Hansard Transcript 1986-Apr-29 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform the members that today we have a distinguished guest in the Speaker's gallery, a guest from our neighbouring province to the west. I would like to introduce to the members of the House the Honourable Howard Pawley, Premier of Manitoba. Welcome.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I join in this joyous occasion and extend my personal welcome and a welcome from the government to Premier Pawley. We are delighted to have him and two of his assistants -- Ginny Devine, who is no relation, I am told; and John Walsh, who is secretary of cabinet -- joining us today. We have had some constructive discussions over lunch.

One of the things I admire so very much about Premier Pawley is the constructive way he views his role in building a stronger and better Canada. I am one of those who supports the leadership he has taken at a number of national forums. Now that he is comfortably ensconced for another four years, we pay him our great respects in that regard too.

Welcome to Ontario.

Mr. Grossman: I join the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in welcoming Premier Pawley. I had the opportunity to sit with him at first ministers' conferences in the good old days, as it were, and much enjoyed his contributions on behalf of his people. He often had with him an array of very competent, skilled ministers as well.

No doubt Premier Pawley has had an opportunity to give advice to the Premier of Ontario on certain policies from one side of the political spectrum. I suspect he got a welcome ear, given what has been happening here. If the Premier of Manitoba should like to offer more advice, in this case to the opposition party in Ontario, on how quickly to beat a new government -- something he also has experience in from his first time at it -- we would be pleased to receive him later this afternoon.

I join the Premier of Ontario in welcoming our distinguished guest from Manitoba.

Mr. Rae: It is a special pleasure for me as leader of the New Democratic Party of Ontario to welcome my comrade-in-arms, the leader of the New Democratic Party in Manitoba and the Premier of Manitoba. Premier Pawley is accompanied by Mr. Walsh, who is a well-known graduate of the New Democratic Party of Ontario and a long-time activist in our party in this province from Windsor. It is also worth pointing out that Premier Pawley is a native of Brampton, Ontario, a town not unknown as a generator of Premiers. It is a pleasure to welcome the progressive half of that particular duo.

As a result of my meeting this morning with Premier Pawley, I know of his considerable interest and experience in such areas as how to end extra billing, how to deal toughly with the federal government with respect to transfer payments and how to deal with the major issues of the relationship between the federal and provincial governments on the question of free trade.

It is a very real pleasure for us, particularly after his successful election, to welcome Premier Pawley here and to say, "May you stay as long as you like." He is a brother-in-law of a constituent of mine and he is more than welcome to stay as long as he likes. We look forward to a little more of the New Democratic breeze coming from Manitoba eastward towards Ontario.

COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: If you will follow me through on this point, I believe the privileges not only of this House but more particularly of the new standing committee on finance and economic affairs have been abused. Last weekend in the press, and I have a copy of the clipping here, the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) was quoted as saying he is the chairman of that new standing committee of the House. Of course, that decision will not be made until such time as the committee actually meets. The committee was established officially only yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will take that under advisement, and if the member wishes to respond as to why he quoted himself to the press as being the chairman, it would be appreciated.

Mr. Speaker: I listened carefully to the member. I heartily believe that is a point of privilege and I am quite certain the committee will be able to discuss it. If it wishes to report anything to the House, the House in turn, through me, will be glad to deal with the matter.

[Later]

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to new standing order 18(b), on a question of personal privilege: Earlier this afternoon, the member for Cambridge rose on what he alleged to be a question of personal privilege. He suggested that I had incorrectly informed the media I was the chairman of the new standing committee on finance and economic affairs. I was surprised to hear the allegation and asked him for his evidence. He has passed me a clipping from last Saturday's Kitchener-Waterloo Record which does not quote me as saying I am the chairman of that committee but, rather, correctly quotes me as saying that committee has not yet been formally struck. In the circumstances, I ask you to ask the member to withdraw the allegation that he has incorrectly made against me.

Mr. Speaker: I did not accept it as a point of privilege, originally. I said it could be dealt with within the committee and I believe the honourable member has risen, not on a point of privilege, but on a point of personal explanation. That should clarify the matter.

Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to clarify the record. The leader of the third party indicated that there was an agreement between our party and the Liberals with respect to placing Bill 30 before Bill 94. I wish to point out that is incorrect. We had no problem supporting Bill 30 first because of the time frames in education --

Mr. Speaker: I remind the honourable member and all honourable members that it is their right to get up and correct the record regarding anything they have said. However, I believe you were trying to correct something that another member had said.

STANDING ORDERS

Mr. Speaker: As the members are aware, they passed a motion yesterday changing some of the proceedings of the Legislature. Routine proceedings are a bit different from what they have been previously. Perhaps I might explain briefly to the members, before each of the sections, how members' statements, statements by the ministry and oral questions will work, in case they did not read diligently the revised standing orders that have been placed on their desks.

Members' statements give a private member, other than a party leader or a minister, an opportunity to make a statement of up to 90 seconds with a total time for such statements of 10 minutes. These times will be strictly enforced so that all members have an opportunity to participate. As stated in the report of the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions in November 1985, "The new standing order will provide an opportunity for members to express themselves on matters which are of concern to them and their constituents."

2:10 p.m.

In the past, there have been a number of members who have risen on different occasions on what I might call fictitious points of order or points of privilege. I hope this will relieve that situation. It will be my duty to call those members out of order because, in turn, they will have an opportunity to make their points during members' statements.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEARING IMPAIRED

Mr. McCague: At this time in Ontario, there are some 66,000 individuals with serious hearing problems. They may be found in every community. They span every age group. For the most part, the hearing impaired are a disadvantaged group. They are disadvantaged with respect to every social opportunity from the moment of their deafness.

Consider the practical implications of this for a child. The problems of communication, self-esteem, personal development and social opportunity are almost too great to be comprehended by anyone other than another deaf person. The deaf survive on the edge of normal society, fighting for an opportunity to earn their way, prove their worth and claim their dignity.

Some say the cause of the deaf was fought and won long ago. This is not the case. There is a serious lack of public understanding and opportunity. The deaf need better opportunities and more resources for self-help. The deaf need a practical social response to ordinary problems.

The Huronia Hearing Impaired Society has 240 profoundly deaf registered members. These people are frustrated and worried. They are not able to contact the police or ambulance services in an emergency. This would not be the case if the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) were to act.

STANDING ORDERS

Mr. Breaugh: This is the first day of our new standing orders. While it may not be very fascinating for the rest of the world, for the members here I believe it is an important change in the way we conduct the business of the Legislature. The intention very clearly is to provide ordinary members with a lot more opportunities to say their piece and to participate in the kind of work that goes on at the committee level.

The standing committee on the Legislative Assembly will try to keep track of these new standing orders. I take this opportunity to invite members, as we go through them and get some experience, to bring their concerns and any suggestions they have to the committee so that when we review these standing orders at the end of this session, we will have a good working concept of how successful we have been at making changes in the way we do business.

These standing orders, of course, do not reflect my personal point of view, but there is a lot of me in them. A lot of work was also done on preparing these by all three caucuses and by a great many members. It is to be hoped that this revision of the standing orders will be utilized by each and every member.

WELCOME FROM BRAMPTON

Mr. Callahan: The leader of the third party indicated that Premier Pawley is from Brampton. I do not know how long ago he left Brampton, but we are now 170,000 strong and working towards 350,000.

We have a lot of problems arising from this growth, but we are working on them. I feel confident this government will address the problems of our hospital and our court facilities in that city. I take this opportunity to say that if the Premier is back in town, he should come out and visit us.

PROCESSING PLANT

Mr. Stevenson: I am pleased to announce a $1-million grant to the Southern Ontario Tomato Co-operative. The co-op successfully tolerated nine months of indecision and confusion in the Liberal government. In February the federal government announced a $1.5-million grant to the co-op. For the last three months the Liberal government had been unable to come to a decision. Last week I was contacted to assist in moving the decision along.

Yesterday at noon I was informed by the co-op that Brian Slemko of the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food had called to inform the co-op the funding would flow. Later, in question period, it was obvious from his answer that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) did not know the funding had been made.

Immediately after question period, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) went to the desks of both the Minister of Agriculture and Food and his parliamentary assistant, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller). Clearly, the Treasurer made the decision, and of all those involved in the issue, the Minister of Agriculture and Food and his parliamentary assistant were the last to be informed.

This is another significant example of indecision and confusion in the office of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. He is clearly the mouthpiece for the ministry, with the Treasurer making the significant decision. The Minister of Agriculture and Food does not know what is going on in his own ministry.

POLICE COMMISSIONERS

Mr. Ramsay: I would like to bring to the attention of the Legislature the manner in which the government of Ontario has hamstrung the functioning of the board of police commissioners in Kirkland Lake, the largest town in my riding.

Since December 1985, the commission has been short of members simply because the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) has failed to appoint them. In the most recent case, the Solicitor General has failed to reappoint a respected businessman of some stature in the community after his first term on the commission expired, with no reason whatsoever being given. This is an insult and is very inconsiderate to this member and to the people of Kirkland Lake.

This also comes at a time when the commission has been instructed by the Ontario Police Commission to spend up to $800,000 of municipal taxes to replace a badly dilapidated police facility. There is a shortage of money in Kirkland Lake, but now we have a shortage of police commissioners, which renders the decision-making process very difficult. More important, the government's inaction has frustrated the democratic will of the people of Kirkland Lake.

The previous government used to use this commission as a political football. This government's failure to act responsibly shows that the Solicitor General must restructure the appointment process so that the commissioners are chosen by the people of Kirkland Lake and not by this government.

TELEVISION IN LEGISLATURE

Mr. Ferraro: First of all, I cannot help indicating, after having listened to the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) give his speech, that this is supposed to be the members' statements period. I wonder whether it would be referred to more appropriately as frustration ventilation period.

The point I want to make refers to the fact that now that we are all movie stars and on television, there is some confusion among members of the public who do not have cable service. After checking with the Minister of Government Services (Ms. Caplan) today, I state publicly, for those who do not have cable service, that by the end of the year reception will be in homes, particularly in the rural areas of the province, so that everyone will have the opportunity to watch the tremendous goings on of the House.

PENSIONERS' RAIL PASSES

Mr. Harris: Last October I informed all members of the decision by CP Rail to terminate unilaterally all rail passes long held by retired CP pensioners and their survivors. Because there was no consultation and because this action was wrong morally, if not legally, I asked all members to support those pensioners, who felt the arbitrary cancellation of rail passes was unfair.

