pounds of beef. What kind of chaotic situation is that in the US`? We do not want that here in Ontario, and we are not going to get it.

We will be there and we will fight for the agricultural industry. It is not only this minister who is working on it but also various consultants, as the honourable member may have noticed. He has probably read in the paper that William Doyle, a former assistant deputy minister, said that if we do lose supply management in chicken, it will be the end of the chicken industry in this province. We are not going to let that happen.

Mr. Stevenson: We, along with the farmers in Grey county, know the minister will be there talking. They listened to him for two hours not too long ago, but from what I have heard, they still do not know exactly what his party's views are on free trade. Can the minister clarify just where he stands today?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am most interested in having that comment come from that critic. There was an article in the Windsor Star just the other day, talking about the member for Durham-York. The article said:

"With more than 10 months of wound-licking under his belt, Stevenson clearly had the gloves on and wanted to score points for his languishing party. Instead, he came across as punch-drunk, bitter and a poor alternative to Riddell and his still-popular Liberal colleagues."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have listened very carefully. Is the minister going to answer the question or not?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I simply repeat what I have already said. This ministry is responsible for knowing what impact tree trade will have on each and every sector of the agricultural industry. When our committee has completed its report, it will convey that to the Premier, who will be standing up for agriculture when free trade negotiations begin. We will not stand by and see free trade take away those programs that have meant so much to our farmers in this province. We will defend our agricultural industry, the supply management programs and all the other good programs we have for agriculture. We will not trade them away.

PROCESSING PLANT

Mr. Stevenson: We will see what the Minister of Agriculture and Food has to say here. Three and a half months ago, the federal government gave its approval to give $1.5 million to the Southern Ontario Tomato Co-operative to establish a multiproduct processing business, including tomato paste. Has the minister finally ended his indecision on its request to the Ontario government for $1 million?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It is not indecision on the part of this minister. We want to know whether the banks will stand behind it for the remaining $2 million that it has to put in to make this plant fly. The federal Minister of Agriculture and I have discussed this matter a number of times. We are waiting for the federal minister to make a decision on whether he has

Mr. Stevenson: What a pile of crap. How times change.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Wait. Just listen. It is not. We are waiting for the federal minister to make a decision on whether he has $1.5 million to sink into that program. When he tells us he has the $1.5 million, then I will make my move. He is also wondering whether the banks are going to support Topaz for the other $2 million the company must have to make the plant go.

Mr. Stevenson: The minister should read some of the press releases of the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) from a few months ago.

It is very clear the federal minister has made a decision, the banks are ready to go and this minister has been dragging his feet. In fact, part of his own ministry has been pressing the company to get its processing licence and it cannot because the minister has not made a decision.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat for a moment.

I should remind the House that under standing order 19(a) all members should rise and address the chair. Rather than pointing back and forth at each other, would you mind pointing to me?

Mr. Stevenson: I will be glad to direct my comments to you, Mr. Speaker, or to anybody else in this House, if I thought anyone could get through to the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Do I take it you do not have a supplementary?

Mr. Stevenson: I will place my supplementary.

It is planting season. The shareholders, the bank and everybody else are waiting on the minister's decision. Why has the minister put this group into such a time crisis by delaying his own decision?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: If the honourable member has a pipeline to my federal counterpart, I suggest that as soon as he gets out of this question period, he jump on the line, phone my federal counterpart and tell him to let me know if he has the $1.5 million to put into the program. Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Some members are wasting time for other members.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. In view of the great wealth that Algoma Steel Corp. has taken out of the Wawa area for many years, the high productivity of the workers in the Algoma Ore division mine and the fact that there are 25 years of iron ore reserves left in the Wawa area, and considering the responsibility of the company to that community, does the minister agree that Algoma Steel must make a clear commitment to the community of Wawa and must not cut production at Algoma Ore division any further until the company has closed out its operations at the Tilden mine in Michigan?

Mr. Davis: Page 34. There is the minister's answer.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: No.

I met with the president of Algoma Steel Corp. with regard to the Wawa situation. We are meeting with that company and its people, as well as Algoma Central Railway, next week. We will have to look at the costs. As a government, we will do our best with the railway and the company to try to keep that mine going in its present state. I will be meeting with people in Wawa this week. I will stop there on Wednesday and meet with the union and the mayor. My ministry will put one of our economists in there right away to work with the area to try to find a solution.

3:20 p.m.

Pour essayer d'améliorer la situation à Wawa, cette semaine, on va envoyer un de nos employés, un économiste pour travailler avec le syndicat et la compagnie pour tenir cette mine en activité jusqu'à ce qu'on ait une solution.

At the same time, I know there are other mining companies in the area that are very close to a production decision. We are working with them also. Perhaps we will go beyond that. I will look to my own program on mining to accelerate a decision in this area.

Mr. Wildman: Since the minister has said he will be meeting with the union and the company in Wawa, is he aware that over the last few years Algoma has sourced more and more of its iron ore from the Tilden mine in Michigan to the point that the Algoma Ore division is now providing only about 40 per cent of the ore used at the Algoma Steel Corp., whereas historically it was at a level of 60 per cent? is he aware that the union anticipates the company may intend to cut the capacity at the Algoma Ore division sinter plant to 900,000 tons from the current capacity of 1.8 million tons? If he is aware of that, what does he intend to say to the company with regard to its Tilden-Michigan operation?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I am not aware that the number of tons is going to go down from 1.8 million to 900,000. When I meet with the company again this week, I will take into account what the member is telling me and then, with the Premier, I will make a decision.

ONTARIO HUMANE SOCIETY

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Last Thursday the minister told the House the Ontario Humane Society had not yet made an application to his ministry for its annual grant for 1986-87. Is the minister not aware that the society has been requesting adequate funding from the provincial government for several years to enable it to carry out its important responsibilities for enforcing Criminal Code sections relating to cruelty to farm animals and other animals? The society laid its needs before the deputy minister in February this year. Is he not aware that, as of April 1, the society has been forced to withdraw the services of all its agents and two inspectors across the province --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Bryden: -- because the present level of funding at $125,000 a year is inadequate to enable it to continue to operate that service?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I believe the question is, am I aware that it has indicated a desire for more funds? I am certainly aware it made a request for more funds, based on the Price Waterhouse report of some years ago, but it is still factual that it has not yet filled in its application form for the annual grant that, as has been communicated, will be available as soon as it requests it.

Ms. Bryden: When an organization has an annual grant under the budget, it does not usually make an application. Is the minister aware that the society produced a special edition of its Animal Action bulletin this year with the word "crisis" in two-inch red letters on the top, which I show to the minister? Surely this indicates the need for further funding.

Mr. Speaker: Are you aware, Minister?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I am aware of seeing the bulletin from across the aisle. It has never been sent to my office.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Brandt: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), I will address my question to the Premier.

As the Premier is well aware, the Sarnia community has made a request to the Minister of Health for the funding of a chronic care hospital expansion at St. Joseph's Hospital. In a voluntary effort, the community has raised about $4 million and has been patiently awaiting word from the government when the funding will come forward for that facility. Can the Premier give us some indication of when the Sarnia request will be funded and when other requests -- from right across this province, quite frankly -- will be funded where there is a need for improvements in hospital care'?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry, I cannot assist the honourable member on the specific request of Sarnia. I do not know about it. I can inquire from the minister whether he has any news for the member.

The member's point is well taken. There are a number of requests from right across the province, which is nothing new to him. He is aware of the enormous capital pressures on the system. We are trying to sort this out in as fair-minded a way as we can. There was an announcement in the throne speech that we would take a long-term view of the capital funding project so we should not hold everybody in suspense. We shall try to work with the communities so they will know with some certainty where they fit into the program.

The pressure that is coming for capital funding is no surprise to the member. I do not know how long St. Joseph's Hospital in Sarnia has been on the list; I assume probably for years as have many others around here. I do not know what answers the member gave them when he was a minister of the crown, but he can tell them for us that we shall look at it in context with the needs right across the province and try to do that in as fair-minded a way as we possibly can.

Mr. Brandt: As the Premier is aware, many millions of dollars were expended in hospital expansions in his own area of London. Right across this province there have been many capital expansions. All I am asking of the Premier is to give some indication of when the next round of improvements in hospital expansions is going to take place, recognizing that there has been very little comment from the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) either with respect to needed hospital facilities that have to be improved upon in this province or with respect to other matters, such as the negotiating problem on the extra billing ban. We are looking to the Premier for some leadership on that side to help us with this problem.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect to the member and his colleagues, he really is strange. The Minister of Health was sitting in the House, and the member could have asked him any question he wants to know about. The minister is here most days, a lot more often than most of the members opposite who are in semi-retirement. The minister is here doing his duties. If the member wants to know, he can ask him. There are no secrets here.

Mr. Brandt: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: That is an extremely unfair accusation for the Premier to make. He knows full well there is a lineup of questions. I waited patiently to address my question to the Minister of Health, and in his absence to the Premier. The minister chose to leave, not I. I am here.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the party of the honourable member does not take him seriously enough to put him on the top of the list, I cannot --

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order.

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Morin: I have before me a petition signed by 176 members of the Ontario Motor League requesting the government of Ontario to reduce gasoline tax by 1.1 cents a litre, from 8.3 cents a litre to 7.2 cents a litre immediately, and to phase in further reductions over three years to five cents a litre by 1989.

NATUROPATHY

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

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: "Whereas it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference;

"And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

It is signed by 51 constituents from Oshawa.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a petition regarding Bill 78, the rent control legislation, demanding its immediate implementation.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on social development be reappointed and authorized to meet this afternoon following routine proceedings.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I understand you are going to entertain a motion to set aside the ordinary business. The House leaders have agreed that certain government notices of motion might be proceeded with, and with the agreement of the House, at this time I would like to move resolution 1.

Mr. Speaker: You have heard the suggestion by the government House leader. Do members of the House agree to going ahead with this order of business'?

Agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Hon. Ms. Caplan, resolution 1:

That the standing orders be amended as follows:

1. Standing orders 2, 3 and 4 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"2. (a) The House shall meet on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays at 2 p.m., and on Thursdays at 10 a.m., unless otherwise ordered.

"(b) The bells shall be rung for five minutes before the time appointed for the meeting of the House to summon the members.

"(c) The Speaker shall take the chair at the time appointed on every day fixed for the meeting of the House and shall read the prayers.

"(d) The House shall not meet on New Year's Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Victoria Day, Canada Day, the day fixed for a civic holiday in August, Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day, Remembrance Day, Christmas Day and Boxing Day. When Canada Day falls on a Tuesday, the House shall not meet the preceding day.

" 3. (a) Except as provided in clause (c) and in standing order 28, at 6:30 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sitting day.

"(b) Except as provided in standing order 64(f), at 12 noon on any day on which the House meets in the morning, the Speaker shall leave the chair until 2 p.m.

"(c) The House may sit beyond the hours set out in clause (a) on the passage of a government motion for that purpose. The question on such motion shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate; but such government motion shall not pass if 20 members stand in their places. However, if a recorded vote is requested, the division bell shall be limited to 15 minutes.

"(d) When the House adjourns, the members shall keep their seats until the Speaker has left the chamber.

"4.3. (a) Whenever the House stands adjourned, if it appears to the Speaker, on the advice of the government, that the public interest requires the House to meet at an earlier time, the Speaker may give notice that the House shall meet, and thereupon the House shall meet to transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.

"(b) In the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House shall act in the Speaker's stead for the purposes of this standing order."

2. Standing order 28(a) be amended by striking out "8" in the last line and substituting therefor "5."

3. Standing order 28(b) be amended by striking out "10:30 p.m." in the second line and substituting therefor "6:30 p.m."

4. Standing order 28(f) be amended by striking out "10:30 o'clock" in the first line and substituting therefor "6:30."

5. Standing order 64(a) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"64. (a) Unless otherwise ordered, each Thursday during the session, the House will meet in the morning for the consideration of private members' public business. On such a day, the routine proceedings shall be at 2 p.m."

6. Standing order 64(f) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"64. (f) No question shall be put to the House before 12 noon. At that time the votes on items on which a vote has not been blocked under clause (e) shall be taken. If a recorded vote is requested by five members, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes. The House will sit until the necessary votes have been completed, at which time the Speaker shall leave the chair until 2 p.m."

7. Standing order 5(b) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"5. (b) If at any time after prayers, the Speaker's attention is drawn to the fact that a quorum is not present, the Speaker shall, upon determining that a quorum is not present, cause the bells to be rung until a quorum is present and, in any case, for no longer than five minutes. If a quorum is not present after the expiration of five minutes, the Speaker shall adjourn the House without question put until the next sitting day. The matter under consideration prior to the adjournment is deemed to be adjourned to a future sitting day."

8. Standing order 5(c) be amended by striking out "standing order 2(c)" in the third line and substituting "clause (b)" in lieu thereof.

9. Standing order 5 be amended by adding the following clause:

"5. (d) Whenever the Speaker adjourns the House for want of a quorum, the names of the members then present shall be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings."

10. Standing order 25 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"25. The routine proceedings before the orders of the day are as follows: members' statements, statements by the ministry and responses, oral questions, petitions, reports by committees, motions, introduction of bills."

11. The standing orders be amended by adding the following new standing order:

"25a. (a) A member, other than a leader of a recognized party in the House or a minister of the crown, may be recognized to make a statement for not more than one and one half minutes.

"(b) The period for members' statements shall be limited to 10 minutes.

"(c) Members shall be recognized as follows: the official opposition first, followed by other recognized opposition parties in order of their membership in the House and finally the government, and then in rotation, starting with the official opposition, until the time provided in clause (b) has expired."

12. Standing order 64(k) be deleted.

13. Standing order 26 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"26. (a) A minister of the crown may make a short factual statement relating to government policy, ministry action or other similar matters of which the House should be informed.

"(b) The time allotted to ministerial statements shall not exceed 20 minutes without the unanimous consent of the House.

"(c) Two copies of each ministerial statement shall be delivered to opposition party leaders or their representatives at or before the time the statement is made in the House.

"(d) After any policy statement, the minister shall table a compendium of background information.

"(e) Following ministerial statements a representative or representatives of each of the recognized opposition parties in the House may comment for up to a total of five minutes for each party commencing with the official opposition."

14. In exercising his discretion pursuant to standing order 27(d) to permit supplementary questions, the House recommends that the Speaker permit supplementary questions as follows:

Official opposition -- one question and two supplementary questions;

Third party -- one question and two supplementary questions;

All other questions -- one question and one supplementary question.

15. Standing order 30 be amended by adding thereto the following paragraph:

" 30. (d) Within 120 days of the presentation of a committee report as provided in clauses (b) and (c), the government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a comprehensive response."

16. Standing order 33(b) be amended by striking out the words "On the petition of 20 members any such report shall be referred to a standing or select committee of the House."

17. Standing order 33(c) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

" 33. (c) Statutory annual reports provided for in clause (b) shall be deemed to have been permanently referred to the appropriate standing committee."

18. Standing order 34 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

" 34. (a) Following the routine proceedings and before the orders of the day on an afternoon sitting, any member may move to set aside the ordinary business of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance requiring immediate consideration.

"(b) The Speaker shall then rule whether or not the motion is in order based on the following criteria:

"(i) the member proposing the motion shall give written notice of the motion to the Speaker at least two hours before the afternoon sitting of the House;

"(ii) not more than one such motion may be made at the same sitting;

"(iii) not more than one matter may be discussed on the same motion;

"(iv) the motion must not revive discussion on a matter that has been discussed in the same session under this standing order;

"(v) the motion must not raise a question of privilege; and

"(vi) the discussion under the motion must not raise any question that, according to the standing orders of the House, can only be debated on a distinct motion under notice.