I am pleased to inform the House today that the pensioners have won their battle and that the transportation privileges they worked so hard to earn have now been reinstated. Many members of this Legislature responded to my call for support, and I have been asked by the pensioners to express their appreciation for their efforts.

Only one member refused to support this cause. Ironically, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) defended CP Rail, saying, "I guess economically things are tough for them." We proved that it was not as tough for CP Rail as it was for the pensioners, and I congratulate CP Rail. It listened to reason and acted responsibly in the end.

The pensioners also received support from many members of all parties in Ottawa under the leadership of Nipissing member of Parliament Moe Mantha, from the associated railway unions, from many communities and from local councils. The people who really made it happen, though, are the seniors and pensioners themselves -- in North Bay the Senior Steamers and in Chapleau the Group of "55" and others. It demonstrates that working in a co-operative fashion can get results.

Again, my thanks to all those in this Legislature for their help.

2:20 p.m.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: It has come to my attention that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) indicated only yesterday that the individual problems I have been raising with respect to health and safety are in fact merely that -- individual problems. The minister's refusal to enforce the act has made it virtually useless for protecting workers in Ontario.

I want to take it a couple of steps further and point out some of the things that are going on. These are not individual cases; there are patterns. Advance notice, which the minister says is not there, is still there. There is the pattern of companies being tipped off about when testing is going to be done. The windows and doors are open and certain equipment and production levels are cut back, so that it does not get the accurate test.

There are problems with respect to the way in which committees are appointed. There are problems in gigantic numbers with respect to the hospitals. I say to my friend the minister, over the next couple of months we are going to indicate this play by play, because unless he is prepared to enforce the act, it will stay at the position it has been at for the last couple of years; being virtually useless in protecting workers. The other pattern is that his ministry will not even use section 24 when workers who use their rights under section 23 are being dismissed all over the province.

Mr. Speaker: The time for members' statements has expired. However, I look forward to the same procedure tomorrow.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

Mr. Speaker: The next item is statements by the ministry and responses. Statements by the ministry are now confined to a total of 20 minutes unless there is unanimous consent to extend that time. Responses by the opposition parties may be made for a total of five minutes to each party. Again, these times will be strictly enforced.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I should add parenthetically that I just received a note from one of the esteemed members opposite, asking, "David, now are you not happy we reformed the process?" I am not sure how to answer that; however, we will leave the jury out on that for the moment.

SOVIET REACTOR

Hon. Mr. Peterson: l hate to do this, because in a way I am deviating from the rules we have just established in this House. I would require unanimous consent to do this, but if the members opposite are interested in an update on the Soviet reactor incident, I could bring them up to date. I am sorry I do not have statements, but this just came to my attention. Because of the international ramifications, I thought I could share what I know, which is limited, with the members opposite. It should be understood this is not part of our regular statement today.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. I am just trying to share what I know.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It appears there is an objection.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is fine.

Mr. Harris: There is no objection. I thought the permission was that the Premier be allowed to give his statement without having given notice and giving us copies, and we agreed.

Mr. Speaker: I gather there is an objection and this should be included. Is that not so? No? Is it agreed?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This is the best information we have at the moment. I believe Ontario Hydro and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. are having a press conference at two o'clock and will be explaining some of the differences between our system and the system in Russia. It is a most serious situation that I thought I would share with my colleagues in the House.

To the best of our knowledge, the accident started on Saturday, April 26, at a reactor in Chernobyl near Kiev. The latest information is that the reactor is on fire. Moscow has called for international help in fighting the fire and Sweden is said to be responding. Chernobyl has 4,000-megawatt, light-water cooled, graphite moderated reactors. It is possible that heat from the burning graphite is adding to the radioactive decay heat to produce severe overheating of fuel and the release of radioactive fission product.

As I understand it, Reuter reports there are 3.5 million people in the area of the plant, evacuation is taking place at this very moment, and radiation levels in the area of the plant itself are very high, which will hamper firefighting and other remedial measures.

There is little firm information available at present on the cause of the accident or on what the present status is, but there is no question this accident is a very major one. I understand thousands of casualties have been reported at this point, but I cannot confirm that.

I am also told that Environment Canada routinely monitors atmospheric radioactivity across the country and has announced it will increase the frequency of measurements to detect any increase from the Soviet accident.

Mr. Grossman: The Progressive Conservative Party suggests to the government of Ontario that, in the light of the circumstances related by the Premier, the government of Ontario offer to the Russians any and all expertise Ontario Hydro may have at hand, together with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., so Canada, and specifically Ontario, which has a lot of expertise in the nuclear energy field, may be right at the forefront of helping out with this international problem. I invite the government to take that step this afternoon.

Mr. Rae: I want to comment on the statement by the Premier on the enormous tragedy that has taken place in Kiev. I would like to urge the government and this Legislative Assembly that whatever our views may be of the Soviet system, our profound sympathy should be expressed to the authorities in the Soviet Union and to the authorities in the area of Kiev on the enormous human tragedy that has taken place. It is literally unthinkable that such a disaster would occur, and I think it would be entirely appropriate if, on behalf of the people of Ontario, this Legislature expressed itself in humanitarian terms to the people of Kiev.

The second thing I want to say to the government is in addition to what has already been said about the sharing of information and of all possible expertise that needs to take place. While we are in the early days of the reaction to this tragedy and disaster, it is appropriate that Ontario take the opportunity not only to gather as much information as we possibly can, but also to reflect in all seriousness on the fact that we, alone in North America and with the Soviet Union and France, are entering a period of very serious dependence on nuclear power for electrical generation. As the Premier knows, unless this government does what it as a party said it would do prior to the election and review the decisions with respect to Darlington, Ontario will be 70 per cent dependent on nuclear power by the 1990s.

When we entered -- when I say "we," I mean the western world and many of the Eastern Bloc countries -- into the nuclear world with respect to the peaceful application of nuclear technology, we entered into it at a time of enormous and almost limitless optimism about mankind's ability to control the environment and to control his future. We now realize, and perhaps this tragedy brings it home in a way that unfortunately nothing else could, there are limits to man's knowledge and limits to our expertise. The technological arrogance of a world view that might have been appropriate in the 1950s and even the 1960s is singularly inappropriate for us as a province today in the 1980s.

I would suggest not only that we as a province express our deepest sympathy to those who have been affected by this incredible tragedy, but also that we reflect long and hard on the implications of our becoming far too dependent on one technology that we know too little about, as today has made crystal-clear. We would be wise to reflect upon the implications of Ontario entering an exclusively nuclear age for our electrical generation.

TOURISM COMMERCIAL

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Because of technical difficulties, Hansard did not record my response to the questions asked of me by the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Rowe). I would like to take this opportunity to put my response on the record.

It may be possible that under the previous government Camp Associates was paid time-and-a-half to shoot commercials on a weekend. However, I can assure the honourable member that under this government's contract with the new advertising agency, Vickers and Benson, this was not the case. Every effort was made to ensure that this ad campaign would be cost-effective.

All costs for footage needed for the new campaign were identified at the outset. Explicit instructions were given to avoid overtime charges, and indeed there were no overtime charges for weekend filming.

In keeping with the cost-effective nature of the new campaign, footage shot previously by Camp Associates under the previous government was used in the new commercials. Indeed, some of the very footage the member finds so objectionable, such as The Frothing Waterfall, was shot by Camp Associates, hired by the previous government.

In consultation with private sector groups in the tourism industry and my ministry, the new agency created a more product-specific and people-oriented campaign that capitalizes on the warm hospitality of the people of Ontario.

To meet an April 15 deadline to launch the new campaign, which is considered the necessary lead time to plan a summer vacation, it was necessary to augment old footage with new shots using production sets. Obviously, it is impossible to shoot summer scenes in February and March, even on Lake Simcoe. However, I would like to note that many of the shots were produced outdoors in actual locations and that all the new material is representative of Ontario.

Mr. Rowe: Even though his microphone might not have worked yesterday, I did see and hear the Minister of Tourism and Recreation reply to my question. I simply say, what a difference a day makes. The minister should be aware that we raised this issue because it was brought to our attention and it was rumoured that the cost of this commercial was in the neighbourhood of $500,000. If that is so, we find that not representative of good, sound management.

SCHOOLS AND INDUSTRY

Hon. Mr. Conway: The speech from the throne of April 22 stated this government's commitment to strengthen the bridge between our young people and business, industry and employment.

Although vocational preparation and the transition to work are not the sole missions of schools, the development of closer ties between school personnel and local business and industry continues to be a priority for the Ontario Ministry of Education.

For that reason, I am pleased to announce today three initiatives that will continue to build bridges to business and industry for students, teachers and other educational staff.

The first of today's three initiatives will strengthen existing ties among education, business and industry and will develop new links to promote current and up-to-date vocational relevance. This initiative will provide encouragement to schools, business and industry to become true partners in permitting students, school staff and people in business and industry to work side by side to the mutual benefit of all partners.

It is essential that the Ontario Ministry of Education assist with the creation of an environment that allows teachers to update their awareness and expertise in the specialized fields of business and industry and allows employers to update their understanding of our school system.

Many school boards have undertaken initiatives to foster such school-business links and we recognize the importance of broader application of such initiatives. The government, therefore, will develop methods to encourage school boards to create programs appropriate to local needs, such as community economic development corporations.

Under this model, for example, a school board and local business and industry work together to provide training and related services in the development of enterprises uniquely tailored to the needs of the local community. This results in real and permanent economic development and employment.

As a first step, the Ontario Ministry of Education will circulate by September 1986 a listing of models for board local business cooperation. We will not advocate one model to school boards. Only a local board can identify that which will work best in its community environment.

This government will set aside $1 million a year for the next two years as a fund to which school boards may apply for assistance in implementing models for school board-local business co-operation. As well, the Ministry of Education will be developing a program of secondment for secondary school teachers to local business and industry.

2:30 p.m.

A second initiative will also strengthen the educational system's bridge to industry. Our students often see themselves as potential employees and possible managers, but rarely as future entrepreneurs. It is time to expand their horizons. They must be provided with the opportunity to acquire the motivation and skills necessary to initiate and develop new enterprises.

Today's companies also want employees with entrepreneurial qualities: employees who are creative thinkers, self-starters, problem-solvers and who can provide ideas on how work can be done differently, better and more productively. Consistent with our commitment to provide students with the broadest and best education possible, we will develop innovative courses in entrepreneurial studies.

I am pleased to announce that this government will set aside $200,000 for the development of two entrepreneurial studies credit courses for grades 11 and 12. These courses will complement existing business study courses. The preparation of materials will be completed in consultation with provincial business associations and university and community college personnel who are already working in the area of entrepreneurial studies.

Implementation of these courses at the local level will include opportunities for co-operation with excellent initiatives already under way, such as Junior Achievement and the student venture capital programs.

The third initiative addresses the need of many students who too often lack information about the steps of a job search. Although we can ensure the best education for all Ontario students, they still require knowledge of current labour market opportunities, job search techniques, résumé writing, interview skills and access to a directory of related educational and training programs.

We propose, therefore, to make available a computerized job search program that will provide ready and easy access to the information our students need today. We estimate the cost of providing this computerized program to be $600,000. This computer software package will be linked into the current and future network of technology in Ontario schools and will take a student through all steps of a job search.

The program will be widely available, simple to use and fully interactive; will provide interview simulations and generic job profiles; will allow the drafting of a résumé and letters of application and provide hard copy, and will be appropriate for use by students in grade 7 and up.

We expect the testing of the software package to begin early in 1987 and to be ready for the school year 1987-88.

Mr. Speaker, for your benefit and the benefit of my colleagues, particularly those in the third party who, naturally, may not understand what we intend to do here, the Ontario Ministry of Education believes strongly in our excellent school system. We believe these new bridges to business and industry will be of great assistance to all our students, teachers, school boards and business communities.

Mr. Davis: No wonder the Premier was yawning when the Minister of Education indicated the new programs. We are happy to receive his statement because we would like to thank him for acknowledging the programs the Progressive Conservative Party has already initiated.

I point out to my learned colleagues across the House that the program known as the student guidance information service, SGIS, the computer program for helping young people find jobs, already exists. I assume the minister means he is going to make an extension of that program; anything less than that extension is a waste of money and time.

His program to encourage business entrepreneurs has already been initiated in the community industrial training councils. We thank him for continuing the programs we had already initiated.

Mr. Allen: While I applaud the initiative of the Minister of Education with respect to increasing the intimate relations between school boards and industry and for the development of two new courses in the system for entrepreneurial studies, I call his attention to two facts. First, the problem in bridging school to work is that too many kids go across it too soon and too fast to work. If one looks at the nonacademic stream, where there is a greater than 60 per cent drop-out rate, the important thing in their training is to keep the students in school. I hope the minister will be targeting that as a significant fact to address.

Second, there are boards that have labour study programs on their books, but they have not been implemented at this time. I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to engage in an equivalent initiative at that level with respect to the entrepreneurial studies he has been developing.

2:40 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: The allotted time for responses has expired. The next item will be oral questions. While the matter of supplementary questions has been left to the discretion of the Speaker, the new standing orders set out very precise guidelines. The official opposition and the third party are each to be allowed two leadoff questions with two supplementaries to each question. In each case, the supplementary shall be confined to the party of which a member has asked the original question.

Following these leadoff questions, each member asking a question will be confined to one supplementary, after which the Speaker will call for the next question. I point out, as I pointed out yesterday, that under standing order 19a, every member desiring to speak must rise in his or her place and address himself or herself to the Speaker. I say this because I feel that if the question is directed properly through the Speaker and the response is directed properly through the Speaker, we may find we do not have the direct interplay that we sometimes encounter. I ask the members to address the Speaker, and if they do not, I will remind them.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for you. You may wish to refer it, however, to the Premier (Mr. Peterson). Given that Dr. Ian Munro, one of the world's top facial reconstruction surgeons and someone who has done marvellous work for the young people of Ontario, who is currently practising at the Hospital for Sick Children, has announced his intention to move to the United States, thus depriving thousands of Ontario children of his services, I wonder whether the Premier is yet ready to concede that his government's legislation banning extra billing will result in a loss of doctors from Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer for you. I remind the honourable member opposite, who addressed the question to me through you, sir, and back through you to him, that there is nothing unexpected about this situation. I am not sure whether he was the Minister of Health on February 17, 1984, but I can read the press reports to the member from that time, some time before we became involved in this current discussion, which said, "Dr. Munro, a cranial, facial plastic surgeon with a worldwide reputation for his work on the reconstruction of faces of children at the Hospital for Sick Children, is part of the exodus to the United States."

This is something he contemplated for some time, and I assume it relates back to the introduction of the Canada Health Act, which was supported by all three federal parties.

Mr. Grossman: I have the report from 1984, when Dr. Munro first indicated he might leave Ontario. Indeed, it indicates his concern about the Canada Health Act. The news article goes on to say, "Dr. Munro fears the federal government may impose financial penalties too expensive for provinces to pay, thus forcing them to comply with the new Canada Health Act. If that happens, Dr. Munro says he will leave."

Since the Premier knows he has the option of deciding not to proceed with extra billing at this time, and since he knows he has the option of having further negotiations with the doctors to see whether he can reach a compromise agreement, will he therefore agree that it is within his power as Premier of Ontario to stop the exodus of Dr. Munro by stopping this war on extra billing'?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have never had any indication from Dr. Munro that I have the power to control his life. The member may feel he has that power, but I do not feel I have that power. I chatted with Dr. Munro some months ago about the health care system. He has lots of interesting contributions to make in that regard. I regard the hour I spent with him as very worth while.

The member is asking whether I am going to withdraw the bill. The answer is no. He will be aware, as I am, that one of the things discussed was merit pay for special doctors such as Ian Munro, or an excellence fund to compensate in this kind of situation. I gather from what I read that the Ontario Medical Association has rejected that. If the member wants to take that back to the OMA, he can convey that suggestion. It may be helpful in a situation such as this.

Mr. Grossman: If the Premier is not prepared to admit that this legislation is likely to cause a loss of doctors such as Dr. Munro from Ontario, if he does not believe that is going to happen, why did he offer the following to the OMA last week, through his chief negotiator the Attorney General (Mr. Scott): "The government recognizes that a special combination of health care facilities, research and teaching opportunities and personal compensation attract and retain" -- here is the Premier's favourite word -- "world-class physicians"? The Attorney General went on to offer, "The government proposes to establish a special fund to attract and retain world-class physicians." If he does not believe this legislation is causing some of these world-class physicians to leave Ontario, why did he make that offer to the OMA last week?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend opposite is trying to give the impression that Dr. Munro is motivated by money alone. I do not accept that for a moment. I have to rise in his defence on this occasion.

Mr. Gillies: You did that.

Mr. Grossman: You did that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is what the honourable member is doing. This is still a free country. We recognize excellence, as he knows. I am sure he would be the first to stand in this House and admit that extra billing has nothing to do with excellence, or with seniority for that matter. Any doctor who wants to extra bill can. We recognize that the OMA schedule could perhaps be adjusted -- it is in the hands of the OMA -- or that the Ontario health insurance plan schedule could be adjusted to reward seniority or special excellence. We have initiated these discussions, and if the OMA wants to take advantage --

Miss Stephenson: It does not pertain to the OMA.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend opposite, the Treasury critic, does not agree with me. I hope she does not, because if she did I would know I was wrong. She is living proof that opted-out doctors have nothing to do with any particular form of expertise. Our system would have a component that we are prepared to discuss with the OMA.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier's flippancy and disdain for the medical profession of this province, including for my colleague, is an absolute disgrace.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: Is the Premier still committed to preventing physicians from charging more than the OHIP rates permit?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry. I missed that question. Will the member help me by repeating the question?

Mr. Grossman: Is the Premier still committed to preventing physicians from charging more than the OHIP rate permits?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are committed to ending extra billing for patients. There is no question about that. We are going to move on that and we are trying to work out a system. The member is aware of some of the discussions that have taken place. We are waiting at this moment for a response from the OMA, and we will wait to hear it.

Mr. Grossman: I am not sure what the Premier said in his response a moment ago, but if he is still committed to preventing doctors from charging more than the OHIP rate, why did the Attorney General, his chief negotiator, make a proposal to the OMA last week, which reads as follows: "The government believes that there are circumstances in which it may be appropriate to provide payments to designated physicians beyond those currently made by the plan. Examples may include physicians currently charging more than plan rates and others."

What is the government's position? Is the Premier still determined to prevent doctors from charging and receiving compensation above the OHIP rate, or has he changed --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect to my honourable friend opposite, I do not think he listened to the response I gave to his first series of questions or to what I just answered in that respect. As I said, and I will repeat it -- I will write it down for him if it will be helpful -- we are committed to ending extra billing of patients.

At the same time, we said there are certain problems in the payment schedule. As the member is well aware, that has been discussed for a long time. There have been constant complaints that the system does not reward seniority, special expertise or excellence. We are prepared to sit down and work these things out with the OMA, if it wants to. As I read it, it has rejected this approach at the moment, but we remain hopeful.

Mr. Grossman: It appears the Premier's position is that he is committed to preventing physicians from charging more than the OHIP rate, but that he is prepared to negotiate that and perhaps step back from his commitment and give them more money for expertise or to retain world-class physicians. If that is the case, since he has abandoned his commitment, is he now prepared to introduce amendments to Bill 94 that would reflect his current and new belief that certain doctors ought to be paid more than others and that certain doctors should be allowed to charge more than OHIP? That is what his last answer said.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect, that is nonsense. That is the most contorted set of logic I have heard in a long time. The member has returned to wearing spectacles and perhaps he can see better than he could a week or so ago, but he has not read or followed very clearly what we have been discussing with the OMA. We are still hopeful we can work it out. He knows clearly where we stand on the issue. We are anxious to have a resolution with the doctors. We are going to continue to talk with them.

Mr. Rae: On the question of extra billing, I understand the Premier told the press yesterday that there remains the basic difference, as he understands it, between the government and the OMA and that the government is committed to ending extra billing and the OMA is not. If that is the case, and there is every signal, publicly and privately from the OMA, that it is not prepared to negotiate an end to extra billing, will the Premier explain to the rest of us the logic of his suggestion yesterday of appointing some independent mediator to mediate between these two positions? What is the middle ground between an end to extra billing and a continuation of extra billing? What precisely is the middle ground? Does he not agree that it is not a middle ground at all but really a --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I did not suggest appointing a mediator and I want the member to be very clear on that. At the same time, if somebody has a constructive idea on how to get a meeting of the minds on this issue, I will be very happy to hear it.

I remind the member that in spite of the serious difference of opinion, which I do not underestimate for a moment, the Ontario Medical Association and the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) are still talking. I do not know when the next meeting is scheduled, but as I understand it, the OMA will be coming back with some ideas in writing.