"(c) If the Speaker determines that the motion is in order, the member proposing the motion may state his arguments in favour of his motion in not more than five minutes. One member from each of the other recognized parties in the House may state the position of his party with respect to the motion in not more than five minutes.

"(d) The Speaker shall then put the question `Shall the debate proceed?' to a vote of the House.

"(e) If the House determines by its vote to set aside the normal business of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, each member who wishes to speak in the discussion shall be limited to 10 minutes, and the debate shall conclude when all members who wish to take part have spoken or at the hour of 6:30 p. m., whichever shall be first."

19. Standing order 36 be amended by striking out "The previous question" in the first line and substituting therefor "A motion for closure" and by striking out "the previous question" in the seventh line and substituting therefor "a motion for closure."

20. The standing orders be amended by adding the following new standing order:

" 37a. Except in the case of a motion that a certain member do take the chair of the House as Speaker, a motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne and the budget motion, no motion or amendment shall be required to be seconded before the question thereon is proposed from the chair."

21. Standing order 31 be amended by striking out "or a seconder" in the last line.

22. Standing order 32(a) be amended by striking out "properly seconded" in the first and second lines.

23. Standing order 35(a) be amended by striking out "or a seconder" in the last line.

24. Standing order 36 be amended by striking out "or a seconder" in the second line.

25. Standing order 37(c) be amended by inserting "and" after "notice" in the first line and by striking out "and must be seconded" in the second line.

26. Standing order 52 be amended by striking out "or seconder" in the first line and by striking out "and a seconder" in the last line.

27. Part XI of the standing orders be revoked and the following substituted therefor:

"XI. PRIVATE BILLS

"65. (a) Any person, group or corporation may make an application for a private bill by filing with the Clerk of the House,

"(i) a copy of the bill;

"(ii) a fee of $150; and

"(iii) a declaration proving publication of the notices referred to in clause (e).

"(b) Every applicant for a private bill shall pay,

"(i) the cost of printing the bill at all of its stages including reprinting if it is amended; and

"(ii) the cost of printing the act in the annual statutes.

"(c) Where, at the request of the applicant, a standing order is suspended with reference to a private bill, a charge of $50 shall be levied.

"(d) Where a private bill relates to a charitable organization within the meaning of the Income Tax Act (Canada), the standing committee on regulations and private bills may recommend that the fee paid under clause (a) be remitted, and if the recommendation is approved by the House, the remitted fee shall be applied to reduce any costs payable under clause (b) and the committee may, having regard to the circumstances, recommend that all or part of the costs payable under clause (b) be waived and, if the recommendation is approved by the House, the costs shall be waived.

"(e) Notice of an application for a private bill shall be given before it is read a first time by publishing the notice once a week for at least four weeks in each of the Ontario Gazette and one newspaper circulated in the municipality most affected and the notice shall,

"(i) be signed by or on behalf of the applicant;

"(ii) clearly state the nature and object of the application;

"(iii) when the application refers to any proposed work, indicate generally the location of the work;

"(iv) where the application is by a municipal corporation for authority to issue debentures, set out the particulars of the existing debenture debt and the amount of the rateable property of the municipality according to the last revised assessment roll of the corporation, and in brief and general terms the object for which the new issue of debentures is required; and

"(v) state that any person who has an interest in the application and who wishes to make submissions for or against the application when it is considered by the standing committee on regulations and private bills should notify the Clerk of the House in writing.

"(f) Notice of an application for a private bill is valid for the calendar year in which the last notice is published and until the first day of July in the next following calendar year.

"(g) Where,

"(i) an application for a private bill is made during a session but the bill is not read a first time; or

"(ii) a private bill is read a first time but is not considered by the standing committee on regulations and private bills before dissolution or prorogation,

"the application shall be considered during the next regular session of the House without publishing further notice of the application and without payment of additional fees under clause (a).

"66. The Clerk of the House shall refer to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly any application that, in his opinion, does not comply with the standing orders.

"67. When any private bill confirming any letters patent or agreement is presented to the House, a copy of the letters patent or agreement shall be included in the bill.

"68. No private bill relating to the status of a corporation shall be considered by the standing committee on regulations and private bills until there has been deposited with the Clerk of the House a certificate of the Minister of Revenue showing that all taxes payable under the Corporations Tax Act in respect of the corporation have been paid.

"69. (a) Every private bill when read a first time, shall, unless it is an estate bill or a bill providing for a consolidation of a floating debt or for the consolidation or renewal of debentures, other than local improvement debentures of a municipal corporation, stand referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills and all petitions and correspondence to the House for or against the bill stand referred to the committee.

"(b) No private bill shall be given first reading unless a compendium of background information has been deposited with the Clerk of the House by the applicant.

"(c) The compendium required under clause (b) shall cite the precedents, if any, used in drafting the private bill and shall contain an up-to-date consolidation of existing legislation that is amended by the bill.

"(d) The standing committee on regulations and private bills may adopt guidelines related to the form and content of the compendium required by clause (b).

"(e) Where the purpose of a private bill application is to amend a section of an existing private act or the private bill would have the effect of amending a section of an existing private act, the private bill shall re-enact the section in its entirety.

"70. (a) Every private bill or part of a bill of a municipal corporation providing for the consolidation of a floating debt or the consolidation or renewal of debentures, other than local improvement debentures, stands referred to the Ontario Municipal Board after first reading.

"(b) The board, after due inquiry, shall report to the House whether or not it is reasonable that the bill, or the part thereof relating to the matters referred to in clause (a), should pass and what, if any, alterations are necessary.

"(c) A report of the Ontario Municipal Board shall be transmitted to the Clerk of the House. "(d) The bill and report shall stand referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

"71. (a) Every estate bill or part of a bill that contains an estate bill provision stands referred to the commissioners of estate bills after first reading.

"(b) The commissioners of estate bills, or any two of them, shall report their opinion on the bill or the part thereof that has been submitted to them and whether, presuming the allegations contained in the preamble to be proven to the satisfaction of the House, it is reasonable for the bill or the part thereof to pass and what, if any, alterations are necessary.

"(c) A report of the commissioners of estate bills shall be transmitted to the Clerk of the House.

"(d) Where the commissioners of estate bills report that in their opinion it is not reasonable that the bill or the part thereof submitted to them pass into law, the bill or the part thereof shall not be further considered.

"(e) Where the bill or the part thereof submitted to the commissioners of estate bills is reported favourably by the commissioners, the bill and the report shall stand referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills and where only part of a bill is submitted to the commissioners and the commissioners report that, in their opinion, it is not reasonable that the part pass into law, the bill shall stand referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills and the committee shall amend the bill by deleting therefrom the part to which the report relates.

"72. The Clerk of the House shall post on all notice boards five calendar days' notice of the date on which any private bill is to be considered by the standing committee on regulations and private bills and the notice shall be published in the Orders and Notices paper.

"73. Any person whose interest or property may be affected by a private bill, when required, shall appear before the standing committee on regulations and private bills to express his consent or objection, or may consent in writing, proof of which may be demanded by the committee.

"74. Private bills when reported by the standing committee on regulations and private bills shall be placed on the Orders and Notices paper for second reading.

"75. Private bills amended by a committee may be reprinted before further consideration, as the Clerk of the House may direct.

"76. Private bills, after second reading, shall be ordered for third reading, unless specially ordered referred to the committee of the whole House.

"77. Except when waived by unanimous consent of the House, notice is required for a motion to dispense with any standing order relating to private bills.

"78. A private bill register shall be kept in the office of the Clerk of the House, in which shall be entered the name, description and place of residence of the parties applying for the bill, or of their agent, and all the proceedings thereon, such register to be open to public inspection daily, during office hours.

"79. (a) Every parliamentary agent conducting proceedings before the House is personally responsible to the House and to the Speaker for the observance of the standing orders and practices of parliament, and also for the payment of all fees and charges.

"(b) Any parliamentary agent who wilfully acts in violation of the standing orders and practices of parliament, or who wilfully misconducts himself in prosecuting any proceedings before the House, is liable to an absolute or temporary prohibition to practise as a parliamentary agent, at the pleasure of the Speaker.

"80. The Clerk of the House shall publish weekly in the Ontario Gazette the following notice:

`APPLICATIONS TO PARLIAMENT
`PRIVATE BILLS
`PUBLIC NOTICE

`The rules of procedure and the fees and costs related to applications for private bills are set out in the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly. Copies of the standing orders may be obtained from:

`The Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, Room 110, Legislature Building, Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario, M7A 1A2. Telephone 416/965-1406. (Collect calls will be accepted.)

`Applicants should note that consideration of applications for private bills that are received after the first day of September in any calendar year may be postponed until the first regular session in the next following calendar year.'"

28. The standing orders be amended by adding the following new standing order:

"19a. (a) Following the speech of each member, a period not exceeding 10 minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the matters before the House and to allow responses thereto in the following circumstances:

"(i) debate on second reading of a government bill, but no such 10-minute period shall be allowed following the reply allowed to the minister or parliamentary assistant who has moved second reading of the bill;

"(ii) debate on third reading of a government bill, but no such 10-minute period shall be allowed following the reply allowed to the minister or parliamentary assistant who has moved third reading of the bill;

"(iii) debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, but no such 10-minute period shall be allowed following the speeches of the mover and the seconder of the motion for the address, the speeches of the members speaking first on behalf of the official opposition and the other recognized opposition parties and the speeches of the members winding up the throne debate for each recognized party;

"(iv) debate on the budget motion, but no such 10-minute period shall be allowed following the presentation of the budget by the Treasurer, the speeches of the members speaking first on behalf of the official opposition and the other recognized parties and the speeches of the members winding up the budget debate for each recognized party; and

"(v) debate on a motion for interim supply.

"(b) In asking a question or making a comment with respect to the matters set out in clause (a), no member shall speak for more than two minutes. Two minutes shall be reserved for the reply of the member originally speaking."

29. Standing orders 83, 84, 85, 88, 89, 91 and 92 be deleted and the standing orders be amended by adding the following new standing orders:

"83. Within the first 10 sitting days following the commencement of each session in a parliament the membership of the following standing committees shall be appointed for the duration of the session:

"(a) Standing committee on administration of justice;

"(b) Standing committee on general government;

"(c) Standing committee on resources development;

"(d) Standing committee on social development;

"(e) Standing committee on finance and economic affairs, which is empowered to consider and report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the fiscal and economic policies of the province and to which all related documents shall be deemed to have been referred immediately when the said documents are tabled;

"(f) Standing committee on government agencies, which is empowered to review and report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the operation of all agencies, boards and commissions to which the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes some or all of the appointments, and all corporations to which the crown in right of Ontario is a majority shareholder, such reviews to be made with a view to reducing possible redundancy and overlapping, improving the accountability of agencies, rationalizing the functions of the agencies, identifying those agencies or parts of agencies which could be subject to sunset provisions, and revising the mandates and roles of agencies;

"(g) Standing committee on the Ombudsman, which is empowered to review and consider from time to time the reports of the Ombudsman as they become available; and, as the committee deems necessary, pursuant to the Ombudsman Act, subsection 16(1), to formulate general rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman in the exercise of his functions under the act; and to report thereon to the Legislature and to make such recommendations as the committee deems appropriate.

"(h) Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, which is empowered to review on its own initiative or at the request of the Speaker or the direction of the House and to report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the standing orders of the House and the procedures in the House and its committees; to advise the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy, and to report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the administration of the House and the provision of services and facilities to members; and to act as an advisory body to the Speaker and the House on the television broadcast system and to conduct reviews, at least on an annual basis, of the televising of the legislative proceedings and of the guidelines established by the House with respect to the television broadcast system;

"(i) Standing committee on public accounts, which is empowered to review and report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations on the report of the Provincial Auditor and the public accounts, which documents shall be deemed to have been permanently referred to the committee as they become available; and

"(j) Standing committee on regulations and private bills, to be the committee to which all

private bills, other than estate bills or bills providing for the consolidation of a floating debt or renewal of debentures, other than local improvement debentures, of a municipal corporation shall be referred after first reading; and to be the committee provided for by section 12 of the Regulations Act and having the terms of reference as set out in that section, namely, to examine the regulations with particular reference to the scope and method of the exercise of delegated legislative power without reference to the merits of the policy or objectives to be effected by the regulations or enabling statutes, but in so doing regard shall be had to the following guidelines:

"(1) Regulations should not contain provisions initiating new policy, but should be confined to details to give effect to the policy established by the statute;

"(2) Regulations should be in strict accord with the statute conferring of power, particularly concerning personal liberties;

"(3) Regulations should be expressed in precise and unambiguous language;

"(4) Regulations should not have retrospective effect unless clearly authorized by statute;

"(5) Regulations should not exclude the jurisdiction of the courts;

"(6) Regulations should not impose a fine, imprisonment or other penalty;

"(7) Regulations should not shift the onus of proof of innocence to a person accused of an offence;

"(8) Regulations should not impose anything in the way of a tax (as distinct from fixing the amount of a licence fee or the like); and

"(9) General powers should not be used to establish a judicial tribunal or an administrative tribunal;

"And the committee shall from time to time report to the House its observations, opinions and recommendations as required by subsection 12(3) of the Regulations Act, but before drawing the attention of the House to a regulation or other statutory instrument the committee shall afford the ministry or agency concerned an opportunity to furnish orally or in writing to the committee such explanation as the ministry or agency thinks fit.

"84. (a) Standing and select committees shall be severally empowered to examine, inquire into and report from time to time on all such matters as may be referred to them by the House.

"(b) Except when the House otherwise orders, each committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and things.

"(c) A standing or select committee to which a bill has been referred by the House shall be empowered to report the same with or without amendments or to report that the bill be not reported.

"85. (a) Select committees of the House may be appointed for any purpose or to consider any matter referred to them.

"(b) The motion to appoint a select committee may contain the names of the members proposed to be members of the committee and such motion is subject to amendment.

"(c) No standing or select committee shall consist of more than 11 members and the membership of such committees shall be in proportion to the representation of the recognized parties in the House.

"(d) Any member appointed to a standing or select committee may, at any time afterwards, be discharged by order of the House from attending the committee and another member appointed.

"(e) A temporary substitution in the membership of a standing or select committee may be made provided a notification thereof, signed by the member acting as the whip of a recognized party, is filed with the clerk of the committee either before or within 30 minutes of a committee meeting being called to order.

"86. The Clerk of the House shall post in the Legislative Building a list of members serving on each standing and select committee.

"87. Within 10 sitting days following the appointment of the membership of the standing committees, the Clerk of the House shall convene a meeting of each standing committee for the purpose of electing a chairman and vice-chairman.

"88. (a) The chairmanships of the standing committees set out in standing order 83 shall be distributed in proportion to the representation of the recognized parties in the House.

"(b) The chairman of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs shall be a member of the party forming the government and the chairman of the standing committee on public accounts shall be a member of the party forming the official opposition.

"(c) Failing consensus on the distribution of the chairmanships of these standing committees, the recognized parties in the House shall choose which committees they wish to be chaired by one of their own members in rounds, through the House leaders, as follows: the government first, followed by the official opposition and then the other recognized opposition parties in order of their membership in the House, and then in rotation until the distribution is completed according to the number of chairmen from each recognized party as determined in clause (a).

"89. Each standing committee shall elect a chairman and a vice-chairman at its first meeting in each session and, if necessary, during the course of a session.

"90. Upon a written request signed by a majority of the members of a standing or select committee, the chairman of the committee shall convene a meeting of the committee within 10 sitting days following the receipt of such request by the clerk of the committee. The reasons for convening such a meeting shall be stated in the request.

"91. The clerk of each standing and select committee shall attend each meeting of the committee and shall record the names of the members of the committee present at each meeting in the minutes of proceedings.

"92. (a) A majority of the members of a standing or a select committee, including the chairman, shall constitute a quorum.

"(b) Any committee may authorize the chairman to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present.