As long as there is hope, we are anxious to negotiate a way in this situation. That is where we stand. I do not know how many times I have to repeat that in this House, but I am prepared to repeat it as many times as the member wants me to. At this moment, I have not chosen to follow the member's advice to reject any possibility of a settlement by moving now on the legislation.

Mr. Rae: The Premier should hardly be surprised that the OMA is willing to talk. It is in their interest to delay. Right now, delay is the friend of extra billing. Extra billing is being sustained by the very process of delay in which the Premier is so actively participating.

While the government has the right, through its agreement with the Tories with respect to the ordering of the standing committee on social development, to put Bill 30 and the question of separate school funding ahead of Bill 94, would the Premier not agree that this House, sitting in committee of the whole House, could consider Bill 94 virtually as soon as the government wanted to? What precisely is his objection to setting a timetable for the legislation, which will surely be a signal to the OMA that the government is serious with respect to the principle of ending extra billing?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me assure the member that the OMA knows we are serious. One of the problems is that in the past it was dealing with a government it perhaps did not take as seriously as it takes this one. That is the reality. There were many who felt they could just show up and have their way. They are now persuaded of the seriousness and earnestness of our position. They know exactly where we stand on the issue.

Where I guess I differ from the member -- I might even say I am a mite surprised at his view, as one who believes in free collective bargaining and a democratic system and one who would have seen many situations arbitrated and negotiated over a period of time -- is that he would want to shut this off arbitrarily. What I say to him is that in our judgement -- and we may very well be wrong and we stand to be criticized, depending on the results -- we think it is still worth trying. The minute I feel it is not worth trying to negotiate this, I will come into this House and say: "We can go no further. We are at an impasse and we are ready to legislate." That is where this government stands.

Mr. Rae: Is the Premier aware of the comments made in the press today, saying -- I am quoting from the Toronto Star -- "A top OMA official said that Peterson's uncertainty shows the negotiations have made `some progress,' the Star's Jonathan Ferguson reports"?

Is the Premier not aware that the signal that his government's various proposals and all the ideas he has allowed himself to talk about out loud, the various proposals that have been signalled in the press, from the health care tax to the proposal of the $53-million slush fund, to the endless process of negotiations and talks that have gone on, with no time frame set, endlessly muddling through discussing all subjects under the sun and yet never cutting the circle with respect to the question of extra billing --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: -- accomplishes only two things: $1 million a week for patients and a signal to the medical profession and the OMA that this government is not serious with respect to the question of ending extra billing?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With respect to the honourable member's first point, he is right; extra billing is continuing. I am told it is diminished in quantity, but I cannot prove that point to him at the moment. It is a problem. I wish it were not there, but we are trying to deal with that situation in that context. We cannot rewrite 20 years of history on this matter at this point. We are moving as quickly as we think is reasonable in the circumstances.

With respect to his second point, we believe the OMA is very sure of where we stand on the issue, as are the people of this province. Everywhere I travel, people speak to me about this issue and I get lots of comments. I believe they are generally in support of the kind of view we are taking, but they also are fair-minded and want, if possible, a reasonable settlement.

3 p.m.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Rae: I go back to the Premier, but on another subject, the question of gas prices. The Toronto Star has quoted the executive vice-president of Shell as saying that while the cost of gasoline has fallen by 10 to 12 cents a litre, the company has dropped its prices by only eight cents a litre. He admits they are pocketing two or three cents.

Given the statement yesterday by his minister that the Legislature does have the power with respect to gas prices in this province, can the Premier explain why the province has not moved to control gas prices when today they are at 39.3 cents and 39.9 cents in Windsor, 44.3 cents in Sudbury and 45.5 cents in Echo Bay? They are far higher all over the province than any market analyst says they should be. Can the Premier explain why, even today, he is refusing to act on behalf of consumers with respect to this gouging by the oil companies?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I probably inadvertently misled people through my own lack of knowledge about our power. We do not have the legislation in place, but we could pass legislation. I want to clear up any mistakes I have made in that regard. I apologize for that.

Second, my understanding is that at present there are two provinces which regulate gasoline prices. I have had some very interesting discussions with the esteemed Premier of Manitoba on this issue. It is a difficult issue for every province. One of the realities one finds in a province such as Nova Scotia, which has regulated gasoline prices, is that consumers are paying net, tax out, much higher prices than where the free market operates as a general principle.

That said, the honourable member is quite correct that the market does not operate in the same way everywhere. We see, even in a period of very high prices in gasoline, some very cut-throat gas price wars, from which the consumer gets the benefit. But he is right, that is not always the case in Echo Bay, Terrace Bay or Ear Falls.

We are monitoring that very carefully. The minister can give the member more information on how to make sure the benefits that can come from not regulating the market are spread evenly about the province.

Mr. Rae: Is the Premier aware that the president of BP was quoted on March 21 as saying -- and this is not a member of the New Democratic Party research team; this is the president of BP:

"There is no justification for an Ontario service station price above 40 cents a litre. If they operated at a low profit margin, as they have for years, they would only charge 35 cents a litre."

To focus simply on the question of southern Ontario, in Windsor it was 39.9 cents and in Toronto it was 39.9 cents right through the city in the survey we did this morning.

Can the Premier explain the fact that today, according to the president of BP, the market analyst I am using as an example, prices in southern Ontario are almost five cents higher than they would be if the companies were operating at a lower profit margin? Given this discrepancy, does the Premier not think it is time he intervened on behalf of consumers?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the member is asking for regulation of the market, that we set all the prices here, the experience is that this will result, on balance, in a higher price for the consumer, not a lower price. That is the experience in Nova Scotia. If we were persuaded that we could deliver to the consumer a cheaper litre of gasoline by regulating that, we would look at the situation. We are trying to cure some of the disparities across the province in this regard. However, I do not think the member has the magic solution to this. Frankly, no other province has found the magic solution to it.

Mr. Rae: The government's own reports suggest that if one takes distance into consideration, the differential between north and south should be only one and a half cents. The evidence today is that the price spread between north and south in this province is as high as seven cents.

The Premier has now been in government for a substantial length of time. He made a commitment with respect to northern gas prices. Is he prepared to live up to that commitment? Is he prepared to announce measures that will, at the very least, ensure that northern Ontarians, who have to travel greater distances and who end up paying far more in transportation costs than those in the south, will no longer be ripped off and gouged by a system that charges them as much as seven cents a litre more for gasoline?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me be helpful. It is not just a differential between the north and the south; it is between the north and the north. In certain communities in the north, it is much cheaper than in other communities in the north.

Mr. Foulds: Therefore, two injustices mean you cannot do anything.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not trying to justify it. I am saying it is a practical example of how the marketplace works.

Mr. Martel: He is no different from the Tories.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know it is not easy to impress upon socialists how the marketplace works. I do not want to give them an economics 201 primer in this situation. I am sure they understand that as well. Our challenge is to make sure those benefits are equally spread out. The member will be aware that we have commissioned a report in this regard. I understand the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) will be holding hearings shortly in northern Ontario with respect to these disparities that bother us all.

APARTMENT CONVERSIONS

Mr. McFadden: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Two days from now, more than 100 tenants are threatened with eviction from their affordable-housing apartments in four buildings on Sherwood Avenue in Toronto because their landlord wishes to convert their apartment units to luxury apartments. Many of the tenants are senior citizens who will have absolutely nowhere to go if they are forced out on the street. A number of the seniors are here in the gallery today to express their concerns about their plight directly to this House.

I have raised this issue on several occasions since last November. What steps is the government prepared to take on an emergency basis to deal with the problem these disheartened and worried people, and others like them, now face?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I want to thank the member for that question. I am very concerned about those tenants who are being subjected to eviction because of conversions or any other means of losing their places to live. I have responded to the member in the past about steps we are taking. I am concerned about taking very ad hoc solutions to these things. Very shortly, we will be addressing that issue. We hope to address all the situations that exist and with which we are being presented now.

Mr. Gordon: While the minister might express concern, these women are in the autumn years. They should not have to be worrying about whether they are going to have a roof over their heads at the end of April. Is the minister going to bring in specific legislation that will deal with low-cost rental apartments being turned into luxury apartments and with women being put out on the street like this?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I do not like to rise in the House and say where the fault or the blame is, for all the years that the problem was sitting over with the government.

Mr. Davis: You are the government.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Curling: In that portfolio, there were very intelligent and presumably very sensitive individuals; they took no action. What we are left with today is this problem that has landed on our doorstep and they want action right now. The way we have approached this in the last eight or nine months will resolve many of the problems. We are addressing it in a much more sensitive manner than the opposition party did in the past 42 years.

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. For some time, the governments of Canada, the United States, the state of New York and Ontario have been attempting to negotiate an agreement concerning the cleanup of the Niagara River. I am sure all members welcomed the recent statements in the press by the minister that he would not sign an agreement that was less than satisfactory.

3:10 p.m.

Given the very deferential attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada to the government of the US and his willingness in the case of acid rain to sign an agreement that contained no specific targets and no detailed plans, can the Minister of the Environment give an assurance to this House that he will not sign on behalf of this government, any agreement that does not contain detailed plans and a specific schedule for reducing the volume of contaminants in the Niagara River?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am pleased the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), the New Democratic Party critic, supports the position of the government in this matter. It was my position in the negotiations which involved four parties. I know the member understands that the United States Environmental Protection Agency at the national level, the Department of Environmental Conservation in New York state, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Environment Canada are involved in these negotiations.

As minister, I have instructed our negotiators to come forward with a plan or attempt to have a four-party cleanup plan which encompasses all that we in Ontario want. Included in that is a specific schedule for the reduction of the toxic loadings to the Niagara River. Any plan that does not contemplate such a reduction in those loadings to the Niagara River is not a plan which will be acceptable to the people of this province, three and a half million of whom consume water from Lake Ontario.

Mrs. Grier: That is somewhat reassuring, but I say to the minister --

Mr. Speaker: By way of a question.

Mrs. Grier: -- by way of a question, that it is now two years since the Niagara River Toxics Committee reported. It appears that the minister, just like his predecessors, has made no progress towards convincing the US to excavate and remove those dumps. There are about 400 or 500 on the Superfund list for excavation.

Can he tell the House what action he intends to take to ensure that the US government will initiate the removal and the excavation of those dumps which pose such an enormous threat to the waters of Lake Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: No doubt the member is aware that the Ontario government, through the Ministry of the Environment, intervenes on as many occasions as possible. For instance, in the Hyde Park dump situation, I have directed a letter to the US appropriate authorities intervening on behalf of the province.