"(c) If at any time during the sitting of a standing or select committee the chairman of the committee is advised by a member of the committee that a quorum is not present, the chairman shall, upon determining that a quorum is not present, suspend the proceedings of the committee; if no quorum is present at the expiration of 10 minutes, the chairman shall adjourn the committee to the next scheduled sitting of the committee.

"(d) Whenever the chairman of a standing or select committee adjourns the committee for want of a quorum, the clerk of the committee shall record the time of the adjournment and the names of the members then present in the minutes of proceedings.

"93. (a) Standing and select committees may be authorized by the House to meet on Monday evenings to hear submissions from the public, provided that the motion authorizing a committee to meet is made at the unanimous request of the committee and with the agreement of the House leader of each of the recognized parties in the House.

"(b) Except by unanimous consent of the committee, no standing or select committee authorized to meet in the evening may continue to sit beyond 10:30 p.m. when the House is in session.

"94. In any standing or select committee, the standing orders of the House shall be observed so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders limiting the number of times of speaking.

"95. The chairman of a standing or select committee shall maintain order in the committee and decide all questions of order subject to an appeal to the committee; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the House on receiving a report thereof.

"96. (a) Standing and select committees may adjourn from place to place in Ontario.

"(b) Standing and select committees shall be severally empowered to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff as may be deemed necessary.

"(c) Except with the written authorization of the Speaker, a standing or select committee shall not incur any expenses related to matters referred to in clauses (a) and (b) until a budget for such expenditures has been approved in whole or in part by the Board of Internal Economy.

"97. (a) At the beginning of each fiscal year or as soon as possible thereafter, the clerk of a standing or select committee shall prepare a budget at the direction of the committee, and the chairman of the committee, or a member acting for the chairman, shall present to the Board of Internal Economy for its approval in whole or in part, the budget adopted by a majority of the committee setting forth in reasonable detail estimates of its proposed expenditures for the fiscal year.

"(b) When the expenditures of any such committee have reached the limits set forth in any such budget, the chairman shall present to the Board of Internal Economy for its approval in whole or in part, a supplementary budget or budgets.

"(c) The clerk of a standing or select committee shall administer and monitor the expenditures of any such committee and shall advise the committee if expenditures are likely to exceed the budget approved by the Board of Internal Economy.

"98. (a) Unless otherwise ordered, standing or select committees shall have the power to appoint subcommittees which shall have power to report from time to time to the committee.

"(b) Every such subcommittee shall be appointed by motion, such motion specifying the terms of reference, the membership of the subcommittee and the number of members required to constitute a quorum.

"99. Any member of the House who is not a member of a standing or select committee may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.

"100. On a division being called in the House, the chairman of a standing or select committee shall suspend the proceedings in the committee for such time as will in his opinion enable members to vote in the division in the House and return to the committee.

"101. (a) When a division takes place in a standing or select committee, the clerk of the committee shall record in the minutes of proceedings the question proposed, the name of the proposer, and if requested by any member, the vote of each member present.

"(b) When members are called in for a division, there shall be a maximum wait of 20 minutes before the vote is recorded.

"102. The chairman of a standing or select committee shall not vote except in the case of a tie, when the chairman shall give a casting vote.

"103. (a) The report of a standing or select committee is the report as determined by the committee as a whole or a majority thereof.

"(b) No minority report may be presented to or received by the House.

"(c) Every member shall be permitted to indicate in a report that he dissents from a particular recommendation or comment within the report. The committee shall permit a member to express the reasons for his dissent within its report.

"(d) The report as agreed to shall be signed by the chairman on behalf of the committee and shall be presented to the House by the chairman or by another member of the committee authorized by the chairman or the committee.

"COMMITTEES OF THE WHOLE HOUSE

"104. (a) When an order of the day is read for the House to resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall leave the chair without a question put, and the House shall thereupon resolve itself into a committee.

"(b) When the Speaker has left the chair, the mace shall be placed under the table and the chairman of the committees of the whole House shall take the chair of the committee at the table.

"105. The standing orders of the House shall be observed in committees of the whole House so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders limiting the number of times of speaking.

"106. The chairman shall maintain order in a committee of the whole House and decide all questions of order subject to an appeal to the House; but disorder in a committee of the whole House can only be censured by the House on receiving a report thereof.

"107. A committee of the whole House may not adjourn its own sitting or the consideration of any matter to a future date, but this standing order shall not affect the application of standing order 10.

"108. A motion may be moved during the proceedings of a committee of the whole House that the chairman report progress and ask for leave to sit again, and such question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.

"109. (a) A motion that the chairman of a committee of the whole House leave the chair is always in order and shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.

"(b) If such a motion is carried, further proceedings of a committee of the whole House on the matter or bill then under consideration shall be superseded; but the matter or bill may, on motion with notice, be revived and proceedings shall be resumed at the point where they were interrupted. Such a motion shall not prejudice or in any way affect any other matters or bills referred to the committee of the whole House.

"(c) If such a motion is defeated, no other such motion shall be made unless some intermediate proceeding has taken place."

30. Standing orders 86, 87 and 90 be renumbered 110, 56(d) and 111 respectively.

31. All standing orders subsequent to the current standing order 92 be renumbered accordingly.

32. The standing orders be amended by adding thereto the following standing order:

"58a. (a) The chairman of a committee considering a bill shall initial each section of the bill as it is passed and sign the bill.

"(b) Amendments shall be clearly indicated in the signed copy and the amendments or additions shall be initialled by the chairman."

33. Unless otherwise ordered, the provisional standing orders shall be in effect during the period commencing at 12:01 a.m. on the day following the adoption of these amendments, and concluding at 12 midnight on Thursday, December 18, 1986.

34. The Clerk of the House be authorized and instructed to print a revised and renumbered edition of the standing orders integrating the provisional standing orders and making any necessary amendments in consequence thereof.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: Is the minister not going to say anything?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I thought perhaps I might.

Mr. Timbrell: I understand the government House leader wishes to speak last.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Or I can speak not at all.

Mr. Timbrell: Or not at all, which would be even better. I wish only to indicate the support of the official opposition for this motion, which came about as a result of a great deal of work on the part of members of all three parties.

In the 15 years I have sat here in the Legislature, we have seen a variety of changes in the standing orders, all of them leading to a more open legislative process; a progression which I support.

I must admit that in that this stage in that progress began while I sat on the other side of the House, and is concluding while I sit on this side, my perspective has changed somewhat. My attitude about certain proposals which a year ago were anathema to me all of a sudden became rather enlightened. In that it is unlikely I ever shall change my perspective back, at least not as a sitting member but as a supporter of the next government, we shall have to wait for the next phase.

However, I congratulate the chairman of the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions and his colleagues for their report. I also want to thank the whips who, along with support staff, carried out most of the negotiations among the parties leading to this motion today.

Mr. McClellan: I too want to speak very briefly as we take the historic step today of reforming, once again, our own standing orders.

The reforms set out in the motion the government House leader has moved are quite significant. They increase the role of the ordinary back-bencher in the assembly during proceedings in question period, debates in the House and in standing and select committees.

The work of reforming the standing orders, as the House leader of the official opposition said, has been a long and arduous process which began in 1977 with the work of the procedural affairs committee in the second minority government. The chairman was the same person.

Ms. Gigantes: The same illustrious chairman.

Mr. McClellan: He was the same illustrious chairman then as now. Many of the recommendations which were allowed to gather dust during the interregnum of majority government have borne fruit in the reforms set out in the motion before us today.

I am especially pleased that after so long a time we are abolishing evening sittings, which are a relic from the days when the Legislature met two or three weeks or a month per year and people had regular, full-time occupations. The attempt was to get the legislative session over and done with as quickly as possible.

Now that we are sitting virtually nine or 10 months a year, evening sittings have become for members a major burden that quite significantly affects their health. offer the members exhibit A, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), to my right.

Finally, I also commend the member for London South (Ms. E. J. Smith), the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves), the three whips for the parties, who did most of the detailed work of hammering out a consensus and a compromise.

The motion before you, Mr. Speaker, is very much a consensus and a compromise that was accomplished after a great deal of goodwill and give and take between all three parties.

We look forward to 12 noon tomorrow when we begin the new regime.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would join with the other two House leaders in welcoming the advent of this latest revision of the rules and in expressing my thanks, along with theirs, to the staff, the whips and others who worked long and hard to reach agreement. I tend not to have much patience with these things myself, for some reason. I regret that because, as a person who is very interested in the work of the assembly, I want the rules to work well and effectively.

One of the regrets I have experienced over my years in the House is that, apart from question period and certain other ancillary orders of business, I have seen the involvement of private members reduced until most of our work is done with a quorum or fewer. I find this regrettable and I believe that at least some aspects of the rules will involve more members in the regular debates which should become more interesting. We shall have an opportunity to exchange views at the time the views are put forward rather than to insist they be put on ice and raised at some subsequent time when the point is long since forgotten and has lost whatever relevance it might have had on that occasion.

I would point out something that may be in response to the honourable member the House leader for the official opposition. He said his views changed a bit when he was transposed to opposition. Perhaps mine have not changed as much as they might have, and there are things here that my colleagues are not as enthused about as I have been and continue to be enthused about.

There is very little here which serves the government in a way to expedite business. Some of the original drafts called for limits on the lengths of speeches. Right from the beginning my own feeling was some lack of enthusiasm for that, even though I have felt frankly that lengthy speeches can be an abuse of the intention of the work in the House. Rather than trying to push for that or to stand pat for some sort of a limit, I felt it would be better simply to leave that as a weapon -- if we may call it that -- for any member of the House who wants to bring special attention to a matter which is unsatisfactory or remains unsatisfactory.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have handed out some of it. It is worse receiving it than handing it out, that is for sure.

I am absolutely delighted with this latest structuring of the rules. I know they will be improved, perhaps at the end of this trial session this year with the introduction of some amendments at that time. I hope we shall find them to be useful, and that it will not be very long before we take for granted that the session opens, after prayers, with brief statements made by private members. Probably the person who is under the gun more than anyone else will be you, Mr. Speaker; you have to be familiar with the whole thing. While I can assure you that we all have examined the rules carefully and are very familiar with all the details, it will be up to you, sir, to keep us within the parameters that we now accept as we support this notice of motion.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: That means I shall have to stay up all night, burn the midnight oil and study.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is interesting reading. You will like it, Mr. Speaker.

COMMITTEE SCHEDULE

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Hon. Ms. Caplan, resolution 2:

That the following schedule for committee meetings be established for this session: the standing committee on administration of justice may meet on Monday and Tuesday afternoons; the standing committee on finance and economic affairs may meet on Thursday mornings; the standing committee on general government may meet on Thursday mornings and, if required, on Thursday afternoons;

The standing committee on government agencies may meet on Wednesday mornings; the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly may meet on Wednesday afternoons; the standing committee on the Ombudsman may meet on Wednesday mornings; the standing committee on public accounts may meet on Thursday mornings; the standing committee on regulations and private bills may meet on Wednesday mornings; the standing committee on resources development may meet on Monday, Wednesday and Thursday afternoons; and the standing committee on social development may meet on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday afternoons.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I say in parenthesis that under the new rules, seconders would not be required for motions of this type, so Ms. Caplan would not have to hang around.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Hon Ms Caplan, resolution 3:

That the membership on the standing committees for the second session of the 33rd Parliament be as follows:

Standing committee on administration of justice: Messrs. Brandt, Callahan, Cooke (Kitchener), Ms. Fish, Ms. Gigantes, Ms. Hart, Messrs. O'Connor, Partington, Polsinelli, Villeneuve and Warner.

Standing committee on finance and economic affairs: Messrs. Ashe, Barlow, Bossy, Cooke (Kitchener), Cordiano, Foulds, Haggerty, McFadden, Morin-Strom and Sargent and Miss Stephenson.

Standing committee on general government: Ms Bryden, Messrs. Cousens, Dean and Guindon, Ms. Hart, Messrs. Henderson, McCague, McKessock, Newman, Pollock and Pouliot.

Standing committee on government agencies: Messrs. Epp, Grande, Gregory, Lane, Leluk and Mancini, Mrs. Marland, Messrs. Rowe, Sargent, Mrs. Smith (London South) and Mr. Swart.

Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly: Messrs. Bossy, Breaugh, Johnson (Wellington-Dufferin-Peel), Mancini, Martel, Morin, Newman, Sterling, Treleaven, Turner and Warner.

Standing committee on the Ombudsman: Messers. Bossy, Hayes, Henderson, Hennessy, McLean, McNeil, Morin, Newman, Philip, Sheppard and Shymko.

Standing committee on public accounts: Messrs. Epp, Ferraro, Gillies, Gordon, Harris, Philip, Polsinelli, Pope, Runciman, Smith (Lambton) and Wildman.

Standing committee on regulations and private bills: Messrs. Callahan, Charlton, Cordiano, Cureatz, Ferraro, Haggerty, Hennessy, McKessock, Morin-Strom, Shymko and Wiseman.

Standing committee on resources development: Messrs. Bernier, Hayes, Knight, Laughren, McGuigan, Pierce, Ramsay, Smith (Lambton), South, Stevenson and Taylor.

Standing committee on social development: Messrs. Allen, Andrewes, Baetz, Davis, Jackson, Johnston (Scarborough West), Miller (Haldimand-Norfolk), Offer, Reville, Reycraft and Ward (Mr. Epp for Bill 30).

Motion agreed to.

3:40 p.m.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Morin-Strom moved, seconded by Mr. Wildman, that pursuant to standing order 34(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the economic crisis facing Sault Ste. Marie, Wawa and, indeed, all of northern Ontario, as a result of Algoma Steel's program to downsize operations and permanently eliminate 1,500 jobs.

Mr. Speaker: The notice of motion was received in time, at 11:20 a.m. on April 25, and complies with standing order 34 regarding the notice requirements. I will listen to the member for Sault Ste. Marie for up to five minutes as well as to representatives from the other parties.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to speak to this motion, although I am not particularly pleased with the need to have to take such action. I am very concerned with the situation facing my home community, Sault Ste. Marie, and the surrounding areas in the district of Algoma and, indeed, similar ramifications in other areas of northern Ontario.

I am optimistic that the future of the community can be better, but it is essential that there be a full airing of this situation facing the community. The gravity of the situation is such that I believe we have to hold this debate today.

On April 16, Algoma Steel announced at its annual meeting a major downsizing of its operation and the permanent elimination of 1,500 jobs from the Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa areas. Their intention is to downsize the raw steel production capability from 3.5 million tons to 2.5 million tons and discontinue ingot production. There will be quite a number of mill shutdowns as a consequence of this action.

Of particular concern is that this is not just a matter of market-related layoffs. We understand, and people in my community can more readily understand, a situation where the market has fallen and they do not have the orders to support the level of operations, as happened in the tube mill early this year, for example. The oil business has gone down with the collapsing oil prices, and as a result, the tube mill operation, which had been at 20 turns per week in December, has dropped to five turns per week at this point. That has resulted in a loss in the work force of more than 700 jobs.

Those types of market-related, short-term fluctuations up and down are one matter of serious concern. However, this announcement by the corporation is even more serious because it involves the permanent shutting down of mills, the laying off of staff and downsizing of the operation, which has dire long-term consequences in lost job opportunities in the community.

The area affected is not only Sault Ste. Marie, where Algoma Steel forms 25 per cent of the local work force, but also Wawa, which is virtually wholly dependent on the mining operation of Algoma Ore, and the Algoma Central Railway, two thirds of whose freight tonnage is directly related to Algoma Steel. If Algoma Steel were to shut down the Wawa operation, we would see not only the job losses in Wawa but also, as the ACR has indicated, very likely the nonviability and shutdown of that whole railway, which would have consequences in other, much broader areas than the lumber business, such as the tourist industry in the area, as well as in all the small communities along the ACR right up to Hearst.

The unemployment rate in the Sault today is totally unacceptable. The number of registrants at the unemployment office has increased from 5,200 last October to a current level of 7,400, an increase of 2,200 registrants in the past six months. This was before the impact of the proposed downsizing and job losses.

In the Sault, some 2,500 individuals on social assistance are considered employable and more than 1,000 are considered unemployable. Considering the employables plus the number collecting unemployment insurance, we have a total of at least 8,000 unemployed in Sault Ste. Marie. Out of a work force of some 41,000, 20 per cent are unemployed. This makes the gravity of the situation facing Sault Ste. Marie quite apparent. There is a desperate need for government action on this issue and on the general issue of single-industry towns across northern Ontario.

It is vitally important that we have a full discussion of this issue and that we look to a government that will implement a program of action to provide stability and economic growth for the Sault, Wawa and all of northern Ontario.

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to rise on behalf of our party in support of the motion by the member for Sault Ste. Marie. We are very concerned about the situation in Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa and, in fact, about the alarming situation that appears to be developing in a number of areas across the province.

To put it in perspective, I will mention a few figures that do not appear to concern the government. Whenever these figures are mentioned, all we hear about is the number of jobs created. We are delighted with the jobs created in some areas and in some segments of the economy. Unfortunately, there are more part-time jobs than we would like to see, concentrated in areas that do not need them to the same extent as such areas as eastern Ontario and northern Ontario, particularly Sault Ste. Marie.

In the one-month period February 1 to 28, total layoffs were 1,651; that is 65 per cent over the previous year. Of those layoffs, 1,290 were the result of complete closures, a rise of 458 over the same period in 1985. For the first two months of 1986, layoffs totalled 3,379, compared with 2,326 in the same period of 1985. The unemployment rate for economic district 591, which includes Sault Ste. Marie, Timmins and Sudbury -- we know not many of these are taking place in Timmins -- stood at 11.7 per cent in February 1986, 11.3 per cent in January, 9.6 per cent in December 1985 and 10.1 in November. The members can see the trend that concerns us.

The number of people receiving unemployment insurance benefits in Sault Ste. Marie is 8,020, giving that city an unemployment rate close to 20 per cent now. The number of unemployment insurance claimants has risen dramatically over the past six months, by more than 53 per cent between October 1985 and April 1986. In October there were 5,216, in November 5,558, in December 5,836, in January 6,432, in February 6,922, in March 7,408 and in April 8,020.

These numbers are not something new. The layoff of an additional 1,500 workers announced recently was not something the government did not know about directly or ought not to have been able to anticipate, given the steel market.

3:50 p.m.

What is happening? One of the reasons this emergency debate should and must take place today is that we do not see the government doing anything other than the odd trip to Sweden to see what they do there. A number of things have been proposed right here in Ontario that we believe could be and should have been looked at by the government over this past year. Some of my colleagues will be getting into some of those examples.

The government will say, "What did you do?" or, "What would you do?" Therefore, let me tell members that in the June 1985 throne speech we committed our government to amending the Labour Relations Act to require advance notice and consultation. Nothing has happened on that for a year. We proposed to introduce a Pensions Benefits Act to ensure pension portability. We have had talk about that over the past year, and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) says he might consider doing something about that by 1987.

In November 1984, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) said that if he became Premier he would require large companies to provide two years' warning before closing their operations. It is too bad he was not Premier today; we might not be facing quite the same situation. It is very tragic that we are talking about older workers in Sault Ste. Marie.

Our party supports this resolution and our members will be speaking to it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We have no objection to the debate proceeding. I do not intend to use the five minutes other than to say that I have a special interest in the debate, having lived in Sault Ste. Marie myself some years ago. As a matter of fact, Highway 17 was not paved all the way to Saint Ste. Marie when I went there to take a job at the Sault collegiate institute. I did have an opportunity to follow the development of the steel industry and the iron ore industry in Wawa, or Jamestown as it was called for a brief time, during those developmental years.

It is a shame that world oil prices, as well as anything else, have affected the economy of this great city, which has had the advantage of substantial growth and improvements to its infrastructure in recent years. I was interested in meeting the former mayor and the city engineer in this matter, and what was particularly surprising was that both these worthies had been in the first class I taught in Sault Ste. Marie. I am not sure what that has to do with the five minutes at my disposal, but I knew you, Mr. Speaker, would be interested that my personal interest in this debate is active and based on extensive experience in the area.

I hope that the utilization of the two hours and five or six minutes remaining this afternoon will be to the benefit of the Sault and that the people taking part in the debate will come forward with useful, workable concepts and ideas that will be to the advantage of the people in the Sault and of the Treasury of the province.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened to those who have spoken and it appears to me there is general agreement that the debate should proceed. However, I must place the question.

Shall the debate proceed?

Agreed.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Speaker: I remind members they have up to 10 minutes in this debate.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I express my concern at having to request this debate but appreciate the co-operation of all three parties in supporting the need for it. I look forward to hearing the comments of my fellow members in the two hours to come on the situation facing Sault Ste. Marie, Wawa and the Algoma district and on the problems generally that have been faced by single-industry towns across the north over the years.

The situation in Sault Ste. Marie is a grave one, as we have seen and as has been mentioned in the preliminary remarks. The number of unemployed in the Sault has escalated tremendously in recent months. As recently as October 1985, registrants at the unemployment office in the Sault totalled 5,216. Since that point, the escalation has been steady, with more than 5,500 in November, 5,800 in December, 6,400 in January, 6,900 in February, 7,408 in March and reaching more than 8,000 in April, an increase of nearly 3,000 unemployed in Sault Ste. Marie. That is in advance of these major layoffs having to take place.

A good portion of those layoffs are from the spinoff effect of what happens when one has a major layoff at a major employer in a single-industry town such as the Sault. As I have mentioned, the tube mill slowdown from 20 turns last fall to a five-turn operation today has resulted in approximately 700 jobs being lost at Algoma Steel. These have spiralled into nearly 3,000 jobs throughout the community; that is the result of the multiplier effect taking consumer spending out of the community.

In Wawa, another 400 jobs are at stake -- more than 400 jobs when one takes into account management and salaried personnel there as well as the spinoff jobs in Wawa. Algoma Central Railway has a threatened shutdown. The lumber businesses along the ACR are dependent for low-cost transport of their material on the ACR. Two thirds of the business of ACR has to do with the steel company. It is extremely questionable whether it can remain viable, and if it can, what rates it would have to charge on the remaining freight to carry the load if it did not have the ore from Algoma Steel. The tour train in the Sault is a major concern relating to the ACR as well; 100,000 passengers are carried a year on it. These types of spinoffs are the kinds of effects that will ramify throughout the small business community in Sault Ste. Marie.

In regard to Algoma's specific action, I have particular concerns about Canadian Pacific's role in the northern economy and its influence on major corporations, which are its subsidiaries. Canadian Pacific has owned 61 per cent of Algoma Steel since the early 1970s, and the corporation has not done particularly well under the tutelage of Canadian Pacific.

Undoubtedly one of the main reasons that Canadian Pacific is holding Algoma is for the AMCA assets. AMCA is the new name for the Dominion Bridge operation, a major corporation located primarily in the United States and with sales of about $2 billion; that is double the size of Algoma Steel. Algoma holds about 34 per cent of the shares of that corporation, and the market value of those shares is more than $200 million.

If Algoma had the cash for those shares from Canadian Pacific, it could have paid off more than one third of Algoma's debt and put it into a much stronger financial position than it is in today. In fact, it would have brought Algoma into a profit-making position last year just based on the interest savings it would have had on its long-term debt, which today totals more than $600 million.

We see Canadian Pacific taking similar action in Thunder Bay with Great Lakes Forest Products, which has recently announced in a similar fashion at its annual meeting the intention to shut down its waferboard plant. As well, we have the case of Kimberly-Clark suggesting the shutdown of its operation at Terrace Bay in northern Ontario.

We need action from this government. I hope we can get some action that will focus directly on the problems of northern Ontario. The recent throne speech was woefully inadequate in addressing the real issues in northern Ontario. There are references to certain northern problems, such as northern agriculture. There is a proposal for an advisory board for Ontario Hydro. There is talk about more tourism promotions programs. I believe the other major initiative was to build a new science and technology high school.

4 p.m.

Those proposals do not address the fundamental issues of the resource-based industries of northern Ontario. There is no mention of forestry or mining, and there is no mention of the critical nature of the steel mill in Sault Ste. Marie. There is no mention of the fact that many northern communities are single-industry towns dependent on one major industry for employment and support of economic development. Many of the jobs are dependent on those single industries.

The government has its much-acclaimed $100-million northern development program over the next five years. It sounds great, but the amounts involved are small when one looks at the amount of discriminatory funding going to communities in southern Ontario, funding the north does not have the same opportunity to draw on.

Mr. Wildman: The domed stadium.

Mr. Morin-Strom: The domed stadium.

To give one example, I might mention an area that I believe is of tremendous importance to economic development in the north or in any region. If we want to stimulate new jobs and stimulate firms to locate in an area, I believe we need to have educational facilities that can train people and allow corporations in the forefront of technology to be retrained. Northern Ontario has been woefully underserved in university funding.

This $100 million over five years is $20 million per year for all of northern Ontario. Compare that with the funding for any of the major universities in southern Ontario. For example, the city of Kingston receives nearly $90 million a year just for Queen's University. The city of Waterloo is receiving more than $100 million a year in funding for the University of Waterloo. That alone is more than double the amount of university funds going into northern Ontario, where there are only two major universities, Lakehead University and Laurentian University of Sudbury. Each gets slightly more than $20 million, while the Sault, which has a subcollege of Laurentian, gets a little more than $2 million a year.

That kind of funding is a real economic disadvantage to northern Ontario. We have to demand that government spending be more equitably balanced between the north and the south so the north has a chance to partake in equal proportion to what it is providing in tax revenues.

I look forward to hearing the suggestions of others. I know my colleagues will have a number of suggestions they will want to talk about. We have to look at demanding corporate accountability from those corporations to the employees and communities that are dependent on them. We have to look at the need for a northern heritage fund, which would provide the investment funds we need to support public and private as well as perhaps co-operative community-based enterprises that are so important to developing those new jobs and the balanced economy we all want for northern Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: In recognizing the member for Brantford, I understand there is an agreement that rotation will go counterclockwise.

Mr. Gillies: So I understand.

I have to echo the words of the member for Sault Ste. Marie. While I am pleased to participate in the debate, I am sorry it has to take place at all.

I say to the member and to the people of Sault Ste. Marie, I join this debate as somebody who has experienced the devastating effects of high rates of unemployment and layoffs in a small industrial city. During the recession not so very long ago, my riding of Brantford was hit, if not as hard as the Sault is today, pretty darned close to it, with unemployment rates running to the 20 per cent level and some of our largest industries laying off workers and closing down. I am well aware from bitter personal experience of the terrible, dislocating effect this has on a community, its people and the family life of a community such as the Sault.

As I said during question period when I was questioning the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the number of layoffs in the province in the early months of this year is up by 65 per cent over the same months in 1985. In Sault Ste. Marie, if we take January and February as an example, layoffs are up by 450 per cent this year over last.

While I join in the pleasure I am sure all members feel that our employment rate province-wide has dropped in the past year and that new jobs are being generated, I feel the contrast between these two sets of statistics points out very dramatically the plight of many older workers who are laid off or displaced from the labour force because of industrial adjustment. These are the people who find it most difficult to find new jobs.

I came from a family where my father lost his job of long standing in his late 5Os. I know what it is like for a man or a woman of that age to try to find other employment; not just employment remotely suitable to his or her skills, abilities and interests but suitable industrial employment at all. This will be the fate of many men and women in Sault Ste. Marie.

The member for Sault Ste. Marie mentioned the unemployment rate experienced in that community. My best estimate is that it is now between 18 per cent and 20 per cent. While the member for Sault Ste. Marie earlier in the day mentioned the March unemployment insurance claimants for his community -- 7,400 approximately -- I , am sure he will be most distressed to know that as of April 18 it has gone up to 8,020. Thus, not only is there a serious problem in terms of the number of unemployed, the number of people claiming, but also the trend is in entirely the wrong direction: upwards.

High rates of unemployment and layoffs, in my own experience, place a tremendous strain on a number of other services within the community. They place a strain, obviously, on unemployment insurance delivery and on the welfare system, but also on a number of things that one may not think of as readily, such as housing. People are losing their homes. People are unable to carry their mortgages and are being forced into the rental market to house their families. The vacancy rate in rental housing in Sault Ste. Marie right now is 0.8 per cent, less than one per cent.

The Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) recently announced 6,700 nonprofit and co-op housing units for the province for 1986. Sault Ste. Marie received 25 of those. The honourable member mentioned earlier his concern that perhaps some northern communities are not benefiting in proportion to other parts of the province in receipt of some of the services the province has to offer. Certainly that is the case with this co-operative housing: 25 units, at a time when a number of people are going to be looking for affordable housing.

Unless something is done, the effects in the member's community will be felt in housing, the education system and the health system. The effects of unemployment are very hard on an unemployed person. The experience in my community during the height of the recession was that it was placing a greater strain on our health system, on those services that people need to keep them both physically and mentally healthy -- all of this at a time when the tax base of the community to provide these services is being affected adversely.

These are some of the problems. As was said earlier, perhaps what can come out of a debate like this are some positive suggestions about what can be done and what should be done right now in Sault Ste. Marie to help some of these people.

4:10 p.m.

I can make a couple of suggestions. I say first of all, directly to the members in the Sault Ste. Marie area, that one mechanism we found very useful in Brant county during the recession was what we called our trilevel conference, a monthly meeting of the elected heads of the municipalities in the area and of the federal and provincial members. They all got together, put aside partisan considerations for a time and pooled their resources, access and knowledge to get every possible benefit for that community, whether it was federal or provincial grants, loan possibilities and so on. We found that extremely useful.

Faced with this kind of dislocation, a community has to be extremely aggressive in pursuit of every possible opportunity. I am sure Sault Ste. Marie is designated under the federal industrial and regional development program; at least I hope it is. They should be lobbying very aggressively through their federal members to get assistance, new types of industry and new types of development into the area.

We have to remember that when we talk about a layoff of 1,500 industrial workers in a community, the spillover effect on the community is much greater than that. When we take the service-related jobs and other types of employment that depend on the operation of Algoma, we are talking about an effect on the community of perhaps 4,500 lost jobs. Many of the suppliers to that large company and many other service-related industries in the community will be adversely affected and will have to lay people off or close down.

The chairman of Algoma, Mr. Macnamara, has hinted he may be looking for concessions from the union when Algoma and Local 2251 of the United Steelworkers sit down and negotiate a new contract. He has not indicated what concessions he may be looking for. However, we should make note of the response of Dennis Abernot, president of the union local, who said, "We know that Algoma management has decided to ignore a recommendation of its own hired consultant to start cleaning out at the top." The suggestion is on the floor -- it is in the public domain -- that Algoma should have been doing things in its own house before it resorted to the drastic action it is undertaking.

I have a couple of other suggestions. My colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) mentioned earlier that we believe the legislation our previous government introduced in 1981 to allow for severance pay in the case of layoffs should be amended. There is a loophole of which the members are well aware; it has to be closed to allow more displaced workers to benefit from that fund.

As has been stated by a number of people and certainly by specialists in the field of labour relations, we believe the company should be looking at any number of rationalizations, including cutting back on overtime, using attrition and early retirement to avoid layoffs and consulting employees to see whether they have any interest in job-sharing. A variety of educational leave programs could be offered, such as unpaid leave of absence with a guaranteed job at the end of it, to see whether there are things that can be done to reduce the strain on the company while at the same time trying to keep as many people as possible employed.