In all the negotiations, including my discussions with Lee Thomas of the EPA and Hank Williams, the commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation in New York state, I have made it clear the position of Ontario is that the ultimate solution to the dump sites which are immediately adjacent to the Niagara River is excavation. I am pleased that the member supports the position of the province. I cannot accept the blame for the Americans not accepting the point of view that we are putting forward. The member is justified in expressing criticism of those who are in the negotiating process who do not feel, as we do in Ontario, that the dumps must be cleaned up, that extensive monitoring must take place and that there must be a reduction schedule.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Education about the special education program that he has a responsibility for administering in this province.

What policies and programs has the minister put into place to guarantee that such services as speech pathology and speech therapy are made available to those boys and girls in our school system who have need of them so that they can successfully complete their school terms? More important, what steps or procedures has he taken to make sure those same services -- speech pathology and speech therapy services -- are available to every boy and girl in this province, regardless of whether he or she lives in Pembroke, Iroquois Falls, eastern Ontario, northern Ontario or rural Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, through you to the honourable critic at large, as Minister of Education I have carried forward the excellent initiative brought forward six years ago by his colleague the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson). We have made some changes, as he will know. In the summer of 1985, I instituted an external review committee to examine some of the very special situations that we encountered as we approached September 1985, the year at which the five-year phase-in of the special education Bill 82 was to have been in place.

We have continued what I believe to be a very appropriate level of funding. I recognize that the whole field of special education continues to require very close monitoring and review. It is for that reason we have just released a discussion paper about the processes and practices under the legislation. That discussion paper is currently before the education community and I expect to be introducing adjustments and amendments to the legislation later this year.

Mr. Pope: Those are very glowing words, but what the boys and girls of this province require is proper management of the special education program for their benefit, regardless of where they live.

Don Werner, whom the Minister of Education put into the special education branch of his ministry on January 17 of this year, said the following to Mrs. Colette Grant in Iroquois Falls about her seven-year-old daughter Shelly-Ann, who requires speech pathology services: "I am not making this comment flippantly. You have elected to live in the north where there are no services and if you do not like it, then I suggest you move south."

Is that the policy of the ministry branch? Is that the policy the Minister of Education is espousing? If not, what is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Conway: That is not the policy of this government. I am sure the critic at large, the member for Cochrane South, will want to share that information with me. I can assure the honourable member I will investigate fully and immediately and report back to him and this House very directly.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Ronald Reagan has submitted his wish list for free trade negotiations. Many of the items on that list directly affect Ontario, including increased access to the Canadian market for US companies to provincial government contracts, reduction of government subsidies and support to industry, resolution of trade disputes, including softwood lumber and agriculture, and assurances that the provinces endorse the resulting trade agreement.

Can the minister tell us whether his government would sign such an agreement?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As has been said in the past on several occasions, when it comes to such issues as the cultural industry, social programs, research and development, agriculture, the auto pact and financial services, we do not believe those issues should be on the table.

Mr. Mackenzie: The Ontario government currently has two procurement policies to assist and promote Canadian business and Canadian content in the procurement process. They are the Canadian preference policy and the industrial development review policy which are designed towards import replacement and job creation. Can the minister tell us if he is prepared to have these policies abandoned as bargaining chips in the free trade talks? If not, will that end the free trade talks?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We will be looking very carefully at any suggestions that are discussed by the parties in their discussions.

I might also say that the Globe and Mail article is correct. The very last goal listed in that article read, "Assurance that the Canadian provinces sign on to a trade agreement." That has been asked for by the President and it means we will have to agree to any agreements that are made.

SPILLS BILL

Mr. McLean: We had a spill of about 200 gallons of used engine oil into the Green River yesterday. This is just downstream from the source of supply of drinking water to the municipality of Washago in the riding of Simcoe East. My understanding is that the Ministry of the Environment does not intend to proceed with an investigation into this spill under Bill 24, part IX of the Environmental Protection Act, the spills bill. Would the minister tell this House if this is the case?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In all situations of this kind, an investigation does take place. There are two specific areas, perhaps even more, under which charges can be laid if there is sufficient evidence. The first is under the provisions of the spills bill.

3:20 p.m.

The spills bill does not deal specifically with negligence in terms of a violation. That comes under another section of the Environmental Protection Act. The bill deals with immediate notification, for instance, and also deals with immediate cleanup and the restoration aspect. Those aspects come under the spills bill, which is part IX of the Environmental Protection Act.

However, there are other aspects of the Environmental Protection Act under which an investigation can take place and charges can be laid. I assure the member, because I think he has a genuine concern about a problem in his constituency, that we will do a full investigation. if there is sufficient evidence to determine that a charge would be appropriate, I am most certainly prepared to take that action.

Mr. McLean: We have had several major spills in Ontario since the proclamation of part IX. I will refresh the minister's memory. There was the CP Rail spill in MacTier, just north of my riding, earlier this year; one near Callander; one on Highway 401 at the James Snow Parkway overpass near Milton; and the most recent one in Timmins.

Can the minister tell this House how many charges have been laid under this section of the act, and will he explain the procedure for laying the charges? I feel the people of Ontario and of the riding of Simcoe East are entitled to assurances under this act.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am very pleased that members of the Progressive Conservative Party are now supporting the spills bill. When we first proclaimed the spills bill, a number of questions were forthcoming about the dire consequences of the bill, and there were those on that side of the House who joined with one of the largest and most extensive lobbies in opposing this particular bill.

I will be pleased to gather the information requested by the member about the number of charges that have been laid. I will be prepared to provide for him as well a progress report on the precise status of the charges as they relate to court action.

EXTENDICARE LONDON NURSING HOME

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Health. It is not more than seven months since the first deaths occurred at the Extendicare London Nursing Home, in what was the worst tragedy of its kind in North American history. The minister will remember that on October 21 he indicated to my leader that he would not call a public inquiry, because it would slow down the coroner's inquest process.

As of today there has been no coroner's inquest. I would like the minister to justify to this House such an incredible delay in the investigation of this tragedy.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the honourable member for the question, but he is probably as aware as we are that the inquest itself is about to occur. In fact, I have spoken recently with the medical officer of health in Middlesex-London, Dr. Pudden, and others to make sure the preparations are in place for going ahead with that inquest. I look forward to the results of the review being done by the inquest. It is my understanding that the material that had to be generated for it is in place and that it is ready to proceed early in May.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That does not answer the question. It will be nine months by the time this inquest has been held. One of the rationales for not laying charges against this home at the time, based on Dr. Styliadis's report, was that the minister wanted to wait for the coroner's inquest. Yet on February 20 the minister wrote to me to say there had been a decision not to lay charges against this nursing home.

How can the minister justify the fact that there has been no coroner's inquest to date, no charges and, at this point, no report on the investigation by the inspection branch of the ministry that came out of this tragedy?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not have the mandate to ask the coroner to do certain things or not to do them. The coroner proceeds to do the inquest as he best deliberates on that particular matter. He is in full charge of it. Because of the necessity of maintaining the independence of the coroner, I will not be asking him to do certain things that I have no mandate to ask of him.

He will, I am sure, investigate this particular matter fully. We will receive a report from the inquest, as we do from other inquests held in the province, and we will respond to the report from that inquest procedure.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Gillies: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Is the minister aware of the comment by Simon Reisman that "Mr. Peterson released a paper that was misleading, and you can quote me"? He was referring to the Premier's supposed paper speaking to the possible loss of 280,000 jobs in Ontario because of a free trade deal. I would like to ask the minister whether he is aware of Mr. Reisman's comments and whether he agrees or disagrees with Mr. Reisman that the Premier's supposed paper was inaccurate.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Initial studies that have been done by our ministry and other parties indicate that up to 280,000 jobs could possibly be affected in those sectors.

Mr. Gillies: I am somewhat incredulous. The minister came into the House yesterday and last week saying he is in favour of free trade talks proceeding. His Premier is quoted as saying he thinks it is going to cost 280,000 jobs. If that is the case, why is the minister saying he is enthusiastic about the prospects of free trade for this province? Has his ministry done any studies that would indicate possible job gains in the province as a result of a freer trade arrangement?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I believe the honourable member is misinformed. If he will look at what was stated, we were talking about increased trade, not freer trade. I think every member in this House is for increased trade. If the member looks at the figures, he will see that trade has increased from approximately $55 billion to close to $59 billion or $60 billion in this province. We are for increased trade with the United States.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. He will be aware that, under present legislation, the city of Etobicoke has been completely frustrated in stopping Sorrento Developments Ltd. from demolishing a 32-unit apartment building at 1025 Scarlett Road. Since eviction notices take effect this Saturday, what specific action is the minister going to take to save those tenants from being thrown out on the street?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I know the third party is very concerned about this. I am very happy too that the official opposition is coming on side in the concern about demolitions. As I have indicated in the House many times, we will be taking steps on issues and situations like those very soon.

Mr. Reville: The tenants on Scarlett Road have a gun to their heads, and so do tenants all across Ontario. Will the minister move to protect our housing stock and the tenants therein from the threats posed not only by demolitions but also by condominium conversions and co-ownership schemes? Will he introduce such legislation tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I presume I might be known as the man for action.

We started with demolitions; we talked about conversions; then we want legislation to include everything and the member wants it immediately. The legislation that will be introduced will take into consideration all those issues that allow affordable rental units to be depleted from our rental stock. That will be done as soon as possible.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Gillies: My question is again to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Yesterday in this House we debated the unemployment problems in Sault Ste. Marie. We could just as easily have been talking about Thunder Bay, Kingston, Brantford and Kenora, all of which are communities that have recently experienced increases in unemployment and layoffs. Thus far this year, there has been a 65 per cent increase in layoffs in this province. What is the ministry doing about it?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I think it has been very clearly expressed by the Premier over the past couple of days that if we are talking about jobs in the north, we have to expand our economic base there. We have to do everything possible, through the ministers, deputy ministers and staff, to create jobs in those regions. That is what we will be attempting to do.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Gillies: The communities I just named are in every part of this province, and not just in the north; they are also in eastern Ontario and in western Ontario. We are talking about 2,200 people laid off in January, 1,700 laid off in February and now another 1,500 to be laid off in Saint Ste. Marie.