Those are a few suggestions of what the government could be undertaking now to help the people of Sault Ste. Marie. I will close by saying that it is not enough to muse about the year 2001 and it is not enough for the Premier to say he is looking at all the options. I say to the members of the government party, these people need help and they need it now.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: What I heard at the end by my friend the member for Brantford amused me, but to talk about the past is of no use. I have lived in the north all my life. I know how much it suffered under the previous government, and the honourable member should have the guts to say it. He talked about housing, about the 25 units they are talking about. In the Hearst area they waited for that for four years under his government. The last co-operative housing we made an application for with all the money and all the plans was in 1981 and we never got an answer from the previous government. The member should watch what he is saying about the north.

All the members of this Legislature agree the situation at Algoma is serious. We are taking it seriously. We hope and expect the municipalities, the service industries, the company and its workers will take it very seriously as well, because all will have a major part to play.

I am told by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) that the activities being undertaken by Algoma are consistent with what many other steel producers in Canada, the United States and elsewhere are doing. The pressure of world markets has taken a heavy toll on northern Ontario's basic industries, whether steel, nickel, pulp and paper or forestry. The competition is fierce. There is no hope that this competition will fade away. In fact, it will become even fiercer.

We have to become more competitive to save jobs. To become more competitive we need to become more productive; at times that means fewer jobs to produce the same value of output. We need dedication to a common purpose and an aggressive, pragmatic search for solutions. All involved -- companies, workers, governments and ourselves -- will have to be flexible and work together. It is tempting to look for scapegoats, to ask ourselves, for instance, why greater efforts were not made in the past to diversify the economy of Sault Ste. Marie and its region in northern Ontario. This is not very productive. The challenge now is to search for solutions.

This is the second big employment blow for Sault Ste. Marie since 1981, when 4,000 jobs were trimmed by Algoma Steel. However, it is fair to say people in Sault Ste. Marie were optimistic that at least some of those laid off might be recalled. Although 4,000 workers were let go, 9,000 were still at work. With this second blow, Sault Ste. Marie realizes action must be taken. This action must address the need to make Algoma a viable company that is able to compete over the longer run. It must also address the need to provide Sault Ste. Marie with other economic support.

One of my honourable friends said that in the throne speech there was nothing about industry, yet when the Premier spoke about bolstering primary industry, I am sure he meant lumbering, pulp and paper, mining and other industries. He did not go into detail because there are other programs already in place. We could not write a throne speech at the same time as making a program for the north.

It makes me angry when the member for Nipissing laughs at the people who went to Sweden. Maybe he is jealous because he did not go. I did not put him on the committee because it was too political; I put somebody else from the north on the committee who wanted to work. Members should observe what he said about people who were going to see what was going on in other countries.

As for Wawa, we must all act now to ensure that its principal support -- the iron ore division of Algoma Steel -- continues to operate for as long as possible. I am having a number of meetings with Algoma Steel concerning its recent announcement about the iron ore division's operations in Wawa. I have been assured that while some production cuts are likely, no final decision beyond that has been made. The company has pledged its full co-operation.

The problems faced by Wawa are similar to those affecting several single-industry towns in the north. The Committee on Resource-Dependent Communities will have some ideas in its upcoming report that will help us to deal with such situations. In the meantime, I will locate one of my ministry's development economists in Wawa to reinforce our ability to help the community respond to the challenge.

I am, as are all members of this House, concerned about the welfare of those individuals who will lose their jobs as a result of these actions. Officials of various ministries, including the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, have met with elected officials and others in Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa to determine the full impact of these activities and to determine what can be done.

4:20 p.m.

Officials of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology met last week with senior officials of the federal Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and agreed to co-operate in developing programs to support the local economy. My officials met with Mayor Fratesi of Sault Ste. Marie on April 16, the day of Algoma's latest announcement. They discussed several economic development proposals and assured the mayor of our full co-operation. I assure my friend from Sault Ste. Marie of this too. It was clear from that meeting and others I have had that the municipality is becoming much more aggressive in its search for new industry. This is a very welcome development.

I met with Peter Nixon, president of Algoma Steel, on April 18. He assured me of his company's full co-operation in the search for a solution. He said the company has no option but to go to continuous casting at the Sault operation if it is to remain competitive and financially viable. This will mean the loss of a substantial number of jobs, but will make more secure the jobs of those who remain. That is what I was told.

With respect to the Wawa operations, Mr. Nixon confirmed that there would be some reduction, but that no decision had been taken about the longer-term future of the mining operation. He did stress that costs would have to be cut to make the facility more competitive with other sources. My people will be there to discuss what he meant by those cuts.

I told him we would work with him to find ways to reduce costs in a way that is fair to all -- we already have done that with other iron ore companies -- and protect for as long as possible the economy of Wawa. Obviously, the future of the Algoma Central Railway is closely tied to the mine and we shall be talking to the railway officials next week.

My colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) and a group of deputy ministers met again on April 22 with Mr. Nixon. It was originally proposed to have this trip that we are to make next week with the deputy ministers take place this week, but we were informed that the union executive would not be available to meet because of the Canadian Labour Congress convention. That trip is now scheduled for May 5, 6 and 7.

As preliminary measures and in order to get the ball rolling, we have initiated a number of interim steps. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) has instructed all ministries to re-examine their existing programs, both long-term and short-term, and to assist Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa whenever possible on a priority basis. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology will take steps to establish a Northern Ontario Development Corp. office in Sault Ste. Marie and to ensure that all assistance possible is available to new business enterprises.

The Ontario government will co-ordinate and sponsor a northern regional development conference in the Sault to bring interested domestic and foreign investors to the north so that they can examine potential northern investment opportunities on a first-hand basis. The first step is for everyone concerned to look at the challenge with a sense of realism and see what role he can play. We are also assessing whether there are mineral, forest or tourist projects that might be accelerated.

In this search for a solution, I shall rely heavily on the advice of the Northern Development Council that will be set up as soon as I have received nominations for membership from the municipalities and associations in the region.

I believe it is important that everyone in the House appreciate the situation in these two northern communities. They are preparing themselves to work together with local governments and ourselves. As a member of this Legislature, I think we have to work together to try to find solutions, not only to those two problems of Wawa and the Sault, but for all northern Ontario. These are the attitudes, efforts and commitments of a dedicated group that has come to terms with its situation -- I am talking about the Sault because I met with the Sault a few weeks ago -- and has the will to build a new future. We are committed to working with them to create this new future.

To finish, I would like to say that my ministry is open and we are going to work. On Wednesday I shall be going up to Ear Falls. I shall stop in Wawa on the way through and try to meet with the union and the town officials to announce what I am saying here to start the ball rolling. In this area of Wawa, I think there is a big possibility for other mines and we will do our utmost to change the programs to accelerate mining in this area.

Mr. Rae: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate, although like other members I wish it were on a different topic.

I can remember my first visit to the Sault when I was working in the legal department of the national office of the United Steelworkers of America back in the early 1970s.

Mr. Barlow: Before he was a Queen's counsel.

Mr. Rae: The member for Cambridge says it was before I was a Queen's counsel. That is true; it was before I was a Queen's counsel.

I have made many visits to the town since then. I well recall the last trip I made prior to becoming leader because it was in 1981. By virtue of my experiences across southern Ontario, I gave a speech on the industrial changes that were taking place and the devastation that we saw in Windsor and in other towns. At the end of the speech a number of people came up to me and said: "I do not know why you are so worried. Steel is going great guns. The company has told us we will be going flat out and opening up new investments. Our employment situation here is very bright." Three weeks later, in 1981-82, the company began to announce, the major layoffs and the major changes that have done so much to devastate the economy of the Sault.

This debate and the issue itself allow us to focus on a couple of matters that are quite fundamental to what is taking place in this province.

The first issue I would like to raise, because it is one we have to address, is the precise obligation of a company in this regard. The Algoma Steel Corp. is 61 per cent owned by Canadian Pacific, which is one of these large holding companies that have such a stranglehold on our economy in general. That kind of structure of ownership makes it tougher for us to get the accountability we would like.

The Algoma Steel Corp. takes great pride in the fact that its head office is in the Sault and that its president, Mr. Nixon, is a third-generation northerner. His father is a former Liberal member of Parliament for the district of Algoma in the federal House of Commons, as I am sure the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) knows. Mr. Nixon himself is not entirely unfamiliar with the workings of politics.

It is fair to say that this Legislature and the community of Sault Ste. Marie do not have the legal means to question the real owners of the steel company to determine what options were available to them and why they took the decisions they did.

With respect to corporate accountability, I do not think it is unfair to say that the minister and I had a very brief conversation in the restaurant about 10 days before the company's announcement, because we had both been hearing rumours. I asked the minister, "What have you heard about Algoma Steel?" He said, "I do not know, but I am worried." I said, "I am worried too." I am sure the minister did not have any more information than that at the time, and I know I did not have any more information than that at the time.

I question our framework of public accountability and legislation, which puts us as legislators in the position of receiving a bottom-line statement from the company that is made to the shareholders of the company. Basically, Algoma Steel is telling CP at the meeting held at the end of April, "This is the situation; this is what is happening," and we are left like so many brush-fire operators, running around trying to put out the fires.

The minister says: "I will set up an office here. We will have a special meeting and we will pull together a conference. We will hustle around and do the best we can." The minister talks to people, the deputy ministers go off and talk to people and the public sector is left carrying the can, picking up the pieces.

It is time we as a Legislature recognized that there is something very wrong with a system of accountability and a system of industrial planning in this province whereby an announcement of this magnitude is made and is simply dropped in the lap of the public sector, in the laps of everybody in government and in the community and, yes, in the laps of the workers themselves.

Then we all have to pick up the pieces and ask what can be done.

4:30 p.m.

When I went to see Mr. Nixon last week, accompanied by my two colleagues the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) and the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom), I said to him, "We want to set up a legislative committee." He said, "I do not think it is appropriate for legislators to be second-guessing a private, corporate decision."

My response to that is that there are no more private decisions, in that sense, in an economy of this scale and size. A decision taken by a company whose shares are traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange, which is a company that has a degree of public accountability, is not just a private decision; it is a public decision in the sense that it has an enormous impact on the community.

Despite the reluctance of the president of the company, who said he was prepared to meet with deputy ministers but had some problem handling the prospect of a legislative committee, I want to tell the House that today our members have referred the matter of this question to the standing committee on resources development. We intend to enforce a degree of accountability with respect to this decision.

We have to bring to an end the day when a company in this province can make a decision of such magnitude and say, "I do not want some politician second-guessing me." We are the ones who end up carrying the can. I do not want to hear a lecture on free enterprise from those who have both hands out and pockets out waiting for tax concessions and every other type of concession from the public sector, and who then turn around and say, "We do not want to be accountable to the public for how the money is spent." It is time that ended.

Second, I want to talk very briefly about alternatives. It is not simply a question of all the things the minister is trying to do. No one is criticizing anybody's goodwill here. It is question of recognizing that we are in danger of seeing two very different economies emerging in this province: a southern economy, largely service-based, which has witnessed extraordinary growth in the past number of months, indeed in the past couple of years, and which has been buoyant -- it has been difficult, but it has been buoyant -- and another economy, the economy of the north.

Today, we are seeing two Ontarios grow: an Ontario that knows security, innovation and change, and an Ontario that does not. That is profoundly disturbing to this House and to members of our party. The member over there may be lonely, but if he were over here he would not because we are all together in this battle to see that the north gets not simply its share, but also the infusion of capital -- public capital or capital generated from the community, if need be -- to generate the jobs that have to be there in northern Ontario to maintain an economy that is just and universal. It would be useful for members to understand just how serious this discrepancy between north and south is becoming.

In my travels across the north, I saw no industry that had a sense of security. Two years ago I went into a high school in Wawa with the member for Algoma and asked the kids in grade 13, "How many of you think you are going to be here in five years' time?" One person put up his hand. That was one person out of a high school. How would any of us feel if in southern Ontario we each went into our constituencies and asked, "How many of you think you are going to be in Toronto in five years' time?" and only one person put up his hand but the others said, "We are all going down to Houston, the United States or Chicago"? We would recognize what was taking place. That is what is happening in the north.

What we have to develop, and what our party is developing -- and, if I may say so, has developed -- is the sense of a need for an alternative strategy. It will have to be an interventionist strategy because the idea that the private sector will do it on its own is just a dream. Anybody who has looked at the north knows that. We can talk all we want about small business, tourism and all those things, but the reality is that if we are going to create jobs, then good, creative use of public capital is going to have to take place. There is no other way.

The experiences of Sweden, Norway, Finland and every part of the industrialized world that has a resource-based north are the same. The only way we can make it work is if government decides that is the way it will be. If we need a teaching hospital in the north, we shall put one in the north. If we need an engineering school in the north, we shall put one in the north. It will not happen if we leave it to the private sector. It has not happened and it will not happen unless we change it and turn it around.

Mr. Brandt: Along with other members who have spoken on this issue already, I find some difficulty in having to deal with the subject that strikes at the hearts of so many people who have suffered from the most recent layoffs in Sault Ste. Marie, people who now number in the thousands. The very recent announcement stated some 1,500 individuals will be directly affected by the cutback in the staff who will be operating that mill. We know the harsh statistics and the impact on the lives of those people who will be laid off. It is a very difficult time for them.

During the course of the few moments I have in this debate, I want to share some positive thoughts I have on how we might address the problems of the Sault and other communities that are suffering from high levels of unemployment, as well as some comments and suggestions to the government.

The Sault is not the only problem that is before us today in this debate. Sudbury has suffered from this type of situation for a great many years.

My own community of Sarnia, I might add, was covered by the leader of the third party when he indicated that most of southern Ontario was benefiting from a very substantial period of growth and new employment opportunities. Sarnia, along with Brantford, Woodstock, the home riding of our esteemed Speaker and many other places I could mention, are communities that are not receiving the full benefits of the present boom.

In many instances, a common thread runs through the communities that are suffering as Sault Ste. Marie is suffering at the moment, and that is, they are for whatever reason too dependent on one industry in particular or on a group of industries that have their focus directed on a single product or a very limited number of products.

Sault Ste. Marie is currently experiencing something in the order of 20 per cent unemployment. That is totally unacceptable and we all realize that. I do not criticize the government for saying that -- and I hope the Minister of Northern Development and Mines does not leave at this point, because I have some comments that I want him to hear when I can get to them in my address.

I have noted with some interest that when we have talked about unemployment, about housing problems and other difficulties that we all try to come to grips with as members of this Legislative Assembly, in recent days the government has been very quick to take credit for the fact that there have been something like 180,000 new jobs created during the past year or so.

Mr. Wildman: Not in the north.

Mr. Brandt: That is absolutely correct. My friend says, "Not in the north." I say without hesitation that by any definition there probably has been a net job loss in the north. All of the growth and development has occurred in the southern part of Ontario. When the leader of the third party spoke on this he was quite correct in identifying that as a current phenomenon.

I asked myself how the government would have the nerve -- and I address this to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines -- to take all the credit for all the jobs that have been created and then put the blame on those who previously were in government for all the problems that relate to unemployment in the north, lack of hospital beds, lack of subsidized housing and all of the other things.

In other words, in that short time, the government has been able to get the economy moving, and I take my hat off to it and to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I know the effort the people on that side of the House have put into job creation; I say that with tongue in cheek because the efforts they have made with respect to job creation in this province have been very minimal, other than to take on and continue with programs that were started by another government at another time.

If they are going to take credit for all of the good things that have happened during of the past year, they also have to suffer the consequences of what is going on in Sault Ste. Marie. It is no longer enough to talk about the committees they are going to set up, or the discussions they are going to have, or the programs, the plans and the great ideas that are going to come forth.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: What did the Conservative Party do for 40 years? It did nothing for the north.

Mr. Brandt: During the last election, they indicated they had the answer to one-industry towns.

4:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Oui, monsieur, your party did nothing for the north for 40 years.

Mr. Brandt: He was the one who said they had the answer. During the last year, he has not had an answer to any of the unemployment problems in the northern part of this province. He has not come up with one substantive suggestion other than to stand up and talk about what he might do and about might unfold in the future.

The great secrecy surrounding this baffles me. It baffles me beyond belief. I see the Minister of Northern Development and Mines standing up to take issue with some of the efforts of our government in the north, but I have yet to see him come up with one plan that even comes close to some of our efforts during the time we were in government.

The minister has to come to grips with this situation; in fact, the two ministers responsible for job creation -- the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology -- have to come to grips with this situation. They have to look very seriously at programs that can bring some immediate short-term relief to Sault Ste. Marie and at long-term programs for industrial diversification and expansion in those parts of Ontario that require dependency on more than one industry.

I want to be positive in my comments. I know the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) would like me to be positive in my comments, and I want to be. As a government, his party could bring in more flexible retraining programs that recognize there are people in all age groups who are suffering from the layoffs at Algoma. More flexible retraining programs would address at least part of those problems. Relocation assistance should be provided to those workers who have a trade or a level of expertise that could be used in some other part of Ontario, where jobs are available. In his discussions with his committees, the minister could take a look at that suggestion.

As well, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology should make a much more substantive effort to make grants, levels of assistance, loans and programs available to communities such as Sault Ste. Marie. I have heard statements by the mayor of that city that I agree with entirely. The reliance on one large industry is really a thing of the past.

The most recent statistics I have seen indicate there has been a net job loss of 15 per cent across the board in all large industries in Ontario over the past three or four years. All new jobs in Ontario are today being created by small enterprises. There is no reason for the job loss. It does not take huge amounts of money to start planting the seed for some of the industries that might make sense for the Sault or for Sudbury. Those industries have to be the type that are not heavy on the transportation side, because transportation costs would make them uncompetitive.

We could start to look very carefully at the industries that make sense for those areas. The work force has a level of expertise that one would hope could be translated into a new employment opportunity. We can marry those concepts. Small industries, perhaps the tool and die industry or many others, might be looked at. These industries would be specifically tailored to those regions, and the government would give substantive grants, subsidies and loans.

Here is where I part company with my friends in the third party. Those government loans, grants and subsidies are quite appropriate, but I want to see those industries run only by the private sector. Too frequently, government-operated activities end in failure because they are not operated under the normal rules of doing business.

We can identify the markets that those industries might be able to penetrate and the types of opportunities there could be. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has an obligation to work with his colleague the Minister of Northern Development and Mines to focus specifically on those problems and come up with realistic solutions to the very real difficulties those areas are facing.

In many instances, the people we are talking about in Sault Ste. Marie, as my friends know, have never been unemployed before. This is their first experience with unemployment. They may have suffered from short-term layoffs or from job dislocation for a short time, but permanent layoffs are a new experience. These people need all the assistance they can get in order to come to grips with this new reality.

They need a more sympathetic, immediate, direct and focused response from the government, which sat over there through an entire election and said: "We have the answer to northern problems. We know how to diversify industry. We know how to create more jobs in the north. We know how to end the dependency of one-industry towns." I am looking for the answers the government has to those questions because, up until now, its grade is a D minus.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I welcome this opportunity to discuss the current situation facing our steel industry and, in particular, the Algoma Steel Corp. We are very aware of the importance the steel industry plays in Canada and Ontario. Approximately 80 per cent of the Canadian steel industry is located within this province; numerous cities and towns, whether they be mining towns or steel-making towns, depend on our steel industry.

Our steel industry, along with the entire North American steel industry, has had a particularly rough period during the past few years. The industry has only partially recovered from the sharp decline of 1982. Despite this rough road they have had to travel, the major steel producers in Ontario have continued to make large capital investments in their facilities, expand and upgrade, where necessary, and retrain their people.

Our steel industry is of sufficient size to be important in its own right. It is also important as a seller of its products to other manufacturing industries. There are in excess of 700,000 people employed in manufacturing industries across Canada who depend upon steel to make their products. The quality of these products is determined to a substantial extent by the quality of the steel to which they have access.

In most cases, this steel is Canadian made. The Canadian steel industry is considered to be a quality producer by customers in Canada, the United States, Europe and elsewhere. One of the most important markets for steel products in Canada is the automotive industry. The Ontario government has taken considerable initiatives to attract automotive and related investment that will provide additional markets for our steel manufacturers.

The Canadian steel market is very significant. Many steel companies from around the world compete in our domestic market. At the same time, the Canadian steel industry depends upon export markets to keep its mills fully utilized.

The Ontario government is deeply concerned over the international trade difficulties facing the Ontario steel industry. We have been working closely with the industry and the federal government to resolve the two major trade difficulties currently facing the steel companies. First, there is the potential that steel exports to the United States markets from overseas suppliers may now be diverted into Canada as a result of US market access restraints. Any surge in injurious steel imports can have negative consequences for Ontario in terms of job-loss community impacts. The Canadian market must not be used as a dumping ground for offshore steel exports, nor must it be used as a back door to the US market.

Second, we have a continuing concern with regard to possible reduced market access for Canadian steel to US markets. Canadian steel exporters are fair traders who are well aware of the need to exercise prudence with respect to sales in the US market. However, some US interests are lobbying to restrict Canadian imports. They appear not to be fully aware of the mutual benefits of an integrated Canada-US steel market.

With regard to the first issue, the steel industry has formally asked the government of Canada to direct the Canadian import tribunal to conduct an immediate review of the state of the steel industry in relation to offshore imports. It is our hope that this assessment can be made as rapidly as possible, should serious injury be found in the import permit system, to strengthen the trade complaint system where it may be necessary.

The Premier is writing to the Prime Minister to outline our position on this issue and to indicate support for the steel industry. The Ontario government is continuing discussions with the steel industry officials to support their efforts to counter the misinformation of US protectionists. We are working with the industry to identify US allies who recognize that US import restrictions on Canadian steel would have adverse effects on the United States as well as on Canada.

Many key US industries are dependent on the maintenance of access to competitive Canadian steel supplies. Canadian steel firms are also major purchasers of US coal, machinery and other items.

Further, any significant restrictions of Canadian steel exports to the US could ultimately jeopardize the vitality of Ontario as a major purchaser of other US goods and services.

4:50 p.m.

It is important also to stress that there is a worldwide decline in the demand for steel pipe. This is a direct result of the drop in energy prices and the cancellation of many energy-related development projects. Algoma is a major producer of steel pipe products. This is clearly an issue beyond the control of Algoma or the government of Ontario. It stems from volatility in the international oil market.

There can be no quick-fix solutions to problems of this nature, but I am convinced that with a concentrated joint effort we can find appropriate actions to bolster the recovery of the region. This government is deeply concerned about the 1,500 layoffs announced recently by Algoma. Sadly, this is not the first time there have been job losses at the company. In fact, the Canadian work force at Algoma has fallen from more than 12,000 in 1981 to about 8,000 today.

Upon learning of Algoma's plans, the government responded immediately. The Premier met with the industry to review its situation and I met with the senior management of Algoma. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology will take steps to establish a Northern Ontario Development Corp. office in Sault Ste. Marie, as mentioned previously by the minister. This will ensure that all assistance possible is available to new businesses and enterprises.

A working group of deputy ministers was established to work with the company, the union and the communities involved, specifically in Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa. Staff of MITT are working closely with the Sault Ste. Marie business community in the creation of an economic development corporation. This corporation has a mandate to promote industrial and commercial development. It will also assist established businesses to grow. The corporation has the ability to offer assistance to the extent of providing capital and in return receive equity participation. Business leaders in the community will serve on the board of directors.

The government believes in consulting with the people affected to solve problems. Solutions will no longer be imposed from Queen's Park. We will work together in a consultative framework to find innovative answers.

Mr. Mackenzie: I cannot help but wonder what solutions we have ever imposed from Queen's Park in terms of our unemployed. The steel cutbacks in the Sault are going to be devastating to that town, as they probably will be to the town of Wawa as well. I cannot help but think of the number of times in the 10 1/2 years I have been in this house that my colleagues -- I think of speeches by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), Bud Germa when he was here and others -- have raised time and time again the pain suffered by northern towns when mines and plants close, the one-industry towns that seem to affect the north even more than we experience in the south.

The closures are usually a result of market manipulation or corporate rationalization. One thing is clear every single time it happens; there has been one constant. With a mine or plant closing, the people who lose the most are the workers. They lose their income now. They lose the value of their pensions in terms of their future. A substantial number of families suffer severe social consequences. Workers suffer and their community suffers. Because of a reduced tax base and an increased welfare case load, the viability of the community is soon put into serious jeopardy.

Another constant over the years I have been in this House is the number of people who ask every time we have a situation such as we are now facing in the Sault: "Why do we not have some kind of industrial strategy? Why do we not do any real economic planning in this country of ours?" We heard it again in the course of the free trade talks we have just gone through. Supporters as well as opponents have said that one of the things we are missing in this province and this country is any real economic planning or any industrial strategy for the future of our province.

Without it, we are staggering from crisis to crisis. With no real planning, the areas that are hit the worst are our resource industries and the single-industry towns where one industry dominates. Why do we not have a plan that says we should process our resources in Ontario? It is a call I have also heard many times from my colleagues, usually the loudest and usually with some sympathy when we have another crisis such as we now are experiencing in the Sault. Neither the previous government, nor so far as I can see this government is moving in that direction at all.

Why do we not have a serious plan that takes a look at import replacement? What the heck happens when a family is in trouble? One of the first things it does is to look at what it can do without or what it can make or produce on its own, for itself, or how it can handle the needs within the family.

What is wrong with this kind of import replacement plan, which can provide more jobs and certainly cut some of the value-added imports in the value-added manufacturing sector, where this country has a deficit? Why do we not have earlier information concerning corporate plans and cutbacks? It is not private information any more. I think my leader was dead on when he said that we have to go to the public with the plans of our major companies and our major resource industries in Ontario today, because it is the only way we can take a look at the proper planning, the proper retraining, the proper redevelopment of other sectors of the economy for that given town or area. We do not have it. We have no public justification procedure in place either, which this party has called for for a long time. It is something we seriously need.

In the steel industry itself, we are probably going to see all of the major steel towns affected. I happen to know we are not finished with the corporate rationalization at Stelco. We are going to see probably a further 1,200 workers lost in the Stelco plant during the next three or four years. Stelco wants concessions in terms of its ability to be flexible. I understand its arguments, but I do not see the quid pro quo, which would be to say: "We are not going to use the kind of overtime hours we are using. We are going to look seriously at enhanced programs of early retirement. We are going to look seriously at how we distribute some of the benefits of our society."

Why are we not coming to grips with the fact that the production of goods in this country of ours is not a problem? Most people have begun to recognize that in the past few years. The problem really is the distribution of the benefits of that production and the control of it. This simply means that we have to start spreading some of the benefits of our really fantastic capability to produce in this country a little better so that some of the workers get some of the benefit instead of always being the losers in another crisis or another plant or industry shutdown.

We have to take a serious look at the hours of work so that we do not constantly get letters -- I am sure others are getting them, as I am getting them -- about the kind of overtime hours that are being worked today. We should take a serious look at lengthy paid retraining and providing sabbaticals for workers as well as for somebody in a teaching profession. We should look at statutory holidays and at early retirement.

When we do so, we should not pull some of the mean-spirited things such as we saw with the feds recently in taking any retirement benefits into consideration in unemployment insurance payments, pension benefits or early retirement benefits, a practice that really penalizes workers in their efforts to take early retirement. These are the kinds of things that are mean-spirited and that take away from some moves we can make to spread around some of the benefits of our ability to produce today.

We have simply got to start coming to grips in this province, if we are serious, with ways and means to say that the people, the workers involved and their communities are part of the bottom line and not the corporate profit and loss statement.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I cannot think of a more appropriate reason to set aside the business of the House than the issue we are talking about today. I want to thank the member for Sault Ste. Marie for putting the motion forward. It is most appropriate.

I would like to speak to the issue in a personal way and then talk about some of the things the government is doing and will do. With other members, we hope to resolve some of the problems of the one-industry towns, most particularly those in the north.

5 p.m.

I do not know how many people here realize just how good and how competitive the steelworkers are in Canada, particularly in Ontario. They are among the best in the world, given the opportunity to work. The problem often arises about what markets do for them and about other influences that are brought to bear. Many people here are fully aware that the competition is so good the Americans look with some trepidation at competing with our steelworkers here, so they put up barriers that might impede our trade with the US in this field.

I do not think there are many people here who know that the first continuous casting in all the world took place right in Welland, Ontario. It was a major breakthrough in that industry. We are very proud of that down in our area, but that kind of initiative has taken place among all the steelmakers in this country, and they are among the very best.

Taking that into account, what can we do? I suppose I should comment on the initiatives of the government. In order to bring that into perspective, I have to bring forward some of the comments that were made by a former leader of those people who now sit in the opposition benches, one Premier Davis, when a question was raised by one of the members who is here today, the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), in relation to the problems of Stelco, which was facing a downturn in the industry. I want to share with members the response from the then Premier that day.

The member for Hamilton East wanted to know what the future was for Stelco's Hilton works, which was going to face a considerable number of layoffs. This was the response he got:

"I have expressed the concerns of this government on a number of occasions with respect to the steel industry. It is not confined to Stelco; it applies also to Dofasco and Algoma Steel where, because of the market situation both here in Canada and to a very great extent in the United States, the steel industry is facing some serious difficulties."

He went on to anticipate the supplementary from the member in this way:

"He is going to ask what the government is going to do about Stelco, Dofasco and Algoma. I will be very frank with him. I cannot think of any real relevant provincial initiative that is going to give impetus to the steel market." Then he went on to say: "I shall be very frank with the member. It is not a matter over which this government has any real measure of control."

I do not want the honourable members here today, or the people in the Sault, to take any consolation in that response. I want to diffuse some of the pressures that are being brought to bear by the official opposition, which would try to direct this new government into doing something in an area where the leader of the former government himself agreed that very little or nothing could be done.

Having said that, I want to go forward with what might be some constructive options that we might take in the windup. But in between I want to say this is not an issue in isolation. What we have is something that impacts right across Canada. It did not really start here; it started in the Middle East, where those nations that were producing tremendous amounts of oil decided that if they flooded the market at cheap prices, they would put a lot of our producers out of business: they would put that $20-a-barrel oil sands project out of business; they would put frontier drilling out of business; they would stop us from doing the sorts of things that use tremendous amounts of pipe from Algoma Steel. One of the major turndowns in Algoma was because of the western situation and the circumstances relating to moving forward in those fields.

The previous federal government had a national energy program. It was putting a lot of money into it, and that industry was going quite well. The new government down there decided it was going to deregulate and let the marketplace do its thing, and that is exactly what is happening now. The marketplace is doing its thing and it is doing it to the people in Sault Ste. Marie. The fact of the matter is that we must have help from the federal government; we must have a real initiative taken in going forward with frontier drilling and with all the things that lead to exploration that take a great deal of pipe and all kinds of manufactured goods from this province.

I went out west to talk to Mr. Zaozirny, the Minister of Energy for Alberta. I told him I was there as a Canadian and not as someone who wanted to see his industry depressed to the point where not only it will suffer in the short term but all of Canada will suffer in the long term.

While we can do some things here in Ontario, we need a federal government that is going to take the initiative and not go around us, as it did with the steel company in Prince Edward Island that became so competitive with the company in Sault Ste. Marie. The federal government should not pick spots to bolster an industry that takes away from another industry in another part of Canada.

Now the federal government is talking about a pulp mill in Quebec, when our pulp mills are reaching a point of competition that makes it difficult for us to sell our pulp here. It does not augur well when the federal government picks one part of Canada to inject funds into and hurts companies in other parts of the country.