Where are the minister's community adjustment plans? Where is his economic strategy'? What is he going to do in the short term to benefit those people and their communities?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I believe I tried to cover jobs in the north and our real desire to create jobs there. if the honourable member wants to talk about the rest of the province, I can go to the unemployment statistics, which show that we have dropped to 6.8 per cent from 8.7 per cent in 1985, a reduction of almost two percentage points. I can quote the fact that 183,000 more jobs have been created, so let him look at the rest of the province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the Solicitor General. On March 31, the three-year funding agreement that his ministry had with the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres ran out. Since that time, the funding to centres in Ontario has lapsed. Will he explain why to this House?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I am pleased to respond to the honourable member. I am very much aware of the fact that the three-year agreement ended on March 31. The last cheque to the coalition went out on that date.

We share with the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres the concern for any victim of sexual assault, and we know the service is still provided through all the many centres throughout Ontario. However, the matter of the funding of the coalition is a somewhat different issue, a more extended one, because in its request for funding this year, it is looking for more than three to four times the sum of money over the next three-year period, anywhere from some $600,000 to $800,000 in the third year.

The issue has been considered by five ministries and has had an extensive hearing before those ministries and before a committee of cabinet. I anticipate it will be dealt with by cabinet very shortly.

Ms. Gigantes: Whatever the problems there are with the specific request that has come forward and whatever decision is made with all these ministries, that is not the point at this stage. What is the minister going to do in the interim, until he gets it all together, to make sure that rape crisis centres do not have their telephone lines shut down, their rent unpaid and their services folded up?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I do not see the necessity of any interruption in the service provided by rape crisis centres since they do not depend upon their total funding from the government. The maximum funding from this government to any one rape crisis centre is in the vicinity of $5,000 to $13,000. These centres are also funded through municipal funding, through the United Way and through generous donations, and there should be no cessation whatsoever of services or shutting down of telephone lines. The matter of funding is basically related to the coalition itself. Tomorrow's meeting of cabinet may well resolve the issue.

COUNSELLING PROGRAM FOR WIFE ABUSERS

Mr. Baetz: I have a question for the Premier. On his recent visit to Ottawa, the Premier expressed great interest in and promised to personally review continued provincial funding for New Directions, an agency that has an innovative counselling program for wife abusers. After having raised great expectations and lots of press coverage for continued provincial support to this worthy agency, why did he decide the program did not warrant further financial support from the province?

I would also like to know whether the Premier knows that this very worthwhile program would have collapsed because of his decision without short-term funding by the Ottawa-Carleton United Way, an agency that is much more sensitive to and aware of the value of this agency than is the Premier, in spite of his publicly expressed concern.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will take the editorial bias out of that question and respond to my colleague.

I was in Ottawa two or three weeks ago. To be very frank, I had never heard of New Directions. Although I missed the picket, I gather these people were picketing me at some point because they wanted to make a point, which is their absolute, legitimate right to do.

Someone then came to me -- I guess it was a member of the press -- and said, "What about these people at New Directions?" I said: "I have never heard of them. What is the problem?" He said, "They said it was a problem of funding." I said, "I am not aware of it, but I will look into it immediately." I went to my colleague who is responsible for those things, the Minister of Community and Social Services, and I said, "Will you tell me what the situation is?"

That is the background. I will refer it to my colleague to respond specifically to the honourable member's question.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: New Directions was set up as a voluntary agency. It was not funded by government. It did get into some financial difficulty, and this ministry gave it a $15,000 grant last November to get it temporarily out of that difficulty. It was clearly identified that it was a one-shot grant solely for that purpose.

We have an advisory committee in the Ottawa area made up of all the participants in the family violence program; they represent the police, the agencies and the hospital. They are allocated $250,000 to distribute with respect to a number of services above and beyond the transition houses.

The two people who run that specific program are on that committee. That committee decided that funds would not be allocated for this service. I understand it will he coming up again for review next month. At that time it may very well be that it will be funded, but first, it was not a decision by this government to fund them completely, and second, it was not a decision by this government not to fund them subsequently.

Mr. Baetz: I find this very strange because the Ottawa-Carleton United Way, which is a very effective agency, well organized and well administered, did find that this agency was deserving of financial support. The citizens of Ottawa were encouraged that more provincial funding would be coming in view of the Premier's comments there.

Will the minister assure this House that he will pressure the Premier, who seems to be walking around with a lot of money in his back pockets -- and we were delighted to see he found $7 million last night for the Ontario Science Centre -- so Ottawa can expect $100,000 as an ongoing funding grant over the next year for this very worthwhile agency? Will the minister assure us he will press his Premier and the cabinet to make this happen?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Let the record show that this minister does not have to pressure the Premier to see to it that the people of this province have their needs met.

Mr. Davis: Does the minister mean the Premier does not run his ministry?

Mr. Gillies: The minister will have to press the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

Mr. McClellan: Just go to any soup kitchen, right?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Also, I remind the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) that the advisory committee, the one that advises this ministry and the office of this ministry in the Ottawa area, represents all the people of Ottawa. This minister does not step into Ottawa and tell those people what to do; they provide the service.

We provide more than $250,000, not just to the Ottawa area but also to the other three regional areas immediately around it. We provide the funds. The decision as to how to allocate those funds is made by that local advisory committee. If the honourable member is suggesting that we step in and interfere with local decision-making, then let him stand up and make that suggestion. We are not prepared to do that.

I would also tell the member that there is another service in the Ottawa area that --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3:40 p.m.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is with some trepidation that I raise a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services, who is obviously in high dudgeon today.

The minister is aware that a single, disabled individual in this province on the guaranteed annual income system for the disabled receives as much as $278 a month less than a single senior to live on. It was announced in the throne speech that a task force to review all social assistance programs would be set up, yet there was no announcement about removing this glaring inequity. Is the task force going to be an excuse for taking no action until it reports, or are we to expect an announcement in the budget to help these people?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would remind my honourable colleague that part of the difference between what a senior gets and what a disabled person gets is the specific funding for seniors that comes from the federal government. The federal government has decided to give some additional funds. That is part of the answer.

The other part is a recognition that there is a difference. One of the reasons the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has authorized that a study be done of the entire income maintenance system in this province is to ensure that those kinds of discrepancies are ameliorated in the fairest and the most just way. That is one of the factors that will be considered as part of the study. We hope to have that completed before the end of this calendar year and also hope that changes will be made, as they normally are, at the beginning of the next calendar year.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I was afraid of that. I guess this means the minister now needs a task force even though a couple of years ago, when a young man who is now his seatmate was only a minister-in-hoping and when the present Premier was in the same kind of position, the now Premier said on April 2, 1984, that it was a glaring inequity, and the now Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) said, "This is a huge discrepancy in funding and should be ameliorated immediately." Why now does he need a task force when it was so clear in 1984?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: My response was not intended to suggest in any way, and I do not believe I said, that we disagreed with the member that this inequity exists and it should not exist. The point of the review is there are a number of similar inequities that have to be remedied. It is only in conjunction with the total program that the fairest and most just way of solving them can be found. We are not prepared to take an isolated part of that whole program and deal with it in isolation. That is not the best way to do it.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Davis: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Would the minister explain the reasons his new amendments will allow Roman Catholic school boards to fire public school teachers who transfer on the basis of there being no positions available in the separate school or for being conscientious objectors?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am happy to clear up the honourable member's apparent misunderstanding about the amendment in this connection. In response to some very constructive criticism which my friend from Scarborough Centre and my friend the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) brought to the committee, I introduced a new amendment. This has broadened the basis of protection for those public school teachers who have transferred because of an enrolment shift from the public to the extended separate school system. The additional criterion we have added is that of conscience.

Where a designated or transferred public school teacher finds himself or herself in the extended separate school system, that individual now has the right to refuse employment on the grounds of conscience. In that event, the separate school board involved must offer financial assistance and retraining to the conscientious objector. The only condition under which that designated teacher who is a conscientious objector can be terminated by the separate school board is where that conscientious objector refuses to accept employment for which he or she is now qualified as a result of the financial assistance or the retraining. That is the only condition.

I say again, we have responded to some very helpful suggestions made by the honourable member. We have broadened the basis of the protection that is the intent of the amendment and to the extent the member needs further clarification --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question period went very well. However, I noticed that if some of the questions were long, some of the answers that flowed were also long and, in turn, the questions became a little longer. I hope we can correct that over the next few days.

REFERRAL OF QUESTIONS

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, could you help clarify the position of answering questions? First, let me compliment you on the handling of the rules on the first day that they have been brought in. I thought the new procedures went very well.

I have one point, and I did not want to interrupt question period with it. On a couple of occasions, the Premier has seen fit to take 30 seconds or a minute to answer a question and then refer it. I question whether, indeed, that is the intent of referring the question. Either he refers it or he does not. I am asking for some direction from you and for you to look into it. Otherwise, we could have three ministers answering one question. That may or may not be the intent, but I submit to you it is not our intent.

Mr. Speaker: The member makes a reasonable point and I will watch for that in the future.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I have a petition signed by 98 people indicating that, as concerned citizens, they urgently request, in accordance with their constitutional rights, to have available and to choose the health care system of their preference, requesting that the naturopaths of Ontario be guaranteed through an act of the Ontario Legislature their right to practise their art and science to the fullest, without prejudice or harassment, and endorsing and supporting the concepts and philosophy of naturopathic medicine and seeking the assistance of this Legislature in this important matter.

GASOLINE TAX

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I have a cold; I must apologize. I have a petition to the Treasurer of Ontario.

"We request 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 a further reduction over three years to 5.4 cents a litre by 1989."

It is signed by 559 people.

Ms. Smith: I have a petition signed individually by 301 people requesting a decrease in the tax on gas of 1.01 cents in keeping with the ad valorem formula.

MOTION

HOUSE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that, notwithstanding any standing order, the House meet at 2 p.m. on Thursday, May 1, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

3:50 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WATERLOO-GUELPH REGIONAL AIRPORT ACT

Mr. Epp moved first reading of Bill Pr42, An Act respecting the Waterloo-Guelph Regional Airport.

Motion agreed to.

BRANTFORD GENERAL HOSPITAL ACT

Mr. Gillies moved first reading of Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the Brantford General Hospital.

Motion agreed to.

SCARBOROUGH PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ACT

Mr. Warner moved first reading of Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the Public Utilities Commission of the City of Scarborough.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Offer moved first reading of Bill Pr37, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF LONDON ACT

Ms. E. J. Smith moved first reading of Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

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

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

To the Honourable Lincoln M. Alexander, member of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada, Knight of the Order of St. John, one of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law, bachelor of arts, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

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

Mr. Ward: It is an honour and a privilege to move adoption of the speech from the throne. It is all the more gratifying because it presents me with an opportunity to formally acknowledge and compliment the Lieutenant Governor on his appointment as Her Majesty's representative in Ontario.