The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) suggested the three levels of government should participate in the kind of dialogue that would be helpful; that is a very constructive way to go.

Our Premier has charged all cabinet ministers in this government to take initiatives in order to see what can be done in other industries, such as forestry, small hydraulic generation or tourism. These initiatives would be helpful to parts of the province that have this kind of turndown. He has done it in a very meaningful way: $100 million has been put into the northern development fund. I am sure members are going to see the results of that.

Our Premier has charged us with the responsibility to see what can be done and to do something very quickly. I am sure that is going to have an effect on those people in and around Sault Ste. Marie, Wawa and the other places that are affected. It goes without saying that the initiatives will require the co-operation and help of all members of the Legislature, regardless of party alliance. We are looking for members of the Legislature to be helpful in any way they can in order to do things to help that economy and keep people working in that part of Ontario.

It was very appropriate for the member for Sault Ste. Marie to bring forward this motion. We support it. This government is going to do everything in its power to see what can be done to help in the circumstance that we all feel very badly about.

Mr. Foulds: I rise to join in the debate and I do so with a sense of frustration and anger that I cannot fully express. We have just heard a minister of the crown say he supports the emergency motion, he feels badly about the situation, and the government will do everything within its power to help.

The minister and all his colleagues should know this debate is about power. It is about the power of the people, and not only the people of northern Ontario; it is the power of the people of this province as expressed through its government.

The debate is also about whether that government has the courage to do two things: first, to look to the future in protecting the jobs, rights and investments of the people of northern Ontario; and second, to take the legislative power that is necessary to control the corporations that have made their money and their investment from the people, riches and resources of northern Ontario, and are now abandoning them.

5:10 p.m.

It is all very well for the minister, his colleagues and the Premier to express their concern as good Liberals and to say they support the motion, but they are the government and they had darned well better do something and do something fast, because we in northern Ontario are facing a crisis in our economy. It is not nearly good enough to say: "This is part of the international crisis. This is part of a national crisis. This is part of a provincial crisis."

What we are seeing today is a step that could be devastating to the economy of Sault Ste. Marie, and my colleague the member for Algoma will be talking about the devastating effect on the one-industry town of Wawa.

This is nothing new. Over the last 10 years we have seen an attack on the economy of the resources and the resource-based industries in northern Ontario. We had the shutdown of Menora Mines in 1978. We had the shutdown of the Steep Rock iron mine in Atikokan in 1978-79. We had the shutdown of the National Steel Corp., Hanna Mining, at Capreol in 1979. We had the Caland Ore shutdown in Atikokan in 1979-80. We had the shutdown of Inco's iron ore recovery plant at Capreol in 1980. We had the termination of the Steep Rock Resources Bending Lake development in northwestern Ontario in 1983. We had the shutdown of the Griffith Mine at Ear Falls just recently, and we had the shutdown of the Shebandowan mine of Inco in northwestern Ontario on January 27, 1978.

I will speak for a moment about the Griffith Mine in Red Lake. This advertisement, which was carried as late as 1981 in the Thunder Bay Times-News, said, "The Griffith Mine in Red Lake, Ontario, Ontario's most modern iron ore mining, concentrating and pelletizing complex; largest producer of high-grade iron ore pellets at 1.5 million pounds per year.... The Griffith Mine is part of northwestern Ontario's growth, lending a stable economic base to the Red Lake-Ear Falls area, with a future that will exist into the 21st century. Is there a future for you in mining? Check with us to review career opportunities available in our operations." Fewer than five years later, it has closed without a whimper. Now there is a whimper, but that is all, from this government.

That is the attack on the resources industry. What we now see is an attack on the manufacturing and processing capability in northern Ontario. The down-sizing in Sault Ste. Marie is at the manufacturing level. It has subsequent effects for my colleague from Algoma in the mine at Wawa, but the attack is at the manufacturing capability.

That is what is happening in the forestry industry. It is the attack by Canadian Pacific, which is withdrawing its capital from Algoma and deciding to locate it elsewhere. That is what it is doing in northwestern Ontario. The waferboard plant has a manufacturing capability, and there are markets for waferboard. With the current boom and development in the housing industry, do we not think there is going to be a market for that product, for siding, for flooring? The company itself, Great Lakes Forest Products, has indicated there is an assured market for the next six months and probably for the next year. They are telling us it is not profitable, but I do not believe them.

I say to this government, if it wants to tackle this problem, it has to do a couple of things. It must have the courage to introduce legislation that will force companies to open their books and give the community, the workers involved and this Legislature an honest look at their bottom line.

Why do we have the right to do that? We have the right to do that because they have used our resources. In the resources sector, they have used them virtually free, without payment of taxes and in many cases avoiding royalty payments by a dodge in the Mining Tax Act for many years, which my colleagues from northern Ontario know about. For example, I do not believe Caland in Steep Rock paid a royalty or corporate income tax in the 20-odd years that mine was open. All we got out of it was a hole in the ground.

We also have the right to do that because we, as the representatives of the people, have invested in those communities. We put taxpayers' dollars into the schools, the roads and the infrastructure of the municipalities. Those corporations have a responsibility to pay back and to reinvest the capital and the profit they earned in our province and in that area. The beggars on the government side of the House had better screw up their courage, face the problem head on and get the legislative authority to do that.

The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) said the marketplace is "doing its thing." It is doing its thing to the people of Sault Ste. Marie. It is also doing its thing to the people of Thunder Bay and to the people of Terrace Bay. Kimberly-Clark announced at its annual meeting in the United States that it may not be able to sustain its operation in this part of Canada. That is a nice, quaint phrase. If it closes, it will cut out 900 jobs in the mill and 900 woodlands jobs in the community of Terrace Bay. That ain't good enough, in my view. It is about time we forced the Kimberly-Clarks, the Stelcos, the Algoma Steels and the Great Lakes Forest Products to justify not merely any closure but also any sizeable layoff in excess of 25 people. They need to give a year's notice, they need to open their books and they need to justify it, not merely in economic terms but also in social terms.

This debate, frankly, is about a very simple principle. It is about the principle of whether we have the guts to be masters in our home. We in northern Ontario are saying to those opposite who have the power in our province that it is about time they did that for the whole province and for the people of northern Ontario, with the people of northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I rise to correct the record. I wondered why the member for Algoma was looking quizzically at me when I was talking about Prince Edward Island. I was talking about the Sydney Steel Corp. in Nova Scotia. I thank him very much for bringing it to my attention.

The Deputy Speaker: I do not think that is a proper point of privilege.

Mr. Dean: The debate we are engaged in this afternoon is something none of us enjoys having to do because of the seriousness of the underlying incidents that bring it about. The loss of livelihood, wherever it comes from, is traumatic for workers, for owners and for the community as a whole and, if it is extensive, can be devastating for the person and for the community concerned.

It does not make any difference whether it is from an industrial layoff because of substandard prices in the farming industry, with which we are all familiar, or from some personal tragedy; the loss of livelihood is something we cannot fully appreciate until we have gone through it ourselves. I have not personally experienced that, except once in a while when the election goes the wrong way, but we do not count that because we know that is a hazard of the course.

However, in my community of Hamilton-Wentworth, particularly my own riding of Wentworth, Stony Creek, Hamilton and Gladbrook, this is not a new phenomenon, nor is it in other communities of the province. All members know the principal companies in Hamilton are Stelco and Dofasco. They have gone through something like what the people of the Sault Ste. Marie area via Algoma Steel are now facing.

Mr. Wildman: Not quite.

Mr. Dean: That is why I said "something like." If the people listening would wait until I finished, they would not have to make so many irrelevant comments.

Mr. Ashe: They are not used to listening.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Dean: That is probably so. The tragedy which may be about to happen in the Sault is parallel to problems that have happened in my own community. I do not think I need to enumerate them. During the recession that we all experienced in one way or another, Stelco and Dofasco in particular were hard hit in Hamilton-Wentworth with great layoffs of the workers. Thousands of people were laid off. Mercifully, some of them have been rehired, but some of them will never be rehired because of the adjustment in the way business is going to have to be conducted to meet competition.

In saying that, I am not writing it off as an easy shibboleth which is convenient to say, i.e., "That is just because of an industrial adjustment." Industrial adjustments are painful and it means there is a loss of livelihood and a loss of opportunities for entrepreneurs to do their work which creates employment for the rest of us. We have to realize that the Canadian steel industry is among the most cost-efficient and most productive in the world because of the way our people work and the way the management has kept the machinery and all the other accessories of production up to date. It may be the world's leader in many cases.

In spite of all those benefits, there is still a matter of overproduction in the world. We are seeing more and more new steel producers coming on in parts of the world which, 15 or 20 years ago, did not produce a ton. We have not seen the last of this kind of thing, but that does not make it any easier to take. What is about to happen in Algoma Steel, if it goes through, is certainly going to be far more critical to the municipality and the surrounding areas where it is located than what we felt to be serious dislocations in the Hamilton-Wentworth area because of similar problems.

I want to mention briefly a comparable case with which I have had direct experience. I know what it has done to the community. Some members will recall that in Stoney Creek, which is a major part of my riding, a year or so ago we had one of the Inglis plants announce that it was going to phase out production completely. That is not our only industry, but it is our second-largest industry, exceeded only by a long-time reliable industry, E. D. Smith & Sons, the producer of farm-product foods, beverages and so on of very high quality.

When Inglis announced it was going to phase out, I met with the workers concerned. They felt somebody had to help. Nobody in industry seemed to be saying that they were going to be helpful. The workers went to their members of Parliament and of the provincial parliament. I cannot respond in regard to what the member of Parliament did, but as far as I was concerned, I had many long conversations with these people. We took whatever steps we could to try to mitigate the effect of this announcement. Surprisingly enough, some of the people were subsequently called back, even after the first layoff, but it is still a phase-out.

It has been a devastating experience for many families. What do people do if they have been with a company for many years, are now perhaps aged 50 or 55, have invested a great deal of their time and their family's time in that community and suddenly their job disappears'? Even if there is another job at a distance to go to, it requires a lot of soul-searching to pull up stakes and go to that new job when so much of people's lives are invested in the community and in the industry where they have been working. It is very hard to pull up stakes and do that.

I know it has been a very hard period for the workers of the Inglis plant, and the end is not yet in sight. It is very difficult. The former government did what it could to try to see about a replacement industry there. I hope the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who does not seem to be gracing us with his presence now, and I am really disappointed in that because I think he should be here for a debate of this sort, is doing something -- I am not convinced that he has done very much -- in the range of things a government can do to deal with these phase-outs and difficulties in different parts of Ontario.

The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) has spoken glowingly of the co-operation between different levels of government which we all support and which was advocated by the member for Brantford. Of course, that is desirable. We cannot waste resources or compete between different levels of government to see who can do this or that in divergent directions.

We need to co-operate, but co-operation, as mentioned by the member for Niagara Falls and other members on the government side, is the last resort of a government in power when it is bankrupt of ideas. They say: "We cannot do anything. Over to you guys. Let us co-operate. You help us." That is a fine principle, but I will pose a question which is not a rhetorical question, and I hope somebody from the government of the day will respond.

Has the government not found out as yet, may I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the members of the government -- I notice there are no cabinet members in the House at this point unless they are hiding somewhere. Is there anybody under the desk there?

Mr. Gregory: They do not care. They are not interested.

Mr. Dean: They do not care. Not a single member. I see that --

Mr. Polsinelli: They are on the member's side.

Mr. Dean: I am not convinced they are on our side. The member will have to prove it to me. They are conferring with the New Democratic Party. I suppose I should have expected to see them there. I keep a very close eye out and I do not want to look to the left. I think there is a moderate position here, and I wish the government of the day would adopt that principle too.

I can see as I look across at those few seats over there that there is not a government minister present. That is appalling. It denotes indifference. I mentioned earlier that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was absent, but there is nobody here. That shows the limit, the extent of the commitment of this government to trying to do anything about these crises that happen from time to time.

I departed from my prepared remarks to point out how limited was the attention of the government to that. I want to point out that we have four people on our front bench, all former ministers or their equal. We do not have that across the House. The government has not yet found out that it has to assume leadership, wrongheaded though it may be.

Mr. Polsinelli: My colleague to the right is concerned about the designated audience, but I will not be questioning about that.

Our government is vitally concerned with the economic health of all Ontario communities. Northern communities in particular have special needs because of their lack of economic diversity and their heavy reliance on nonrenewable resources. This government understands the depth of human tragedy that results from the transformations at present occurring in the so-called single-industry towns. Our first throne speech outlined a number of initiatives that we will be undertaking in northern Ontario to aid in the diversification process. Special emphasis was placed on education initiatives, retraining and the development and implementation of new technologies. Furthermore, the government is giving high priority to the preparation of a comprehensive tourism strategy specifically tailored to the needs of northern Ontario.

The Sault has recognized the need to diversify the economy. Recently, the city has identified tourism as a potential growth industry and has investigated the feasibility of constructing a $21-million northern visitor centre along the Sault waterfront. The centre would combine a marina with convention, retail and entertainment facilities. At the same time, a group of local industries are proposing to construct a $1-million cruise ship operation, in addition to the three cruise ship firms already operating near the locks.

5:30 p.m.

To assist the city in it efforts to improve the local tourism base, the province recently provided $1.6 million to the former community economic transformation agreement program to help fund the marina expansion and improvements to the local sports fishing industry.

The problems facing single-industry towns are also being addressed by Dr. Rosehart's Committee on Resource-Dependent Communities. The committee has submitted a progress report, the recommendations of which the Minister of Northern Development and Mines is currently considering seriously. We look forward to receiving the committee's full report and its recommendations.

Algoma Steel is Canada's third-largest steel producer. Unlike Stelco and Dofasco, which have a diversified product mix and are oriented more towards consumer goods, Algoma is heavily dependent upon capital goods. While Stelco's and Dofasco's markets seem to have recovered from the 1982 recession, Algoma's capital goods markets are still lagging. Losses for Algoma are expected to continue into the 1986 season.

The recent drop in oil prices and the resulting decline in oil exploration and in demand for steel pipe and tubing have exacerbated Algoma's uncertain market outlook. We are all sadly familiar with the planned restructuring that the company is currently undertaking, which will result in the loss of more than 1,500 jobs in the next year in the Sault and in Wawa.

I am, as are all members of this House, deeply concerned with the welfare of all those individuals who will lose their jobs and with the impact this will have on their communities. Emanating from this concern are a number of actions that have taken place. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) is meeting tomorrow with the chairman of Algoma to explore at first hand what specific implications Algoma sees for its employees from last week's general announcement.

In addition, the Ministry of Labour has developed an innovative employee counselling program, which it offers in conjunction with local post-secondary institutions. This program will be available to the Algoma workers. The program will provide the laid-off workers with intensive training in job search skills and career planning and will offer referral services to other local agencies. The employment counselling program of the Ministry of Labour has been effective in a number of northern communities affected by work force reductions. These include the Inco reductions in Sudbury, the Griffith Mine in Ear Falls, Lee Canada in North Bay and Weldwood in South River.

Through the ministry's co-operation with the industrial adjustment service of the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, every effort will be made to identify alternative employment opportunities in the Sault area. In addition, I believe there is a strong possibility that Sault Ste. Marie will benefit from the proposed community Futures program, and I envisage strong provincial participation in that program.

These are some measures designed to bring some relief to the workers, their families and the communities at large affected by the pending layoffs. I also note that the Minister of Labour met with several officials regarding the program for older worker adjustment and expects to meet with his federal counterpart to explore possible joint initiatives for older Ontario workers.

As members opposite will no doubt agree, the Algoma announcement reinforces concerns about the issue of plant closure justification, as is specifically mentioned in the Agenda for Reform and as one element within the context of a more general reform of job security legislation.

Mr. Foulds: Let us move on it now.