I do so with considerable pride in the fact that His Honour is from the same great region of this province that it is my pleasure to represent. He is a man who has already served and continues to serve his community, his province and his country with great dignity and dedication.

I also take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to commend you for the even-handed manner in which you have directed the proceedings of this House for the past year. You have done so with great presence, with a warm sense of humour, with tolerance, particularly for new members, with firmness and, most important, with fairness to all. The same can be said for the Deputy Speaker.

This is the first opportunity a member of my party has had to move adoption of the speech from the throne for many years. No doubt if the recent by-election is any indication, there will be further opportunities in the years ahead.

A few short months ago, this government assumed its great responsibilities without the ceremony and without the pageantry of a speech from the throne. Instead, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) delivered a ministerial statement which outlined the agenda for the first session of this parliament.

Since that time, the performance and the achievements of this government are there for all to see. Action clearly speaks louder than words, and this government has acted on many fronts with openness, vigour and courage. I am confident that the energy and enthusiasm that characterized the first session will continue and be readily apparent in the months ahead, as we continue to move on our agenda.

I am sure I speak for all the new members of this assembly when I say the past year has been exhilarating. It has been a year of great activity, a year of hard work, a year of surprises and at the same time a year of great satisfaction. All of us come here from varied backgrounds and sometimes differ fundamentally in our philosophy. At the same time we do share common goals, to serve our people, to earn the confidence they have placed in us and to do what is in the best interests of our community and of our province. Obviously, we will differ in determining how those goals can best be achieved, but that which we share is a much greater purpose than that which divides us.

Coming from a municipal background, from a political arena in which partisan differences play virtually no part, I must confess to having had some reservations about the parliamentary process and the constraints that are naturally a part of this system. Yet, in the last year, it has been evident that partisanship does not encompass everything we do.

4 p.m.

Yesterday, the members of this assembly adopted meaningful changes to the rules of this House. These changes are long overdue and undoubtedly will make the operations of this institution more relevant to today's Ontario. These changes will give members a greater chance to participate, to contribute their talents and to play a more meaningful role. At the same time, these changes are one example of how individually and collectively we can bring about constructive change. They were achieved not through blind partisanship, but through a process of co-operation and commitment and by working together to bring greater openness and accountability to this assembly. They stand as an example of how as legislators we can work together in attaining shared goals.

During the past session, one of the most challenging tasks I had to undertake as a new member was to help develop a program to provide financial assistance to the residents of northern Ontario who have to travel significant distances to obtain appropriate medical care. I mention it not solely because it is a program that was developed by this government, although indeed it reflects our commitment to all regions of this province, but more important, I mention it because of the impact it had on me as the new member for Wentworth North, who learned quickly of some of the disparities in certain regions of this province.

I also learned I could share the concerns, not only of the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine), but also of the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) and even the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier). As members, we can have our differences, we can fight our battles and from time to time we can take some credit; but by sharing some common goals, we can make a difference and do things that make this province a better place in which to live.

As a new member, one cannot help but be impressed by the ceremony and traditions that characterize the proceedings of this assembly. The speech from the throne is but one of them. Traditionally, the speech sets out the agenda the government intends to follow in addressing the needs of this great province.

In preparing for this debate, I took the opportunity to search the legislative library for past speeches from the throne and the reactions they generated. I had even hoped to be able to make some references to the last Liberal speech from the throne, even though it was delivered several years before I was. It was a great disappointment to discover the throne speech of 1943 was read before the days of Hansard in this Legislature. The only comfort that can be taken from that bit of trivia is that perhaps at some point in the second decade of the next century some new member of this House may approach the legislative library in an attempt to obtain a videotape of the last Progressive Conservative throne speech, only to discover it predates the days of electronic Hansard.

In researching some of the past throne speeches, I found it interesting to note how they have differed in content and yet the reactions they have generated provided great consistency. They were all either too long or too brief, too specific or too vague. In addition, throne speeches in recent years have tended to generate not a small amount of cynicism.

It seems that in the recent past, the government of this province felt it was sufficient to promise necessary programs but never deliver on those promises. I think back to the last session and the protest when ministers of this government would rise in the House to announce programs that were in the throne speech of last May. Two examples that quickly come to mind are the announcement of the interest rate relief program for our farm community and the integrated homemaker program for our elderly.

What seems to have been forgotten by some members who have now moved to different pastures is that these programs were promised not only in the speech from the throne on May 1985, but also in those of 1983 and 1981 and who knows how many other times along the trails that lead to elections. The point is, it is not enough to deliver only promises. Governments are rightfully judged not solely by what they say, but rather by what they do. This government has and will continue to back its words by its actions.

Ten months ago, the Premier gave a commitment to the people of this province to openness, compassion and competence. That commitment has been and will continue to be fulfilled. During the past 10 months, more Ontarians have been given the opportunity to participate in and offer their input into the workings of this Legislature than those who have been elected to serve.

No doubt, there are those who lament the passing of the practices of years past when input was limited to the select few who represented only narrow interests. That pattern has been broken and the people of this province will not tolerate its return. To date, this government has justified the confidence that has been placed in it and the confidence that continues to be extended to it by the people of Ontario.

His Honour's address clearly sets the course for the future. Gone are the days when government sought only to consolidate the past. It is not enough in any society for government to maintain the status quo and to resist change and progress. It was not so long ago that Ontario, like many other jurisdictions, suffered from rampant inflation and a stagnant economy. By comparison, unemployment today, although undoubtedly still too high, is the lowest it has been in five years. Inflation has stabilized at four per cent. Investment spending has increased markedly and consumer confidence has grown.

In short, the current economic performance of Ontario is strong. It is imperative that this performance not only be maintained, but also that it be advanced. In the months and years ahead, we can strengthen our economic position only by ensuring that we have the ability to respond to the changing economic environment and by making certain Ontario remains competitive as technology changes. We can meet that goal only by continuing to increase the quality and relevance of our educational system and by ensuring that our young people have the necessary skills and expertise to adapt. It is a goal we as a government cannot attain alone. It will require the co-operation and participation not only of our educators, but also of our leaders in labour and business. This government is committed to pursuing and attaining that goal.

During the past several years, our once great post-secondary education institutions have suffered from the malaise and neglect that was so obviously reflected in the unwillingness of previous governments to fund adequately the system that is so vital to our future prosperity.

Last July we gave a commitment to begin the process of undoing the damage that had been done. We began to fulfil that commitment with the establishment of an excellence fund and an overall increase in expenditures for postsecondary education of the order of eight per cent. We will continue to fulfil that commitment by supporting excellence throughout our entire system with appropriate funding.

Last July the government promised the people of this province they could expect not only openness and competence, but also, equally as important, compassion. There is perhaps no greater measure of a society's compassion than its willingness to provide universally accessible health care. In this country, we declared our willingness two decades ago to share as a society the costs of providing that care through universal health insurance. It is a shame that 20 years later that fact still comes as news to some people in this province.

In the last session, we began to honour that commitment not only by introducing legislation to end extra billing, but also by extending access through the introduction of the northern medical travel program. We have sought to remove further financial barriers to universal health care by extending the assistive devices program, increasing hospital funding and extending further benefits under the Ontario health insurance plan.

4:10 p.m.

The greatest challenge we as a government and as a society face is to address the changing needs of an ageing society and the demands such changes place on our health care system. We have begun the task of meeting that challenge and we will continue by increasing community-based programs, by addressing the issues of capital funding and changing technology, by enhancing facilities for cancer treatment and by recognizing the necessity of placing a greater emphasis on preventive medicine.

In the past 10 months, we have made a significant beginning, which includes policies to ensure greater accountability, freedom of information, justice for women, improved rights for workers, affordable housing and, after years of divisive debate, equality of funding for the separate school system in this province.

In conclusion, I believe this government has put forward a constructive agenda that will address the needs of this province and that will provide a broad framework for the future, a future that will build upon a quality system of social services and upon the traditional strengths of our economy and a future that will continue to advance the principles of openness, compassion, opportunity and competence.

While we in this assembly will always be mindful of the contributions of those who have served before us, it is essential that we recognize that our task is not merely to chart the course of the past, but also to set the course for the future.

Mr. Polsinelli: It is an honour and a privilege for me to second the motion to adopt the speech from the throne.

Mr. Speaker, let me echo the sentiments of my colleague the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward) on the fair and impartial way you have directed this always honourable assembly. I also congratulate the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario on his appointment and on this occasion on his first address.

I am pleased to be joined on this side of the house by the newly elected member for York East (Ms. Hart). These are exciting times, and the member has much to look forward to as our government continues charting a new course for Ontario.

Let me also express again my thanks to the people of Yorkview for their support in the general election and for the confidence they expressed in me personally as their representative. I am mindful of the trust they placed in me and in this government and will do my utmost to respect their confidence.

The majority of the people in my riding do not list Canada as their place of origin, but they are among the proudest Canadians I know. In my opinion, Yorkview is the epitome of multiculturalism and proof that our system works. I witnessed this at first hand in the many community organizations that thrive there. Great strides have been made in bringing together people of many backgrounds, races and religions.

We as a government are committed to harnessing this goodwill and sense of purpose. The new race relations policy will encourage greater unity and harmony. Full participation in the economic and social mainstream for all minorities remains a cornerstone of this government's policy initiatives. Openness, accessibility and fairness are all watchwords of our government. These are all fundamental principles to which we have been and remain deeply committed.

This commitment is readily evident in the recent speech from the throne, which outlined specific measures that will further these policy objectives.

An important aspect of openness is the consultation process outlined in last fall's budget, which is being formalized through the establishment of a new legislative committee for this purpose. This is one of a number of procedural changes that will take place to increase the level of participation from all members of this Legislature.

To ensure fairness and accessibility for all Ontarians, we will continue to make appointments to agencies, boards and commissions which represent all groups in Ontario. These principles of fairness and impartiality will be carried into the realm of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, an area traditionally viewed with suspicion under the previous government. The Liberal government has set out in this, its first throne speech in many years, a bold, progressive mandate for the people of this province.

We will move to improve the public's access to the justice system, regardless of income. We will introduce a series of programs to assist victims of crime and physical abuse. We will move to update policies to protect consumers and review existing legislation to make it more sensitive to consumer needs. We will move ahead to ensure enforcement of occupational health and safety standards in the work place. We will continue in our effort to provide a world-class system of care that is universally accessible as well as responsive to the changing demographics of the Ontario population.