Mr. Polsinelli: We will.

The minister has indicated to this House on a number of occasions that a broad-based review is currently under way. The ministry is looking at a range of options involving advance notice, severance pay, consultation, justification and disclosure.

The problems reflected by the recent Algoma announcement are indicative of serious, systematic difficulties in many areas of the northern economy. While every attempt will be made to ameliorate the immediate difficulties faced by the workers in Sault Ste. Marie and in Wawa, it is my belief that the solution lies in our implementing new initiatives that will foster new development in the north and broaden the economic base of those communities.

At this point I would like to quote from Hansard of a few days ago, where the Premier was responding to a question addressed to him by the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) regarding the Algoma Steel layoffs in Sault Ste. Marie. The Premier responded: "We are now in the process of building a future for northern Ontario, southern Ontario, eastern Ontario, the entire province. We see the future far more clearly than the member did. The members opposite only saw the future in terms of the next election, and look what happened to them." We are looking at a future 10, 20 or 30 years down the line.

To emphasize that point, the Premier responded to a supplementary from the member for Sault Ste. Marie, dealing with the Algoma layoff situation: "I am mindful of the problems of single-industry towns right across the province. This is nothing new. The member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) has been talking about this for the last 10 years; we are now in the process of addressing it. When the member sees the full result of our initiatives, he will stand up in this House and praise the government."

This is what this government is all about. We are not looking for short-term solutions, for solutions that will appease the opposition or the third party today and keep them quiet for a few more days. We are looking for solutions that will benefit Ontario into the years 2000 and 2100.

Mr. Wildman: I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Sault Ste. Marie for proposing this debate today, because the situation is indeed an emergency. It is an emergency because of the Algoma Steel Corp. decision and announcement last week, but it is also an emergency because of the failure of this government to grasp the severity of the economic crisis resulting from that announcement for Sault Ste. Marie, Wawa and all of the Algoma district. The speech just delivered by the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli) is an indication of that.

Algoma Steel has not announced just another layoff, a normal adjustment in the business cycle. It has announced a massive, permanent down-sizing. It is not saying these people will be off work for a couple of months, or even a few months or a year, and then will be called back. The company is saying it is going to survive as a much smaller operation, which will mean a significant number of lost jobs in Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa. We are facing the decision of an international conglomerate, Canadian Pacific, which shows very little responsibility and certainly no loyalty to the communities in which its companies operate.

The company is talking about changing its capacity to 2.5 million tons, down from 3.5 million tons now.

The reason for the debate this afternoon is that the communities in our area are crying for help. We did not suggest this debate so we could hear partisan statements about what the Tories did not do or what the Liberals are going to do. Unfortunately, we have heard that in this debate. We proposed this debate because we wanted to raise the profile of this issue -- a northern Ontario, Algoma district, Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa issue -- in the Legislature and with the government.

The situation we face today in Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa demands more than the traditional government responses. They are just not good enough. In response to my questions and to questions from my colleague the member for Sault Ste. Marie and from our leader, we have heard statements in the House by the Premier that indicate he does not understand the importance of the situation. These are not temporary layoffs. This is a downturn that means permanent joblessness for many people in our area.

5:40 p.m.

Since the previous speaker was quoting statements by the Premier, I will quote one as well. The Premier said these people are "unfortunate byproducts of these transformations." That is a quote from the Premier. That is the first time in my life that I have ever heard a person referred to as a byproduct. Perhaps that is an indication of how much this government understands about the situation in Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa.

Already we have an unemployment rate of more than 20 per cent. We have had a series of layoffs since 1982. We can talk about the numbers and the statistics, but we are not talking just about percentages and statistics; we are talking about people. We are talking about people who are my friends and neighbours. We are talking about the small communities around Sault Ste. Marie as well as the city of Sault Ste. Marie. The families who live within these communities are facing economic devastation. Saying the nice bywords about its being a restructuring and how it is something that has to be done so the company can survive does not help those families one bit. Those families' lives are being destroyed. They are not waste products or byproducts; they cannot be disposed of in some way or, for that matter, even recycled in the way that one would a byproduct of an industrial operation.

I have heard comments from members of this House today which indicate they do not understand the differences between the northern economy and the economy of southern Ontario. We have had people who have attempted to equate the situation in Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa with the situation in Sarnia, Brantford or other places in southern Ontario. I do not debate that those communities have experienced economic hardships since the recession in 1982. However, the point is that northern Ontario has not experienced the economic recovery we have seen in most parts of southern Ontario. We are still in the recession. It is not a thing of the past for us; we are still experiencing it, and it is getting worse.

As well, we are indeed one-industry towns in northern Ontario. Our communities are dependent on one major industry in most cases. When that industry is in trouble and when it lays off workers, it is not possible to get another job at another company in the same community. As a matter of fact, it is not even possible to go to another community to get a job. Do members realize the closest major employer to Sault Ste. Marie is 180 miles away? You cannot commute.

It is not like southern Ontario. We are talking about a very different situation. The hearts of our communities are being torn out, and I am disappointed that some members of this House do not seem to understand the gravity of the situation.

I want to talk particularly about the community of Wawa in my riding. It is a community with a total population of 5,000. It is totally dependent on the Algoma Ore division, the mine that supplies ore to the Algoma Steel Corp. in Sault Ste. Marie. There is tourism, of course, but it is secondary to the approximately 400 or 450 jobs at Algoma Ore division.

Mr. Nixon, the president of Algoma Steel Corp., points out that he is biased towards the Algoma Ore division and wants to keep it operating. He points out that it has had major productivity improvements over the past number of years and produces 80 tons per man-year, far more than any other underground mine in North America. Inco, as I understand it, makes only about 20 tons.

Despite those comments by the president of the Algoma Steel Corp., the fact is, as I said in question period today, that the company has shifted more and more of its raw material sourcing to the Tilden mine in Michigan over the past number of years. We are in a situation now where 60 per cent of the ore used by Algoma comes from Michigan. Historically, 60 per cent came from Wawa. The production work force is down to about 350, whereas in the past it was about 700 employees.

There is a great deal of uncertainty in Wawa. The reason for that uncertainty is the vagueness of the statement by Algoma Steel Corp. It said it would not make up its mind until the end of June about what the future would bring. It might mean a total closure, perhaps over five years. However, even if it is spaced over five years, a total closure would be a catastrophy for the community of Wawa. It would mean no future for the youth of Wawa. They will have to move to southern Ontario to get a job if they are lucky, and it would mean disaster for the older laid-off workers who already own their own homes and who would have no chance of getting jobs close to home in the area.

There is the other possibility: They may not shut down; they may cut their operating capacity from 1.8 million tons to 900,000 tons. However, even that would mean a job loss of about a third, about 150 jobs directly, which, translated, would mean about 400 to 450 jobs with the ripple effect. Workers with as much as 15 years' seniority would be affected. The community life would be destroyed. It would be almost impossible for small businesses to survive. Schools, churches and social services would be very difficult to finance. It would have a devastating effect also on the Algoma Central Railway.

My colleague and I have suggested that a committee of this Legislature, the standing committee on resources development, should look into this whole situation. We are looking for answers; we are not looking for political rhetoric. We want the government to take this matter seriously. We want to know that it understands the gravity of the situation for Wawa and Sault Ste. Marie. We want new initiatives and approaches. We do not want a government that sits back and watches the market forces take effect, because those market forces have had effect in northern Ontario for far too long and they mean complete devastation to the communities unless something serious is done by this government.

Mr. Gordon: I am glad to see the Minister of Labour is in the House this afternoon, and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I hope both of these gentlemen will give my regards to the Premier, who I notice is not here for this very important debate about northern Ontario and Sault Ste. Marie.

I want to make some very specific points. I listened very closely to the member for Yorkview. He was repeating some words the Premier had said in this House about how we are now building a future for the north. When I take a look at this reprint of the throne speech, all I see are references to tourism and to establishing a board to deal with Ontario Hydro. We need much more than that in the north. The people in Sault Ste. Marie, those people who are going to be laid off by Algoma Steel, need much more than tourism and a board to look after Ontario Hydro.

Some people do not seem to realize that in the north it gets cold in the fall, in the wintertime there is snow and ice and spring did not come until perhaps three weeks ago. I just do not know, after listening to the member for Yorkview, where these cruise ships are going to find their passengers. We do not get that many tourists in the north in the dead of winter.

If the government is looking for something that is going to be the backbone of northern Ontario and that is going to provide long-term jobs, jobs that go on day after day and hour after hour, then it had better not look to tourism in the north. Tourism in the north does have an important part to play, but it is only one part of the mosaic of jobs for people in northern Ontario. If the government is looking at tourism as being the panacea, it is going down the wrong road, because it is not going to be doing anything for northern people.

If the Minister of Labour wants to be realistic in this day and age, the time is long overdue in this province when a fund must be established between industry and government that would provide at least 90 per cent of the cost of retraining or relocating workers in this province, whether it is to one part or another of the north or into the south.

A father who has been out of work for months whose child asks, "Daddy, why are you not going to work today'?" or "How come I can't have a new bicycle?" has to say: "We don't have any money. As a matter of fact, I am worried that we are going to lose the house we are living in because, you see, son, after you have been on unemployment insurance for a time and there are no other jobs, you end up having to go on welfare. That is going to restrict the amount of money we have even more." How does one explain that to a child?

5:50 p.m.

Does the government realize the stress and strain placed on families by announcements such as that of 1,500 workers being laid off in Sault Ste. Marie? Does it know what that does to a community that already has 4,000 people on welfare and has had up to 40 per cent of the work force at Algoma Steel laid off over the past five years? Does it know what that does to investors from other parts of Ontario who are considering investing in that community? It casts a pall of gloom over everything.

Government today, in the year of our Lord 1986, has a very important role to play in helping people in Sault Ste. Marie and northern Ontario. There is no point in the Premier, through the throne speech, talking about how he is going to get into the high-tech business. We all know the high-tech business is going to mean fewer jobs, particularly for the people in these very primary industries. If he is not going to talk about job retraining in a meaningful way and put money there, I say to the Minister of Labour that it is not good enough. I look to him to change the attitude of many of his cabinet colleagues in this regard.

I will go even further. What we have seen in northern Ontario in the past five years is particularly distressing. I know it is particularly distressing to the members sitting to the left of me. They have talked about it many times in the past, as I have and as many of my colleagues have. There is a real loss of people in northern Ontario. People are moving out of the north in ever-increasing numbers. One of the reasons they are moving is they have not seen a clear signal from government, where government says it is going to start building job opportunities in northern Ontario in places such as Sault Ste. Marie.

Why in the devil should the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines be situated in southern Ontario? Why should the Ministry of Natural Resources be established in southern Ontario? There is no reason for it. Those ministries and their employees should be decentralized to northern Ontario. That is one of the key approaches the government on the other side could take. That is one approach I hope the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) will take. I understand he is coming forward with his new budget in a week or two. We will be looking closely to the minister making an announcement along with the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

I see the Minister of Northern Development and Mines is here. Perhaps I should comment on one point he made. About eight months ago he announced he was going to set up regional economic councils in northern Ontario that were going to help us all to find more jobs for people in the north. I got a letter from him about two weeks ago in which he announced he is just getting around to doing it now. If that is the speed this Liberal government is going to take in dealing with jobs, then it is in real trouble. It is not helping northerners.

An hon. member: It is 1,000 times faster.

Interjections.

Mr. Gordon: They are getting agitated. It is not my fault they are getting agitated. I give them one concrete suggestion, and that is to move the employees of the Ministry of Natural Resources and of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to the major centres in northern Ontario. That would give a real shot in the arm to the north.

The second proposal I will make at this time to my friends sitting on the other side -- I see we are running out of time, but I will try to proceed.

[Applause]

Mr. Gordon: I thank the party on the left for clapping so vigorously for me.

If they want more jobs in the north they will have to have a differential rate for hydro. Power is very important in attracting jobs. The cost of power is important. The cost of natural gas and the cost of hydro should be lower in the north than it is in the south. If the government is truly sincere about creating more jobs in northern Ontario, this is another recommendation it should take under advisement and do something about.

There is a third point I would like to bring forward.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: How did the member for Kenos (Mr. Bernier) react when the member suggested that to him?

Mr. Gordon: I can see the Minister of Labour is becoming agitated. He has had a lot of time; he has been minister for some time now. He has been able to bring in some recommendations and some proposals, and I have not heckled him when that has happened; so I would ask him just to calm down for a second.

The third item that is very important for people in the north is better transportation. Better transportation is key. If this government wants to see job opportunities develop in the north, it has to make access in the north easier, and trucking has to be able to move at a speed that is essentially the same as that at which people travel through southern and eastern Ontario.

I will make another recommendation to the Treasurer, who is here today, and I know he will put it in his budget. He should announce a program to have major four-laning throughout the areas of the north that require improved transportation for future long-term economic health.

I have given him three suggestions this afternoon. I have not been partisan; I have given him positive suggestions. I know these suggestions are ones that might take a little bit of money, but they also take a little ingenuity and a little hope and caring for people.

The next time the Minister of Northern Development and Mines is meeting in cabinet, if he could just set up those regional economic councils he was talking about eight months ago, we might begin to believe that he truly means what he says about the north. Concerning that committee he sent around the world -- the one he sent to Sweden and so forth -- will he please bring in the recommendations, because we are looking for them.

Mr. Ramsay: In summing up this debate, it would be safe to say that what we are talking about today is priorities. We have to realize that we have a vast northern region of this province and that we have to decide consciously whether we want to inhabit, work in and live productive lives in that region. We have never really done that; we have never formed a strategy for how we want to run the economy of this province.

We have to look at the priorities. Do we want our people to be gainfully employed or do we want them to accept social assistance? If we are going to put money into the north, it would be better to spend money to have people work rather than to keep them on welfare. This is the difference we should be looking at when we make our investments in the north. What we are doing is allowing all those people to fall through all the cracks in those wonderful safety nets that we in this party have worked for for so long. Sure, they get caught by the safety net, but that is how we say we run the economy in the north.

We in the north say this is not good enough. We want real work. We want to contribute to this province and not to have handouts for the north. We want to be given some of the tools, like possibly the Ontario Northland Railway and, as the throne speech said, Ontario Hydro. We want to see those tools so we can use them to create our own work and be productive in this province and not to have to be here time and again having these debates on putting out the fires, as we do in northern Ontario, and having to patch up these crises all the time.

When we look at these operations we have to look at the difference between what is a profitable operation and what is a viable operation. A viable operation may be at the break-even point. If it is not quite at the break-even point, it may be worth while to invest public money to keep that operation going. Not only is it contributing to the economy but it is also giving people real jobs. It is much better to do that than to accept social assistance.

We do not want that any more. We want to forge our own society in the north; we want to form our own economy. But we are going to need the tools that government can provide us to do that. We do not want to have to go through these debates all the time, year after year, trying to chase down companies that are deserting the people who have contributed so much to their profitability in the past, and that when the profit is gone, leave those people to go their way. We have had enough of that.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the time allotted for the debate on the motion by the member for Sault Ste. Marie.

I wish to inform the members that, pursuant to standing order 33(b), the member for Sault Ste. Marie has presented a petition requesting that the annual report of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Just before moving the adjournment of the House, I wish to say that the regular orders of business have been somewhat disrupted by a series of emergency debates, very similar to the opening of the House where the government moves Bill 1 before we proceed to a debate on His Honour's address. In this instance, both opposition parties moved emergency debates before we dealt with the regular business of the House. There is something all right about that.

However, we are hoping that the mover and the seconder of an address in reply will be heard tomorrow, Tuesday, and that on Wednesday we will hear from the leader of the official opposition or his spokesman. On Thursday, the House will not meet in the morning, but we will hear from the leader of the New Democratic Party or his spokesman on Thursday afternoon, and the regular debate will proceed following his speech.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.