Monsieur le Président, je suis fier de faire partie du gouvernement libéral Peterson et ce, pour plusieurs raisons. Mon gouvernement présentera sous peu sa loi garantissant des services en français à mes collègues francophones de l'Ontario. C'est le premier gouvernement à vraiment respecter les francophones de l'Ontario.

In synthesizing the merits of the throne speech, one cannot overlook its far-reaching and long-lasting impact. What we have before us is a program and framework designed to bring Ontario into the next decade and the next century. The blueprint for the changes envisaged challenges us to think of a future for our children and our seniors free of the shackles of government neglect and costly miscues.

The future I speak of is based on the pledge of this government to ensure that Ontario can adapt to the increasingly competitive world economy by harnessing new technologies. To this end, the Liberal government will provide a framework in which Ontario will become a world-class leader. For too long this nomenclature of world class escaped us. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) and this government have demonstrated that Ontarians deserve this distinction.

The Premier's strong voice on the free trade issue amply demonstrates that Ontario is now speaking with a renewed vigour. Complacency has no friend on this side of the House. In health care, labour, social services and the environment, this government has demonstrated vigilance in protecting the interests of Ontarians while caring for their needs. In greater measure, we will continue to do so.

Our government recognizes the importance of small business to the economic prosperity of this province. In 1984, 272,000 small businesses in Ontario provided more than 1.7 million jobs, representing 50 per cent of Ontario's private sector work force. It is the responsibility of government to encourage self-motivation and the ability to originate ideas about how things can be done better and more productively.

Our government is further committed to expanding opportunities for women, young people and minorities to enter the job market and the world of business. Steps have already been taken. The establishment of an Ontario investment network in co-operation with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce will provide a self-sustaining network that will help small businesses find out more about market conditions and government programs and encourage marriages between private equity investors and companies needing an infusion of capital.

Expanding the mandate of the small business development corporations to the service sector will also provide a new avenue of financial assistance to that sector. As a clear indication of this government's commitment to small business, a committee of parliamentary assistants was established to provide a positive, coordinated network and approach.

The committee is chaired by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and is composed of the parliamentary assistants to the Minister of Skills Development, the Minister of Treasury and Economics, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Minister of Labour and to the Premier. It is the first time in the history of Ontario that the government is using parliamentary assistants in this fashion.

4:20 p.m.

With the small business branch of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology serving as secretariat to the group, the committee will be a source of advice to the government on new ideas and will also evaluate existing programs. The committee, whose members represent ministries most closely concerned with the needs and problems of Ontario's entrepreneurs, has been meeting since January and connects key ministries which affect small business owners.

In the words of the chairman of the committee, my colleague from Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro): "We see our committee as a contact point for dialogue between the government and the small business community. Our mandate is to develop a process for reviewing existing regulations and screening new legislation so these are as responsive as possible to the realities of doing business in Ontario."

We all recognize that small business has been at the forefront of new wealth and job creation. In order to enhance its ability to compete effectively and fairly in an increasingly competitive market, government must assist and complement its efforts.

We want to encourage business owners as they start an enterprise and strive to make it succeed. We hope to make the apparatus of government less confusing and intimidating to the business community than it may now appear. In particular, we need to reform our tax system. This will contribute to enhanced equity in the tax structure while securing both social and economic objectives of the province.

On July 2, 1985, the Premier, in his first speech in the Legislature as Premier, said: "We will be bold in creating new jobs and vigilant in protecting those that now exist. We will fight for Ontario's interests and never let them be ignored. We will begin to reshape education to meet the needs of our society in a changing world."

Since then, we have learned that Ontario last year led Canada in new wealth and job creation. Over the past 12 months, Ontario employment has risen by 179,000 jobs. I refer that figure to the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), who indicated they were only statistics. There are 179,000 more people who are working this year.

Our seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for March was 6.8 per cent, the lowest of all provinces. The unadjusted youth unemployment rate in this province for March was 13.2 per cent, down from 16.7 per cent a year earlier.

Urban housing starts for January through March were 66.5 per cent higher than in the same period in 1985. Retail sales in January and February were also up by 10.1 per cent over the same months last year. The outlook for the rest of the year is equally as bright.

The Premier and our government realize that sustained growth can continue only if we address the systemic problems of our economy. We will not rest on past accomplishments as others would have us do.

A Premier's council will be established to ensure Ontario's pre-eminence in an increasingly competitive world. Participants will be drawn from cabinet, the business community, labour and education. Together they will join the Premier in directing a $1-billion special technology fund.

Among the tasks to be undertaken, the council will for the first time set broad-stroke provincial priorities for key industrial sectors. They will earmark and encourage investment in research and appropriate technology transfers.

The establishment and makeup of this council reflect two key determining factors: (1) future economic prosperity can come about only through the collaborative efforts of government, business, labour and educational institutions. (2) technology is to be harnessed, not as an end in itself, but rather as a means to effect social gains. Progress should only be measured in human terms.

Increased productivity should not be the sole criterion for the implementation and investment in new technologies. In our evolution to a post-industrial society, we must ensure that technology results in long-term job retention and in employment equity for women, the disabled and other disadvantaged members of our society. Older workers, the unemployed, youth and women will obtain increased access to training and skills upgrading, permitting them to participate more effectively and more productively as prospective entrepreneurs and employees.

In keeping with this mandate, educational institutions will be given additional resources to update programs and curriculums and provide job-relevant training. For the first time, the government of Ontario will seriously tackle the problem of functional illiteracy.

Our resource base lies in no one sector of the economy. Our primary resource is our people, their skills and their knowledge. We must harness that resource to its fullest potential. Our government is committed to taking Ontario forward as a strong and dynamic province, a leader in technology, education and economic development. One very important facet of this process is further development of the rich resources of northern Ontario. These resources include not only the abundant natural resources that have traditionally formed the economic base of northern Ontario, but valuable human resources as well.

The development of human resources, particularly the young and the native peoples, is necessary for the future of the north. To this end, we are committed to increased access to education. In part, this will be done by a major project to be undertaken in northern Ontario that will expand the use of new technologies to deliver educational services to remote communities. Coupled with this will be the establishment of a high school of science and technology in northern Ontario. This high school will be integrated with the existing research and college and university facilities in the north to allow the development of the technologies that are necessary for northern growth.

In conjunction with these educational advances, our government will also undertake special efforts in the area of skills training, with particular emphasis on assistance for residents of remote communities and native groups. As well, a high priority will be placed on the retraining of workers. This will be of great assistance in northern communities that have felt the effects of changes to their economic base in recent years, as is evidenced by recent planned layoffs at Algoma.

Our government recognizes that the development of the human resource potential of the north cannot be done in isolation. It must be done in conjunction with industrial and economic development in northern Ontario. In recognition of this fact, we are undertaking measures to enhance the competitiveness of two important northern industries -- agriculture and tourism.

In agriculture, a special program will be established that will provide marketing assistance to farmers in the north. The tourism industry will be enhanced by immediate additional funding for a tourism development program. The emphasis in the program will be assistance for the development of new business opportunities in the north.

A major thrust of government activity in the tourism industry will be the preparation of a long-term, comprehensive strategy to promote tourism in Ontario, especially in northern and eastern Ontario. This new strategy will include a number of initiatives that will be put in place in the very near future. This includes an aggressive new campaign for the promotion and marketing of the tourism industry and training programs to encourage visitors to Ontario to make repeat visits. Clearly, our government views northern Ontario and its residents as a vital and necessary part of Ontario's future as a world leader in economic development.

I have heard from sceptics on the other side of the House that our message has been echoed before. While I differ with their opinions, their sentiments bear further reflection. If the previous government had the wisdom to outline these initiatives, it surely lacked the political will to see them through. We lack no such commitment.

When the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) was sworn in as Premier, he pledged a government without walls or barriers, a government open and accessible to all. I would like to quote from a recent editorial in Share newspaper written by Arnold A. Auguste, whose words I believe seem to capture this spirit in a nonpartisan way:

"I had cause to pause and reflect this past week on how far we have really come as a people in this country. This latest pausing and reflecting came as a result of my having to be at Queen's Park for two separate functions last week.

"The first was on Wednesday when I was invited to a small reception in the Premier's office for John Swan, the Premier of Bermuda, who was paying a courtesy call on Premier David Peterson.

"As I walked into the Legislative Building, I could not help but feel quite at home, which was strange since I really have not been there for some time. And I could not remember people there being so nice, so pleasant. Even the workmen moving busily about as they prepared the place for the throne speech took time to say hello. In fact, I believe I got more hellos per square metre at Queen's Park than I would get walking down Eglinton Avenue.

"The second visit to Queen's Park was on Friday afternoon for a reception in the Lieutenant Governor's suite for one of our community's elder statesmen, Harry Gairey. Again, as I walked through those corridors of power, I was pleasantly surprised by the warmth of the greetings from the employees. I felt good. I felt very good, and I wondered at how comfortable I was."

This government has outlined a progressive and forward-looking agenda that responds to the economic needs and to the very human values of the people of this province. Unlike speeches from the throne of the past, this speech from the throne does not take a grab-bag, fragmented approach. Rather, it outlines a bold, broad-stroke design for Ontario. Our plan is comprehensive, our resolve intact.

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

The House adjourned at 4:31 p.m.

April 29, 1986

VISITOR

COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

STANDING ORDERS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEARING IMPAIRED

STANDING ORDERS

WELCOME FROM BRAMPTON

PROCESSING PLANT

POLICE COMMISSIONERS

TELEVISION IN LEGISLATURE

PENSIONERS' RAIL PASSES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SOVIET REACTOR

TOURISM COMMERCIAL

SCHOOLS AND INDUSTRY

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

GASOLINE PRICES

APARTMENT CONVERSIONS

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

SPECIAL EDUCATION

FREE TRADE

SPILLS BILL

EXTENDICARE LONDON NURSING HOME

FREE TRADE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

UNEMPLOYMENT

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

COUNSELLING PROGRAM FOR WIFE ABUSERS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

REFERRAL OF QUESTIONS

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

GASOLINE TAX

MOTION

HOUSE SITTING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WATERLOO-GUELPH REGIONAL AIRPORT ACT

BRANTFORD GENERAL HOSPITAL ACT

SCARBOROUGH PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ACT

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

CITY OF LONDON ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE