Hansard Transcript 1986-May-01 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Sheppard: Last Friday the federal Minister of State for Mines, the Honourable Robert Layton, made an announcement concerning the siting of low-level, radioactive waste disposal facilities near the town of Port Hope. I am deeply concerned about the implication of establishing such a facility so close to the shores of Lake Ontario.

Eldorado Resources has proposed the establishment of a low-level radioactive waste dump at Wesleyville, which is very close to Lake Ontario. In the past, citizens of the area and officials from all levels of government have opposed this location as the site for the disposal facility, mainly because of its proximity to a water body that supplies drinking water to the majority of the people of southern Ontario.

In addition to the risk of contamination of this water supply, siting a low-level radioactive waste dump in this area could pose a threat to the health of local citizens. It is a well-known fact that the federal government is looking for a national disposal site for low-level radioactive waste. Residents of the Port Hope area fear that establishing the Eldorado dump in the township could prove to be the thin edge of the wedge towards the creation of this national dump in that area.

Our Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) should provide strong leadership to promote the removal of the waste to a remote location. He should get involved now, before it is too late, and do his utmost to protect the people of the Port Hope area.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired. There are too many private conversations.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Yesterday the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) indicated that the ministry would be hiring additional inspectors. My understanding is that when it has finished hiring a number of inspectors to enhance its team, there will be 235, which is 11 under what it was at one time, when it was 246. There are going to be fewer inspectors than there were previously; yet it is going to be an improved program.

Second, when we were doing our tour, the ministry inspectors were instructed not to come forward to talk to the member for Sudbury East. I am not sure why, but that was the instruction sent out by the ministry. I am surprised by that.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union has indicated to me that at present 80,000 to 120,000 companies have yet to be registered with the ministry for inspection purposes. Of that group, 63 per cent of the companies that are represented by labour have health and safety committees. Only 32 per cent of companies without a union have a health and safety committee.

When is this ministry going to get serious and say to the companies that do not have a health and safety committee, "You are fined on the spot," as it does when somebody in the construction industry, for example, is caught without a helmet? When is the minister going to get tough? Having 11 fewer inspectors is not going to do it.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. McClellan: Let the record show the minister refuses to answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

VILLA COLOMBO

Mr. Cordiano: The year 1986 marks the 10th anniversary of Villa Colombo. This week the Villa, as it is affectionately known, will begin to hold a number of events in commemoration of the last 10 years. The Villa has served the Italian-Canadian community as a home for the aged and in many other capacities as well. In addition, to touch on some of those, the Villa has really acted as a focal point for the community in bringing together people from all walks of life.

Villa Colombo, as an important cultural and social institution, has spawned quite a renaissance in the Italian-Canadian community. It has made all Canadians of Italian origin very proud indeed. I understand that His Excellency the President of Italy will be visiting the Villa some time this summer to help in the celebrations. As well, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) will be attending to place a cornerstone to mark the 10th anniversary.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Gordon: I would like to jog the memory of this Liberal government about what it has not done for the Sudbury region in this past 10 months.

We have been battered by a winter of 14 to 15 per cent unemployment. We have 3,000 people on welfare. Two thirds of those people are employable. People between the ages of 25 and 45 cannot find work. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) were informed last August of the grief and hardship that Sudbury region would experience. On numerous occasions, regional officials have met with them. In October they met with them and told them what was needed. As far as short-term jobs go, we got zero. For long-term jobs, despite an announcement of $5 million last December, a cheque to hire a co-ordinator and open an office has just arrived, six months later.

Where are the new ideas and the programs to meet the needs of the unemployed in Sudbury region? They are just not there.

The people of Sault Ste. Marie now are faced with the same dire predicament as the people of Sudbury region have faced. Why does the government not be honest and up front with these people and tell them that it does not have any new ideas and it does not have any program? Why does it not quit hiding behind these shameful, endless meetings and get down to creating some new programs for the Sault? Why does it not give those people a break?

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Foulds: I rise with a sense of anger and frustration to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the first May Day. I have anger and frustration because today, of all days, the Great Lakes Forest Products waferboard plant in Thunder Bay is closing. Great Lakes Forest Products has taken a crass corporate decision to get out of producing waferboard, knowing full well the markets are there and yet throwing 150 workers out of work.

In April alone, more than 3,500 potential layoffs affecting northern Ontario alone were announced. The time for government action is now.

First, the government should immediately introduce legislation to allow the imposition of a one-year moratorium on plant closures like the one at the waferboard plant at Thunder Bay and the massive layoffs facing the rest of northern Ontario.

Second, the government should introduce legislation to compel companies to open their books both to workers and to this Legislature when closures are contemplated.

Third, having allowed corporations to earn capital from our northern resources, the government must ask this Legislature for the power and authority to have some say in the direction and investment of that capital. Capital earned in the north should be reinvested in the north. It is time this provincial government enabled our workers in our northern communities to take charge of their own economic destiny. The time for begging is over. We need tough legislative action now.

2:10 p.m.

FARM CHEMICAL LOSSES

Mr. McGuigan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to mention stolen farm chemicals at this time of year. Recently, there has been a series of inventory losses and break-ins at farm chemical supply depots in southwestern Ontario, resulting in losses as high as $100,000 this season. These break-ins are currently being investigated by the Ontario Provincial Police.

I suggest that farmers deal with reputable vendors or request unknown vendors to present their credentials and that they be especially careful of cash sales. Farmer members of this Legislature are well aware of the high cost of farm chemicals and they know that the increased costs of insurance add to the production costs of the farmer. Farmer members are also aware that it is very timely that these materials be on hand. If these thefts and losses of product continue, we may find these products are not available in the depots.

RECYCLING

Mr. Andrewes: I wish to raise with the House a matter of some concern, which is in your jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker. This is the matter of the refreshments supplied to members in the west lobby and, I assume, in the east lobby. Tea, coffee and apple juice are available for members and were formerly supplied to them in reusable, recyclable china cups and saucers. We now find that those drinks are only available in Styrofoam and plastic containers. I am sure you will want to correct this flagrant violation of the four Rs of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley).

VISITOR

Mr. Harris: I rise in my place to ask --

Mr. Speaker: On a point of order or a point of privilege?

Mr. Harris: On a point of worthwhile information for the Legislature. I know, Mr. Speaker, you would like to have all of us welcome the agent general for Ontario, Tom Wells, who is in your gallery. We welcome him back to the Legislature. I thought that you and all parties would want to recognize his presence here today.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I want to join with the spokesman for the official opposition in adding my voice of welcome to Thomas L. Wells, the government's agent general in London. I feel it is particularly appropriate during this first week of the new rules to recall that it was when he was government House leader that the background work involved in the development of the new rules was undertaken. All the advantages as well as all the disadvantages of these rules may be attributed to him.

I understand a bill is going to be presented this afternoon dealing with French-language services, which will be of special interest to him. We all know that his statements in this House and in the community at large were always supportive of initiatives of this type.

Mr. Martel: I join my friends in paying tribute to our former colleague. He is better served today than are his colleagues to my right. Things have changed rather significantly since he left, as he may have noted. I note the former minister is wearing a red tie. I do not know whether there is any significance in that.

I hate to say I am still on the same side of the House. As my friend the government House leader has just said, the rules have changed. We have grown up in Ontario. Now we can get rid of night sittings because the members know how to look after themselves. The new government has agreed with us that after 6:30 p.m. we are still safe without being in Queen's Park. Some of my Tory friends of old used to think we could not take care of ourselves at night. We have managed to survive this long this week. I do not know what next week holds for us at night.

An. hon. member: Baseball games.

Mr. Martel: I hope we will not get in too much trouble. We will get to the odd baseball game.

I join with my friends in welcoming back the former minister. We had many an interesting occasion together. The only thing I can think about is the number of times we have put off changing the rules with my friend. I do not know whether he could ever have mustered enough strength over in that motley group to get some cohesion about what we wanted to do, but the rules are changed. We welcome Mr. Wells back and we hope he is enjoying himself in England.

Mr. Speaker: I was wondering when I was listening whether things have changed. I see the members have now found a way to extend the time for members' statements. It is nice to see Mr. Wells here today.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

L'hon. M. Grandmaître: C'est pour moi un honneur de présenter à l'Assemblée législative le projet de loi sur les services en français, qui donnera la possibilité au gouvernement de l'Ontario de répondre aux besoins et aux attentes de la population francophone de notre province.

Ce projet de loi propose plusieurs mesures importantes qui visent à donner, pour la première fois, un cadre juridique à la politique des affaires francophones et à établir une approche plus logique et plus cohérente dans les domaines du développement et de la prestation des services en français du gouvernement de l'Ontario.

Over the years, a wide range of French-language services have been developed by the ministries, according to a government policy which began in 1968. During that period of 18 years, considerable progress has been made to ensure that francophones receive the services to which they are entitled in their own language, but much more needs to be done.

Our province has a special responsibility in this regard because Ontario is home to the largest group of French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec. It is for that reason the government of Ontario intends to guarantee through legislation the rights of francophones to receive government services in French.

The various measures contained in this bill are inspired by the basic principles of justice and equality which we value so highly in this province. These are the two fundamental principles on which our country has been built by the two founding peoples. The government of Ontario believes it is now appropriate that this reality and this duality should be reflected in the operations of all ministries.

Ce projet de loi vise à consolider les acquis des francophones de notre province et à donner une impulsion nouvelle à la politique du gouvernement de l'Ontario à l'égard de la prestation des services en français.

Le projet de loi prévoit l'adoption de garanties législatives qui auront pour effet de reconnaître le droit à recevoir des services en français dans les régions désignées de la province, et il établit un échéancier précis quant à l'entrée en vigueur de ces garanties législatives. Enfin, le projet de loi permettra aussi de procéder à une modification des structures administratives qui sont chargées des affaires francophones.

La Commission des services en français, qui sera créée par l'adoption de ce projet de loi, aura le mandat de déterminer l'état de disponibilité et la qualité des services actuels, de recommander la création de nouveaux services et, enfin, de recommander des modifications aux plans de mise en oeuvre des services en français des ministères et de les publier.

This government believes the era of struggles, confrontation and concession between Ontario's francophone community and the provincial government should be replaced by an era of justice, equity, clarity and understanding.

In closing, let me emphasize that the bill on French-language services has been drafted after extensive consultations I have had with leaders of the francophone community in Ontario.

Je suis profondément convaincu que les dispositions de ce projet de loi répondront aux besoins des francophones de l'Ontario et contribueront à ce qu'ils bénéficient, dans leur propre langue, de services gouvernementaux d'une qualité égale à celle dont bénéficient leurs concitoyens anglophones.

Mr. Guindon: I would like to respond to the statement by the minister responsible for francophone affairs. I take exception to the last paragraph on page 3 where it says the government believes the era of struggles and confrontation is in the past. It was our government that started, I believe in 1968, the translation of the Statutes of Ontario. Any merit the francophones have in this province at present is due to the Conservative Party.

In section 7, the bill states, "The obligations of government agencies and institutions of the Legislature under this act are subject to such limits as circumstances make reasonable and necessary, if all reasonable measures and plans for compliance with this act have been taken or made." My hasty reading of this bill is that it is not worth much more than the paper it is written on.

Il me fait plaisir de commenter le projet de loi et je dois vous dire que le projet de loi n'est pas tout à fait comme j'avais cru le voir aujourd'hui. Je dois vous dire que dans le projet de loi, si ça prend cinq ans à déterminer ce qu'on va faire et un autre cinq ans à déterminer comment on va l'implanter, je vous assure qu'il ne restera plus beaucoup de francophones, surtout dans l'âge d'or, les aînés en Ontario, qui auront besoin de services en français. Il n'y aura plus personne parmi les gens de l'âge d'or, pour recevoir les services en français.

Je dois aussi dire que je suis désolé que le ministre n'a pas vu le besoin d'inclure dans sa loi les centres psychiatriques et psychologiques. Parce que je dois dire que ce ne sera pas dans cinq ans ou dans dix ans qu'un jeune, à l'école, aura besoin de soins psychiatriques, mais aujourd'hui. Je trouve cela déplorable et je dois dire que s'il y a des francophones, en Ontario, qui ont besoin de services médicaux en français et qui ont besoin d'un centre médical, c'est à Thunder Bay et c'est maintenant qu'ils en ont besoin. Dans 10 ans, il n'y aura plus personne qui aura besoin de ces services-là. Pour le moment, je vais terminer là.

M. Rae: J'aimerais répondre au discours du ministre en disant que oui, nous faisons des progrès dans la province et que franchement, je parle non seulement comme député de mon parti et comme chef de mon parti, mais comme une personne qui vient d'Ottawa. Je me souviens de l'époque où la ville de Vanier était la ville d'Eastview et qu'on avait des relations vraiment mauvaises entre les communautés. Je me souviens avoir vu, étant enfant, des changements à Ottawa, ma ville natale. On a vu changer le pays pendant les 20 années qui ont suivi les événements fédéraux. Nous avons vu des changements constitutionnels et maintenant, nous voyons les premiers progrès dans la province. C'est dans cet esprit que j'exprime notre appui pour la notion d'une loi-cadre concernant les services en français de notre province.

Toutefois, je dis au ministre que nous avons quelques problèmes, problèmes assez importants, avec le projet de loi. Il a exclu les services des établissements psychiatriques. Franchement, je ne comprends pas comment il aurait pu faire cela quand on se rend compte que c'est exactement dans le domaine de la santé mentale que nous avons peut-être les problèmes les plus profonds dans les services sociaux de la province, concernant les services en français.

Si on va dans le Nord et dans l'Est de la province, on y voit des problèmes. Alors, il y a le problème des exclusions, d'abord. Deuxièmement, il y a un délai de trois ans. Je crois que je parle pour notre caucus en général lorsque je dis que nous allons proposer des amendements pour améliorer la situation et pour confirmer que nous ferons encore des progrès.

Je veux profiter de cette occasion pour dire à la Chambre, encore une fois, que dans notre parti, nous croyons qu'il s'agit seulement du premier pas et que l'objectif reste toujours l'enchâssement constitutionnel des droits minoritaires francophones dans la Constitution du Canada et dans la Constitution de l'Ontario, concernant les francophones de l'Ontario.

Je dis au ministre que nous allons continuer, dans notre parti, non pour faire de cette question une affaire partisane, parce que c'est beaucoup trop important pour que cela se passe, mais que nous allons travailler, oui, avec le Parti progressiste-conservateur, oui, avec le chef conservateur, oui, avec le premier ministre (M. Peterson) de notre province pour nous assurer que nous profitons vraiment de toutes les opportunités qui existent dans ce cas, en ce qui concerne les francophones.

Je veux ajouter, finalement, comme je l'ai dit au premier ministre à plusieurs occasions, que nous sommes prêts à travailler ensemble, avec lui, pour nous assurer que cela se passe. Nous allons travailler avec le gouvernement pour nous assurer que nous profitons de toutes les opportunités se rapportant à la réforme constitutionnelle, y compris la province de Québec.

Il nous reste des choses à faire pour garantir que l'égalité entre les deux peuples fondateurs reste quelque chose de réel et de vivant dans notre province. Mais nous devons dire qu'enfin, nous avons une loi sur laquelle nous pouvons tous travailler, et je dis au Parti progressiste-conservateur que nous somme prêts à travailler avec eux et avec nos confrères du Parti libéral pour nous assurer que nous aurons des changements et des amendements au projet de loi qui feront une meilleure loi que celle que le ministre nous a présentée.

HEALTH APPOINTMENTS

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am pleased to inform the members of this House that, effective today, Russell H. Ramsay has been appointed to a three-year term as the new chairman of the Health Disciplines Board and as chairman of the Denture Therapists Appeal Board. Both boards have been without a chairmen since last June, when Hugh Mackenzie resigned from the posts. Mr. Ramsay's distinguished record of public service makes him particularly well qualified to serve on these boards. He was well known as a public-spirited individual in his native Sault Ste. Marie prior to his election to the Legislature in 1978 as the member for that riding. He was subsequently re-elected in 1981 and has served this province as Provincial Secretary for Resources Development and as Minister of Labour.

The Health Disciplines Board, which was set up in 1974, is charged with the important task of reviewing decisions of the complaints committees of the five colleges that govern dentistry, medicine, nursing, optometry and pharmacy. It conducts its reviews when either a patient or the professional involved has not been satisfied by the decision of a college's complaints committee. Similarly, the Denture Therapists Appeal Board, which was formed in 1975, reviews decisions on complaints against denture therapists.

In addition, the Health Disciplines Board may review proposed decisions of the registration committees of the colleges in cases where a committee proposes to refuse registration to an applicant, revoke the registration of a member or attach conditions to an existing licence. Such reviews are conducted at the request of applicants or members.

Both boards are composed of lay people who are not provincial public servants and who are not, and never have been, licensed health care professionals. These boards provide an important service to the people of Ontario, and I am confident they will continue to play an important role under Mr. Ramsay's competent leadership.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lincoln.

Mr. Andrewes: I would like to congratulate the Minister of Health on his good judgement in the selection of Russell Ramsay to serve on the Health Disciplines Board. In his statement, the minister alluded to Mr. Ramsay's record of service to this House and to the people of Sault Ste. Marie. That record has been exemplary and speaks for itself.

Russell Ramsay was one of those individuals who did not mind putting in long hours. His long hours stretched from roughly 6:30 in the morning until well into the late hours of the evening. They were spent working diligently, particularly in his job of Minister of Labour, and this province is the better for it.

Those who wished to abuse Mr. Ramsay's time were often dealt with in a curt and short way by being invited to his office at some ungodly hour, such as 6:45 for an early morning meeting. Mr. Ramsay's ability to run committees will stand him well in this job. Those of us who have had the privilege of serving under him as members of committees know he enjoys keeping a committee on schedule in reaching decisions expeditiously and fairly.

Mr. Rae: With regard to the announcement by the Minister of Health, I will be generous and indicate that we were consulted with respect to this appointment. We were consulted with respect to the individual involved and the timing of the announcement, as was the Conservative Party with respect to the announcements made yesterday and today. That should clarify the matter. All three parties were agreed not only as to the individuals who should be named but also as to the timing of the announcements. In that spirit, we congratulate Mr. Ramsay on his appointment.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I was so taken with the previous statement that I almost forgot one of my own.

Mr. Speaker: I gather the Treasurer is asking permission to revert to ministerial statements.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am.

Mr. Speaker: Is that agreed? Agreed to.

BUDGET DATE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to advise the House that I intend to present the 1986 budget on Tuesday, May 13, at four o'clock in the afternoon.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Health. If he is truly concerned about clear and open access to the health care system for every resident of this province, and in particular for the residents of northern Ontario, will he tell us why the sick and poor people of northern Ontario who do not have $300 readily available to them are going to the welfare offices for payment of medical travel costs that the government is supposed to be paying?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable member knows full well that we pay costs for medically necessary travel to people who have to travel extraordinary distances. There are mechanisms in place to assist those who otherwise have difficulty in paying travel costs, and they are following along in line with receiving assistance from those other social networks.

Mr. Pope: Unfortunately, that answer is not exactly accurate. Many northern Ontario residents are going to welfare offices across northeastern Ontario because this government will not give them financial support for their medical travel costs. The minister is failing to reimburse those welfare offices; he is not honouring the assignments. The welfare offices no longer are going to accept those assignments --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Pope: -- nor are they going to operate under his system, which he has not reviewed at all. What is he going to do to improve it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It would be of great assistance if the honourable gentleman provided details of those items. We are in the process of reviewing any problems that have developed with respect to implementing the program to reimburse the people of northern Ontario for medically necessary travel. I shall be pleased to receive details so we can include them in our analysis of how the program might be improved.

Mr. Pope: Unfortunately, that answer also is not accurate. There has been no review of this process. Neither the ministry nor anyone in the minister's office has contacted any welfare administrator; none. There has been no contact, just a form letter from the Ontario health insurance plan office in Kingston, dated April 17, which said it had not yet made a decision on assignments. In the meantime, the poor people who cannot afford to travel south for medically necessary treatment are being hard done by. They are written out of the system by a conscious decision that we warned the minister about on November 27.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Pope: When is he going to do his job and make sure this system operates to help the people?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have undertaken, and are continuing, to review the workings of this mechanism. The member for Cochrane South recognizes that we continually review how these programs work. He knows that. Other people know we are making considerable efforts to look at any problems that may have arisen. The Ministry of Health is concerned that these mechanisms work well. I hope the honourable gentlemen will provide me with specific details that will help us to get on with that job.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: My question also is for the auxiliary Minister of Health. Given the climate of disruption --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member should be a little more condescending.

Mr. Grossman: We will send the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) into negotiations.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: He has such a delicate touch, I am surprised they did not send him in already.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member should be a little more condescending; let us see whether he can be a little more condescending.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Minister of the Environment please control himself.

Mr. Grossman: Given the climate of chaos and disruption that is developing quickly in the health care system and at least is contributing to the exodus of doctors from this province, is the Minister of Health today prepared to undertake that the government will pay the costs for any patient who needs to travel to the United States to get the services of a doctor who formerly practised in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We will reimburse the patients for their costs on a formula basis with respect to services they can get only in the US. If those services are available in Ontario, we will not reimburse patients; we hope people will use the services provided in our province.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: The minister is saying the government will not fully reimburse patients who have to travel to the US to see the same doctors they used to see in Ontario prior to the time this government came into office. How can he hold out to the public of Ontario that the system is as accessible as it used to be, given that some of the world's best surgeons will be in the United States and inaccessible to Ontario residents unless they pay money from their pockets for travel and medical bills in the US?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The system in place now was implemented under the auspices of that member, when he was Minister of Health, and others. It was concluded that when the case requires it, we will pay 100 per cent of the standard ward charges and the usual and customary fees charged by surgeons for people travelling to gain medical procedures that can be provided only in those other jurisdictions.

The member knows this full well. His government decided not to pay for travel, and our government has not changed that policy. However, there are mechanisms that when emergency procedures are required, ambulances are available to take patients to those medically necessary services. We have not changed that policy. When services are available in Ontario, it is our expectation that the patients will use them.

Mr. Grossman: The minister makes quite a virtue of the fact he has not changed the policy. Having looked at the throne speech in some depth, we agree the government has not changed very many policies at all. Because of the handling of it by this government, many doctors who used to practise in Ontario will be available to their Ontario patients only when the patients have paid travel and other costs to get access to them in Dallas, Fort Worth and Phoenix. Will the minister undertake to change that policy?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think the honourable gentleman knows full well that for the past several years -- in fact, for a long time -- there has been a movement of physicians out of and back into Ontario. He knows full well the result of immigration and emigration has been that we have received a net increase in physicians coming to practise medicine in this province. He also knows we have never paid for patients to follow any of the doctors to their destinations in the United States, the United Kingdom or other places they choose to practise.

I do not choose to put restrictions on where doctors travel. I cannot do that and I prefer not to do that. It is our expectation that we will have a bountiful supply of services here to meet the medical needs of the people in Ontario. Where there is no service for the patients available in this province, we will implement the mechanisms to reimburse them for procedures out of the province.

Mr. Davis: The government chased them out.

Mr. Grossman: The government will drive them out and tell patients to pay out of their own pockets.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I think history will show that the only exodus taking place at the moment is out of the Tory caucus.

Mr. Callahan: That is right.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr. Rae: I think the hippo has been stung; the dinosaur has just moved over.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health a question. In his final answer to me yesterday this level of sensitivity is almost unheard of.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will wait until it is possible to hear what is being said. I can wait; it is your time.

Mr. Callahan: Start it off the same way, Bob.

Mr. Rae: No, I will be a good boy this time.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: I am quoting the minister: "For those patients who feel that there are problems, they ought to go directly to their physician. They can go to their physician, as they have been told. They can come to me and I will do my best as well to intercede for those people."

I wonder whether the minister would not recognize that is simply a repeated invocation of the same spirit of charity medicine that has been so decisively rejected by the people of Ontario. Can the minister stand in his place today and tell us the steps he is going to take to ensure that patients do not suffer as a result of the government's inability to grasp the nettle and bring a bill to this Legislature to end extra billing?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have to disagree with the honourable gentleman. He obviously does not understand the essence of the bill that has been the mechanism under which we will end that practice. We have to work under the system we have to deal with at this time. He knows in a democratic process we have certain things available to us, and I am prepared to do my best to work under that mechanism. I can tell the member, others here in this House and the public that we are working through Bill 94 to bring an end to extra billing and that we intend to pursue that.

Mr. Rae: Is the minister aware that yesterday in Welland at a meeting attended by his parliamentary assistant and by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) from our party, in response to a question, his parliamentary assistant said extra billing would be ended in the province in six weeks? Is that the case, and can the minister give that assurance to the people of this province today?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have been dealing with this matter through negotiations, and it has been honestly reported through the media and other places that we have made progress. It is unusual to be able to give the precise date -- as the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said, there is no precise date -- but it is not unusual to anticipate that progress will be made several weeks hence.

I can tell the people we are working very sincerely and directly towards putting together a package that will accomplish those items. Upon passage of the bill, I am sure all people will realize that our position is firm, clear and direct towards ending extra billing.

Mr. Rae: Since the minister has so clearly and decisively rejected the commitment made by his parliamentary assistant, is he in a position today to explain why the patients of this province should suffer as a result of the government's refusal to act? Why should delay be the friend of extra billing? Why should it be allowed to continue when the means are there for the government to move and it has failed to move?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We are moving as a government should in this jurisdiction and in this forum. We introduced a bill on December 19 and we have brought that bill forward. It has received second reading in this House and it is now before a committee. We are using the mechanisms available to this party and this government.

In addition to the legislative mechanism available in a democracy, there is the ability to talk, consult and work together constructively with such people as the Ontario Medical Association members to negotiate a way that may bring this problem to a conclusion. The democratic process is well served by this government and it is well served by the proper forward movement of the policy we are pursuing.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Reville: My question is for the Minister of Housing. There is another exodus which is more serious, and that is the exodus of affordable housing from this province. Since 1981, 8,700 units have been lost in Toronto alone, 629 go on the block tonight and about 2,700 more will be lined up for tomorrow. This crisis did not happen overnight.

Can the minister justify to this House his failure to act to protect the tenants of Ontario, or does he somehow feel this brinkmanship is in the interests of tenants?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The reason we are not announcing a position we are taking is not a matter of delay. It is a matter of discussing it with my colleagues. In a very short time I will be making a statement here that will take care of the member's concern.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Reville: It is the discussion that concerns me. Let me quote today's Toronto Star: "A freeze...has been put on hold, apparently because of internal bickering in the...cabinet." Those bickering most are the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). Apparently, the Treasurer told a Toronto alderman they were all nuts to be concerned about this problem.

Will the minister tell the House if he has dropped the ball, if he has been bushwacked, or if he wants to refer the question?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I will not refer the question, as the member requests. This is a very serious and sensitive issue. It is an issue that would take the wisdom of Solomon to solve immediately.

An hon. member: Or a Liberal government.

Hon. Mr. Curling: That is right. We do not have a Solomon in one person in our cabinet, but we have many men and women with such skills.

Mr. Breaugh: Name names.

Mr. Davis: How about a minister?

Mr. Grossman: Roll the tape.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Curling: There is no one individual who has the ultimate solution, but we have in our cabinet men with such knowledge and legal brilliance, as our Attorney General, with whom I consult. We have such sensitive, socially conscious members as the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro), with whom I also consult. I could go on with the talented people --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: No, no. We want to hear. We have lots of time.

Mr. Speaker: Lots of time? I wish you would all show a little heart, the way the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) does.

Mr. Reville: Tenant leaders, whose participation in the Rent Review Advisory Committee the minister has lauded as historic, say they will not support the new rent review policy they helped to develop in the absence of controls on condo conversions, demolition and co-ownership schemes. Is the minister now abandoning the tenant leaders, or is he going to leave the door open just long enough to let Bretton Place escape as a favour to cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I thought it was the practice to assess and make sure one knows where he is jumping and what he is doing before he acts. We do not intend to make any statement in this House unless we are very serious about it, and are backed by good legislation. The anxiety that is shown by the tenants and all those who are concerned is understandable. It is understandable because of the accumulated neglect that happened here, and they expect decisive decisions now.

Mr. Gordon: Since it is obvious the condominium conversion bill is not going to come in today, can the minister tell us whose right he is going to protect? Is he going to protect the right of the tenants to have affordable housing, or is he going to protect the right of an individual to own property?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am not at all surprised that member would ask me that question. This government is sensitive to all and fair to all, not to one side or the other side. That is why I take that side.

Mr. Gordon: I think the Housing critics and the House have been quite fair to the minister, given that he has not answered any of the questions we have asked him in 10 months. Is it not true that the assured housing policy he announced with such fanfare late last year is now beginning to crumble and that he does not have the influence to push affordable housing through the cabinet at present?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If the 600 or 700 social housing units approved under this government is a crumbling housing policy, I do not know what the member is calling crumbling. More social housing will be built over three years than his party did. We are committed to our program and we know it will be successful.

Mr. Reville: Surely the minister realizes that government policy must not only be right, but it must also be timely. Will he pick up the phone today and call Toronto city council and ask it to postpone its hearing on Bretton Place while he gets his act together?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I thought my friend would know that we do not govern by my taking up the phone to make legislation there. We are coming out with a statement that will address not only Bretton Place, but also all the other issues and concerns we have that we are losing affordable rental units.

Mr. Reville: I remind the minister that the municipal politicians did not have any concern about picking up the phone and calling him and asking him to hold off with his policy. Does he not realize that while he dithers around trying to sort out power structures within the cabinet, tenants are having extreme anxiety all across this province?

Hon. Mr. Curling: There is no dithering around at all. Consultation may be seen as dithering by the member. It is a way in which we can get out a very comprehensive and a very fair policy. There is no dithering at all. I know how anxious he is. I ask him to be patient and we will address those concerns.

HOUSING POLICY

Mr. Gordon: I have another question for the Minister of Housing. In the calculation of capital improvements by the landlord, how will sweat equity be factored in?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am glad the member seems to have got around to reading the report from the tenants and landlords. He can also join the committee. He can come to the committee and put his concerns to it, and we can answer all those questions. He will have all his time there to address that.

Mr. Gordon: A member raised the whole question of elderly women from Sherwood Avenue, who are being evicted because their units are being renovated from within -- and they are really being demolished from within -- and who have nowhere to go. This week in this House the minister made some very strong statements, indicating he was going to bring in legislation to cover condominium conversions, co-ownership and demolition.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Gordon: When is he going to get down to the business of housing in this province?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I thought the member was awake. We got down to the business of housing a long time ago. On December 16, we announced one of the most comprehensive housing policies. If my dear critic was asleep at the switch, I draw his attention to that policy. We got down to a housing policy when we announced and approved 600 or 700 social housing units in Ontario. We are down to business in housing, not like in the past when his government was making many deals with individuals.

3 p.m.

Mr. Gordon: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, that kind of accusation thrown out in this House about making deals with certain individuals is very serious. I ask that the minister either withdraw that statement or explain it.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry; I did not hear the member say that. Did the minister accuse someone of making a deal?

An honourable member: Yes, he did.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: He said there were deals made.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Read Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will look at Hansard.

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

M. Rae: J'ai une question pour le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones. J'aimerais que le ministre nous explique pourquoi le projet de loi exclut les municipalités et les conseils locaux et peut-être le plus important, comme le ministre le sait très bien, les établissements psychiatriques. Est-ce qu'il peut expliquer de telles exclusions dans la loi?

L'hon. M. Grandmaître: Je crois que le chef du troisième parti va repenser sa question dû au fait que présentement, les municipalités peuvent offrir des services en français ou en anglais. La Loi sur les municipalités prévoit de telles choses et on encourage les municipalités à passer leurs projets de loi et à tenir leurs réunions du Conseil en français. Présentement, les municipalités ont le droit d'offrir des services et même, je les encourage, non pas par ce projet de loi, mais par la loi qui existe présentement dans le Municipal Act, de continuer à se prévaloir des services et de les améliorer. En ce qui concerne les institutions psychiatriques, je crois que mon collègue reconnaît la difficulté que nous avons présentement, dans le nord de l'Ontario, à avoir des psychiatres de langue anglaise; des anglophones pour servir le Nord de l'Ontario. Alors, je peux assurer mon collègue que les efforts de la Commission et les efforts de mon Office vont être à ce que des francophones soient formés dans des institutions, universités, aussi bien que dans les collèges, pour servir la province de l'Ontario et les francophones de la province de l'Ontario dans leur langue, une fois la formation de ces gens-là --

M. Rae: Est-ce que le ministre ne comprend pas exactement ce problème? Je crois que nous avons une différence de point de vue philosophique assez importante. Est-ce qu'il ne comprend pas que la reconnaissance des droits concernant les services psychiatriques, par le gouvernement et par cette Législature, exerce une pression encore plus importante afin que nous résolvions exactement ce problème de manque de services en français et à moins que nous ayons une garantie dans la loi, nous aurons toujours le délai et toujours le problème de manque de services, parce que c'est un problème qui remonte aux années 50, aux années 60 et aux années 70. On a présenté des rapports sur cette question et jusqu'ici, le problème n'a pas été résolu et je dis au ministre, aujourd'hui, que nous allons avoir une bagarre sur cette question parce que ça représente une différence de point vue assez importante.

L'hon. M. Grandmaître: Je crois que je suis prêt pour la bagarre et puis les amendements que le chef du troisième parti veut apporter, je suis prêt à les écouter, même à l'encourager à développer d'autres façons de hâter ces services. Alors, je suis prêt à l'écouter et à apporter des amendements. Excepté que je dois assurer le chef du troisième parti que dans les districts désignés, on a droit à des services de psychiatre. Maintenant, ce ne sont pas tous les secteurs, tous les districts qui sont désignés, mais dans les secteurs désignés, vous pourrez vous prévaloir de services de psychiatres de langue française.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). I am concerned over comments made by the Agriculture and Food critic for the official opposition --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry; I cannot allow the member to address a question, because he is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of Education has a response to a question placed previously by the member for Cochrane South.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Hon. Mr. Conway: The defeat and the divisions of York East weigh poorly on the official opposition.

Mr. Grossman: The minister used to be quicker than that.

Mr. Villeneuve: Where is the answer?

Hon. Mr. Conway: There is nothing more distracting than a Tory cacophony.

I would like to respond to a question raised Tuesday by the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) regarding the availability of speech pathology and related language services for students in northern Ontario and to his suggestion that an official in the Ministry of Education suggested in a telephone conversation of January 17, 1986, that a parent unhappy with the availability of such services move to southern Ontario.

I have spoken with the official in question, Don Werner of my ministry, and he has assured me most emphatically that he at no time made the statement attributed to him by Mrs. Grant.

My officials have again looked into the situation of Mrs. Grant's daughter, and they inform me that as of March 21, 1986, Shelly-Ann has been receiving and responding well to a special program in accordance with the recommendation of the identification and placement review committee.

I also understand Mrs. Grant has been provided with the appropriate forms to be completed by the family's medical doctor that would allow the home care program of the Ministry of Health to consider what, if any, additional services might be provided.

On the question of the availability of speech pathology and related language services, I agree with the member for Cochrane South that this is a problem affecting many communities throughout Ontario, particularly in the north. I note, however, that significant progress has been made in providing these services through the implementation of Bill 82 and the efforts of home care programs within the Ministry of Health.

The solution to the shortage of speech pathology and related issues involves the training and education of more people in this field, again especially in the north. My ministry is continuing to work with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities to address the need to provide additional training programs in this area.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Because of the length of the response, I am going to add a minute to the question period. I believe that should have been given during ministerial statements.

Mr. Gillies: The minister should know better than to rattle on.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Brantford should control himself.

Mr. Pope: I can assure the minister that Mr. Werner made those statements.

Second, it is not a question of filling out an application form. This child has been receiving speech therapy services from the Porcupine Health Unit in her preschool years. It is a question of translating that service into the special education setting for primary schools in northern Ontario.

Will the minister abide by memo 81, which was signed in the fall of 1984 by the Minister of Education, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services, and provide to the people of the north those services to which northern Ontario boys and girls have the right under law?

Hon. Mr. Conway: After a lengthy discussion with Don Werner, who assures me he had several conversations with Mrs. Grant, who indicated to Mr. Werner throughout those conversations that she felt satisfied with the advice provided, I can assure the honourable member that Mrs. Grant's daughter at this moment is receiving the full program recommended by the IPRC. That is the reality, and I want the member and the House to know that.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Pope: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: That is not the reality. She is receiving special education --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege.

An hon. member: Take another minute off.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate all the help; however, I will do it myself.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the minister who said, "Anyone who has problems with the health care system should come directly to Elston for help." It is for the Minister of Health.

Last year, the north was successful in attracting a second ophthalmologist to North Bay, with a third to be on the way. The decision for both of them to relocate in the north was premised on the ministry's promise to provide essential ophthalmology equipment to North Bay Civic Hospital. Can the minister explain why he has reneged on this commitment? Can he explain how his actions will improve accessibility in the north when instead of three ophthalmologists for North Bay, there shortly will be one?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I will undertake to look into that question and report back to the honourable member. We have been pursuing means by which we can instruct people to improve equipment allocations to locations in the north. I do not know about this one in particular. I will get back to the member on that.

Mr. Harris: Since the minister does not know how he is going to do it, let me quote from a statement he made last year: "Capital and operating funds will also be made available to help equip facilities that the specialists will need...."

Can I also indicate --

Mr. Speaker: By way of supplementary.

Mr. Harris: -- by way of supplementary to the minister, that the chairman of the North Bay Hospital Commission wrote to the minister last January requesting action. I wrote to the minister last February requesting action. It is not a new issue. He has had three or four months to look into the matter. I have read him the statement in which he said the money is there. Will he now provide the funds? Is he saying the program does not exist? That is what his ministry seems to be saying. When can North Bay and Dr. Bullen expect even an acknowledgement of the January letter?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have told the member I will look into the particular question he raised about North Bay. I also told him that a program is being put in place with respect to it. I told the member I will report back to him, and I will report back to him in that respect.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Solicitor General, who told the House yesterday that a nuclear emergency plan for Pickering had been developed and was in place; however, there appear to be some serious flaws in the plan.

The plan seems to depend on local radio and cable stations and police vehicles with loudspeakers to alert the community in case of an emergency. However, no mechanism is in place to trigger people's attention to the fact that they should be tuning in to get instructions on what action to take.

As well, the plan has identified evacuation centres and routes to take to get to those evacuation centres, but nobody in the community is aware of those kinds of details. Will the minister ensure that a trigger mechanism, such as sirens, which are used in most emergency programs of this nature, is added to the plan? Will he also ensure that an educational --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has asked the question.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I assure the honourable member that in the very near future he will be able to look at the complete details of the provincial nuclear emergency plan. He will find what I consider to be adequate means of informing the public. The means used in post-war years of sirens has not proven to be effective because of maintenance problems. We believe we have effective means of communicating the need for the implementation of such a plan to the public.

Mr. Charlton: I hope they are not all asleep, with the media outlets turned off, when the emergency occurs.

Apparently, the plan also calls for supplies of potassium iodide pills to be stored at fire stations and for firemen to hand deliver them door to door in the case of an emergency. As well, they obviously will be asked by the people in the community, "What is going on? Give us some details," as they are attempting to do that. The time required to accomplish that would be horrendous.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Charlton: Will the minister consider a plan where the pills will be distributed to all the households in the emergency plan areas along with instructions for their use and an educational package to inform people what they are supposed to do if an emergency arises?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: The matter of distribution of the potassium iodide pills has been debated at great length. It is felt that the free distribution of these pills might cause more panic than comfort among the citizenry. There is also the matter of the shelf life of the pills. The supplies are there, not only with the fire department but also with all the generating stations. The delivery is effectively carried out by people who are on duty 24 hours a day.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Colleges and Universities has a response to a question asked previously by the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson).

INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Yesterday the member for Burlington South raised a matter with me concerning the posting of advertisements for the Ontario public service internship program within my ministry. I said in response that I would have my officials look into it on an emergency basis and if there were any element of unfairness, I would have the situation remedied immediately.

I did that and I found the honourable member was correct that the postings had not been advertised in every post-secondary institution in the province. I then took steps to delay the closing of the competition for two weeks and ensured that the positions would be advertised in all the institutions that had not received notice of the postings.

I note, however, that the member in his great concern for students has issued a press release stating that I as minister had rejected fairness as a matter for this competition and had categorically rejected leaving the competition open. I wonder whether the member, in the interest of fairness and to ensure that the students know the competition has been extended for two weeks, will be interested in issuing another press release.

Mr. Jackson: I am pleased to hear that the minister, although catching the selective invitations of the various ministers of this government, did not succumb to selective hearing and got to the bottom of the matter so quickly.

I still stand by the statement I made. Has the minister closed off or has he extended the competitions yesterday for three positions in the Ministry of Correctional Services and one position in the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs? Will the minister specifically look into the postings by the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling), which I found particularly objectionable, given that the minister was able to circulate those closed competitions to his --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not responsible for posting the advertisements of competitions in other ministries. I rhetorically ask the member whether the press release he issued was issued before or after he asked the question. I encourage him to spread the word that the competition has been extended. In the interest of students, that is the only fair thing to do.

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr. O'Connor: I have a question for the Attorney General, who has recently created considerable public confusion by his conflicting statements on the crown's intention in the second Morgentaler trial. On the one hand, he indicated that the ministry and the government are prepared to proceed to prosecute Dr. Morgentaler on that second offence. On the other hand, he indicated in this House on one occasion that is not their policy. Can he clear up that situation and advise us once and for all what the government's policy is on this matter?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am grateful for the question and sorry the honourable member was confused by what had happened. I will do what I can to clarify that.

As he knows, each case that is listed at the general sessions or at the sittings of the court for trial is called either quarterly or biannually. That is so in the case of the second charge against Dr. Morgentaler. The first issue upon such call of case is whether the parties in the case are technically ready to proceed with it; that is, are equipped, have interviewed witnesses and have complied with all preliminary proceedings. We have indicated on a number of occasions that we have complied and are ready to proceed in that sense.

Mr. Justice Evans, former Chief Justice of the High Court, has ruled it would be useless to proceed with the second charge until the Supreme Court of Canada has decided the appeal in the first case. That ruling was confirmed by Associate Chief Justice Callaghan at the last sittings of the court. Of course, we submit entirely to those rulings.

Mr. O'Connor: By way of a supplementary, perhaps I could read from the transcript of the last court appearance. The senior crown attorney who handled the matter said to the court, "I would simply indicate for the record that the crown is prepared to proceed to a trial on this matter." Similarly, the Attorney General himself is quoted in the Toronto Star of April 18 as saying, "We are prepared to prosecute the second charges." He is also quoted as saying, "We were prepared to proceed with the charges at the time, but the judge would not permit it."

Would the Attorney General not agree that what has happened here is that he has attempted to satisfy both sides of this very contentious issue by telling them what they wanted to hear, but has got caught at it?

Hon. Mr. Scott: A selective reading of the transcript is not only not helpful, but it probably is not fair to any of the participants in the case. If my friend goes on, he will see in that transcript the Associate Chief Justice makes plain that to proceed in this circumstance would be absolutely useless. Crown counsel conceded that was so and indicated we would abide by the ruling of the court, as we have always done. As the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has said, we are ready to proceed when the courts indicate the case can be tried.

OVERTIME WORKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: Will the Minister of Labour tell this House what he is doing about the excessive amounts of overtime that are being worked at number two rod mill at Stelco in Hamilton. This is a matter that has been brought to his attention a number of times by the workers involved, by myself and, most recently, by a letter to his ministry on April 22.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am aware of the concerns raised by Local 1005 of the United Steelworkers. My friend has sent a letter to me indicating his concern over the response sent by the employment standards branch of the ministry to Local 1005 regarding the overtime worked at this part of Stelco. I too am not satisfied with that reply. I had a meeting with my staff today on this. Whether this is a matter of excessive overtime over and above the 100 hours that is allowed is another question. I do not think it is adequate to explain to the union that the solution to this allegation of excessive overtime is a task force. Those stand separately, one from the other.

Mr. Mackenzie: We cannot seem to move on plant shutdowns; surely we can move on overtime. Does the minister realize that in just three and a half months this one mill alone has had more than 10,564 hours of overtime; that a number of employees have been working more than 100 hours above the regular work week in three and a half months; and that a worker who raised a grievance in that mill has been disciplined for refusing overtime?

Does the minister accept this kind of attitude on the part of the company? Is he prepared to deal with it, or is the committee he set up just an excuse for not dealing with it and not laying charges?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: That last comment is just plain silly. I do not mind saying that. If we can, this government would like to reach an agreement between management and labour on where we ought to be going in the latter half of the 1980s and in the 1990s on hours of work and on what constitutes overtime and excessive overtime. That is what the task force is in place to do.

In the meantime, I say to my friend -- and I hope he will go back and look at my earlier statement on this -- we have put new rules in place for applications for the so-called green permit. That is for more than 100 hours. Among those rules, the employment standards branch of my ministry must consult with, in this case, Local 1005 of the union as to its feelings on the legitimacy of the employer's request. I will concede to my honourable friend that I understand such a request from Stelco will be forthcoming at the very early part of next week. Given the fact it is very early in the year, I am sure the branch will be looking at that very closely.

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

Mr. Pope: My question is to the minister responsible for francophone affairs. On page 3 of his statement today, he indicates that the bill he is tabling proposes the adoption of "statutory guarantees," to quote his words. In reviewing this piece of legislation, we see references not to statutory guarantees but to cabinet decision-making and regulation throughout. We see it specifically with respect to subsections 5(1) through 5(4), section 7, subsections 8(1) and 8(2) and sections 9, 10 and 11. Where are the guarantees?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am glad to hear that the honourable member can count, but he cannot read. There is provision in that bill to create a commission, and that is the responsibility of the commission. The member should read between the lines; there is his answer.

Mr. Pope: There is nothing between the lines and there is nothing in this bill to guarantee French-language services.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: That was not a question, but I can tell the member again that it is the responsibility of the commission and cabinet. If he reads all of the bill, he will get his answers. He can present himself before the committee and bring changes if he wants to. The Conservatives never had the guts to do it in 42 years and now they are criticizing us. They never had the guts.

[Later]

Mr. Pope: I would like to go back to the minister responsible for francophone issues. I have been carefully reading between the lines. Perhaps the minister can help us. Can he indicate what sections in his legislation fall within the guidelines of statutory guarantees as he stated today? Will the minister please read it out?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I made a statement today that the bill will be introduced. It has not been introduced yet and I do not have a copy before me.

Mr. Pope: I will send one over to the minister. I am tempted not only to read the bill to the minister, but also to read between the lines, if that is what he needs to answer the question properly. He is the one who made the statement today that he was providing statutory guarantees. Is he now saying he does not know what they are?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: That was not my answer. My answer was that I will be introducing the bill later this afternoon.

[Later]

Mr. Pope: I have given the minister responsible for francophone affairs a copy of his own kit. I have even underlined the sections to which I was referring. Can the minister now tell the House where the guarantees are?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: As I mentioned before, the commission that will be in place for three years will be working with the ministries on programs to be implemented. After three years, or within the three-year period, these services will be in place and will be guaranteed.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) is being very patient.

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning his intention to impose regulations on our wilderness parks that will govern activities in those parks. Why is the minister so intent on imposing on our parks inadequate and inappropriate regulations that are opposed by groups such as Parks Canada, the environmental groups, the general public and, as a matter of fact, by members of his own cabinet, as I understand it? Why is he so intent on rubber-stamping a parks policy that is inadequate and that was suggested first by a previous minister from a previous government?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The reason I support the position that was put before me is that there are a tremendous number of people who now want to use our parks and the agreement of this government is to regulate many more parks. When we look at the uses, we have to consider all the people of Ontario, who have every right to be in our parks and use them as they see their recreational needs. In fact, we have addressed ourselves to those areas where we would have complete wilderness parks for those people who enjoy that type of involvement. We would not have designated so many parks if we had not taken into account all those uses.

I think the member for Nickel Belt, all members of the Legislature, and my cabinet and caucus colleagues will play a role in deciding where we go with the regulation of those parks.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Laughren: That is a very strange response. Can the minister tell us whether he really believes that in a wilderness park -- and I stress that these are wilderness parks, not day-use parks to which I am referring -- it is appropriate to have logging, mining, trapping, hunting, tourist operations and hydro developments? Does the minister think we can have a wilderness park worthy of the name and have those activities going on in it?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is appropriate that the last use the honourable member mentioned is one I am very much in favour of. We look at the threat around the world, and I am looked to as Minister of Energy to find other ways to generate power. We cannot have it both ways. I hope we will be able to generate every bit of electrical power there, particularly in northern Ontario. That is an excellent use, but it will only be done when we can investigate and make sure of the impact, and after I have talked to my friend the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) to make certain he is satisfied. I will do all those things.

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Some months ago, the ministry embarked on a program of purchasing houses on McClure Crescent that are situated on radioactive soil. Having acknowledged the existence of radioactive soil by purchasing them, why is the ministry now renting out the houses it has purchased, taking advantage of people's desperate need for housing to house families in homes other families left because of the problems?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I did not get the question. I do not understand the question.

Mrs. Grier: Why is the Ministry of Housing putting on the market for rent the homes on McClure Crescent that it purchased because they are built on ground where radioactive soil has been discovered?

Hon. Mr. Curling: When we gave the people on McClure Crescent the option to sell us their houses, it was not in recognition that the soil was dangerous.

Mr. Sterling: Why did you buy them then?

Hon. Mr. Curling: We gave them an option.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have answered the question. There was a supposed supplementary question that was out of order.

Mrs. Grier: May I ask the minister why he has not taken advantage of some of those homes being vacant, as a result of his purchase, to remove the contaminated soil?

Hon. Mr. Curling: As I said, we gave those people an option. We are trying to find a place to move the soil to. Until we locate a place in which to put the soil, we cannot move it.

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. McNeil: I have the signatures of some 400 constituents from the great riding of Elgin, who are requesting the government of Ontario "to reduce gasoline tax by 1.1 cents a litre from 8.3 cents a litre to 7.2 cents a litre immediately and to phase in further reductions over three years to 5.4 cents a litre by 1989."

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Cousens: To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"The undersigned beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario strongly opposing the unilateral actions of the Liberal government of Ontario, which have created an atmosphere of adversarial confrontation with the health care providers of this province. We deplore the destruction of our world-renowned system of private and public health care by the imposition of a state-controlled health care system.

"We therefore respectfully petition the government of Ontario to begin immediate and meaningful consultations with the health care providers of this province in a manner that will sustain the quality and excellence of health care for the people of Ontario."

MOTIONS

TRANSFERRAL OF BILL 34

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that Bill 34, An Act to provide for Freedom of Information and Protection of Individual Privacy, be transferred from the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, and that the evidence and documents received by the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions on the said Bill 34 be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS AND AGENCIES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the order of the House on July 10, 1985, appointing for this parliament the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions be rescinded.

Motion agreed to.

SIMULTANEOUS TRANSLATION

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly review and report on the provision of simultaneous translation services to the House and its committees, and that the evidence and documents received by the standing committee on members' services in the first session be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES ACT / LOI DE 1986 SUR LES SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 8, An Act to provide French Language Services in the Government of Ontario.

L'hon. M. Grandmaître propose la première lecture du projet de loi 8, Loi assurant la prestation des services en français pour le gouvernement de l'Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Rae: I appreciate the chance to participate in this debate. It is always a pleasure to participate in any debate, but it is particularly an opportunity for us to reflect on the government's proposals as announced in the throne speech and, in the spirit of constructive opposition, for us to present some alternatives.

I do not intend to engage in a detailed parsing of the throne speech. It can well be said it was done yesterday by the leader of the Conservative Party who, if I may say so, definitely plumbed the depths of this throne speech. At some considerable length and in considerable detail, he attempted to trace the patrimony or matrimony, or whatever, of each individual proposal laid out in the throne speech. If I thought it was worthwhile, I would do that, but that has never been my approach on these occasions, and I do not intend to change as a result of having listened to the speech by the leader of the official opposition.

Having heard that speech, I must confess I was more than a little bewildered because, as I understood it -- and I was here for the vast majority of that speech -- he spent the first half saying how terrible it was and the second half saying they were all Tory ideas anyway. If I could possibly sum up in one sentence what the leader of the Tory party said yesterday, it would be, "The throne speech was so bad that we thought of it first."

That may be an effective epitaph to the speech given by the leader of the official opposition. It is fair to say that I found it a rather bizarre contradistinction. If the Tories want to lay claim to the rather second-hand pot-pourri, this stew of various high-tech clichés which the government of William Grenville Davis used to deliver upon us, and if they want to insist these ideas are all theirs, then this is a particular dispute with respect to paternity or maternity, and I do not think the New Democrats need to trouble themselves about it. We are happy to give it to whoever wants to claim it, and we will leave it at that.

The throne speech talked about three major issues and three major themes. It talked about what it calls competitiveness; it talked about education; and it talked about health care. I suggest in each of these fields the government has given us a vision which is far narrower than the one it signed in the accord. It has adopted a rhetoric which is very sadly reminiscent of that contained in so many Conservative throne speeches in the past and if, as somebody and many reporters have suggested, this throne speech reflects the the personal stamp of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), then who are we to differ with that attribution?

I personally feel -- and I know that on reflection most people who listened to it will feel -- that as a description of our situation, it is completely inadequate. As a call to action, it is, to put it mildly, one-sided and badly biased with respect to the balances that need to be struck in a province of this complexity and diversity and with a history and tradition such as Ontario has. It is a very narrow kind of world that the Liberal Party is presenting to us as the one it wants to create for the 21st century.

The phrase "world class" occurs about 12 or 15 times. I tried to penetrate the speech long enough to add them up and I was not able to do that exactly, but it certainly is a recurring phrase.

Nothing in the throne speech surprised me particularly. Many reporters have asked me whether I was surprised or disappointed. I was neither surprised nor disappointed, because both those things are dependent on expectations. I have not been here as long as many members, but I have been here long enough to serve in opposition with the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson). I have heard him speak on many different occasions, in many other throne speech debates and other debates, and I have read his speeches over the years.

The business bias and the Babbitt-like rhetoric which have a bizarre appeal for some elements in the Liberal Party, apparently now the dominant elements in the Liberal Party, have always surprised me. Having heard Liberal rhetoric both here and in Ottawa -- and I hope now that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) is on the other side he will not continue to heckle me whenever I use the word "Ottawa" and refer to that place -- none of us in this party is particularly surprised or bewildered by the approach and the position taken.

I see the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) is walking out, but I understand he is coming back. After what I said about him, I do not know why he would want to leave. I thought I was being nice.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Not a very pretty arrangement. What do they do? Go to the movies in the afternoon?

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer is reflecting, no doubt, on his own experience in opposition and is assuming that is how everyone behaves today.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I used to empty the House too.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer will have ample time to reminisce after the next election.

I do not know whether the cameras will show the large crowd facing me on the other side. It is bigger than a lot of audiences I have addressed. I see the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan). I have spoken to smaller crowds in Brampton and I am happy to speak to this one here.

Mr. Callahan: At least they do not go like an accordion, as the official opposition members do.

Mr. Rae: The member's turn on the camera will come; he will get his turn.

The government is following a long tradition of throne speeches. A magic conversion takes place one or two days before a throne speech. As ordinary members of the Legislature, we are not privy to these speeches. We do not see the speech until it is released, although I saw my copy in the lockup, as I am sure some members will be aware.

The papers always have a leak. I do not know how in this age of tight government security. I see the Minister of the Environment shaking his head. There are gnomes at work in his ministry who, just prior to some major announcement, magically manage to get it out, often to one or two papers with which we are all familiar, which have a record of loyal support for one political persuasion or another.

We read the headlines. I saw the headline about a $1-billion high-tech fund, and reporters asked me, "What do you think of this exciting venture, David Peterson's personal vision of a $1-billion high-tech fund?" We had to wait until the throne speech to understand precisely what was being referred to. One has to understand the way throne speeches are sold or marketed or exported to understand what is in this document. The government is not proposing $1 billion of new money.

3:50 p.m.

I see the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) listening carefully. I think he will agree that if one saw a figure of $1 billion, one would expect that to be $1 billion that was not there before. It would be unfair to say that is coming from other programs. We do not have in the throne speech a $1-billion fund; in fact, we have a fund over a decade. It is a 10-year fund; so, first of all, one divides by 10 and gets $100 million. There are those who had plans for five, 10 or 1,000 years. Rome had its own particular vision of what its empire would look like over many centuries. If Julius Caesar or one of the fellows at the end just before the Visigoths came down in 442 AD, or whenever it was, announced his budget and announced a program of so many drachmas over so much time, it might be a 500-year program that would amount to trillions of dollars.

The Liberal Party has been far too modest. If it had announced a 50-year program, it would have been a $5-billion fund. If it had announced a 100-year program, it would have been a $10-billion fund. It has been far too modest in its description of the fund. We should have seen a headline, with print so fat that it never appeared before in the Toronto Star, saying, "Premier announces $20-billion high-technology fund." Then we would have to wait until page A17 before we appreciated that it would be funded over a period of 200 years.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Why are you taking on the Toronto Star?

Mr. Rae: It is the one that occurred to me at the time. I do not know why; it just came into my head. Do not ask me when I am in full flight, please. Would anybody interrupt Mozart when he is composing? Come on; show a little respect.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Van Horne) with responsibility for the elderly will get his chance. He will be able to introduce a white paper this year. That in itself deserves a round of applause. Let us hear it for another white paper from the Liberal Party of Ontario. It will not be a task force, but a white paper. That is liberalism in action. He is on the cutting edge of liberalism today -- not a green paper, a blue paper or a brown paper, but a white paper. That is the cutting edge of liberalism in 1986 in Ontario.

To get back to this $1-billion fund, which I think is far too modest, let us look at what it is. It is $50 million this year of additional money.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is a lot of money.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer says, quite correctly, that it is a lot of money. However, with due respect, it is not $1 billion. It is one twentieth of that, one in 20.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Go back to Rome. Rome was not built in a day.

Mr. Rae: Did the Treasurer say that Rome was not burned in a day? I did not hear it.

Mr. McClellan: It did not fall in a day.

Mr. Rae: It did not fall in a day? That has been my line over the years. Anyway, it took about a month for us to do that one.

I have to congratulate the Liberals. In assuming the mantle of William G. Davis, they have managed, by whatever magic it is, to convert $50 million into a $1-billion headline. As public relations artists -- and, Lord knows, the Tories wrote the book on PR, how to sell it and how to package it -- it was so --

To divert for a moment, I must confess it was so touching to hear the former Treasurer, the former Minister of Industry and Tourism, the former Minister of Health, the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, now the Leader of the Opposition, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), say --

Another walkout by a member opposite. I can take it. This is what we call an exodus.

It was touching to hear the plea and the statement from the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the Tory party, saying, "Tories, we do not have any style, but we have substance." I sat here for four years when he was minister of everything. He had white papers, consultation papers, budgets with programs that never happened and headlines that said they were going to be doing this for seniors and that for health care. They had it all packaged. They had more studies going and they had it all worked out, but nothing happened.

Here is the leader of that group -- those who are left and who are still here today, though there will be fewer tomorrow no doubt, and that is a definition -- saying, "We do not have any style." He said to one of his own members that they do not have any style. Imagine saying that about one of one's own members. If Saul Korman said that about me, I could take it. However, to say about some of those Tories that they do not have any style, but they sure have substance, all I can say is that it is a refreshing change from what we saw during the past 42 years.

I want to speak seriously for a moment about the competitiveness argument because I think it is a bogus track for the Liberals to become obsessed with. To talk about competitiveness in that broad use of the phrase without understanding and appreciating the kinds of institutional changes, the kinds of relationships between labour and management, the kinds of inequalities which exist in our society, and to say simply that this has got to be the direction and the way to do it is to create far more of a free market economy than we have today is a very sad illusion. The Premier may genuinely believe that rhetoric about entrepreneurship and handing over whole aspects and whole slews of government programs to the chamber of commerce is somehow going to resolve Ontario's economic difficulties, but that notion strikes me as bizarre.

It also strikes me as exceedingly strange that the document, the first part of which deals with the economy, in which the government is expressing its sense of where we are at as an economy, fails to discuss or even mention the free trade obsession of the federal government. I had the impression from reading certain newspapers and from watching certain media that the Premier of Ontario was nothing less than Captain Canada when it comes to being opposed to free trade.

I had the distinct impression that this man was there single-handedly standing between a comprehensive free trade treaty and a totally independent country. Alone among the Premiers, he was prepared to lie down on those railroad tracks and stop Brian Mulroney. I had that impression. I would have thought that if that were true and not just so much soap, we would have seen some reference to this major economic discussion taking place now between the governments of Canada and the United States. Instead, we do not have anything which refers or relates to those discussions. I find it, to put it mildly, bizarre.

The language of competition has been used by many international businesses to take their money from this country and run. The language, ethic and morality of international competition as applied by many of our corporations has been used to drive down the standard of living, to eliminate jobs, to destroy the standard of living of many working people, and to shut down factories and take them to Mexico, Japan and Korea. That is the reality. That is the real world out there in respect to what this particular word has come to mean to so many working people of this province.

To say the answer to our problems is for us to be more competitive is simply silly. It is silly for two reasons. First, we agree that we need to have an economy that is productive and competitive. Nobody wants to have an economy that is unproductive and uncompetitive. To suggest that simple pursuit of international competition is going to solve our problems is nonsense. It is not. One does not create a productive economy by creating a mood, an atmosphere and a marketplace that are full of fear. One does not do it by driving wages down, by destroying trade unions, by reducing living standards or by creating more part-time work and less full-time work. I will be coming to all these issues in a moment.

In the view of our party, it is done by generating an economy that is committed to fairness, just as it is committed to efficiency. For the government to fail to address this question of economic fairness, economic control and what is really taking place in our economy today is irresponsible and inadequate.

4 p.m.

They then turn from the field of competitiveness to the field of education. When I listen to the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway), whom we in this party have always thought of as being the Demosthenes of this Legislature, with his general world view of the 19th century, I think that I am sitting in the British House of Commons around 1886, which was the high period of British liberalism.

I listen to him and to the flowery language, and then I see to what depths the Liberal Party is reduced. The minister is simply becoming a shill for the chambers of commerce, coming in here and describing his education policy. It was a sad day, a sad moment to hear that kind of pathetic, narrow view. George Babbitt could not have expressed it any better in 1925.

What is the purpose of an educational system that makes everybody fit like cogs in a machine into the business world and the business civilization? Is that the vision of modern liberalism with respect to education? Is the answer simply to prepare the bridges to business? It is an indication of the vaporization not simply of idealism, but of an understanding.

I see the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) here. Perhaps he can explain to me why streaming was mentioned in the speech the Premier gave soon after he signed the accord. There is no mention of streaming in the throne speech, which is an indication of what the government intends to do. I will tell him what the bridge to business is in my constituency today among my working-class kids. The minister knows perfectly well what I am talking about. The bridge to business is the world that goes out at grade 10 into a low-paid job and into a part-time job. That is what is taking place. That is the real world for those kids. To say the answer is to make our school system safe for Junior Achievers, which seems to be the vision now of the Liberal Party, is a pathetic indication of its understanding of the degree of the difficulties facing our kids, and our older people too, who need such access to the world of work.

They mention the training problem. As a background to the throne speech, they even have the nerve to produce a report saying less than three per cent of employers are offering training programs, which we have known. We have documented it; we have had reports; we have all had task forces -- the government had a task force on it. My colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) and my colleague the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) have been involved. We have sat down with the trade unions and we have talked with businesses. Time and again, we have been through the lack of training programs in the world of business for people who want to advance within the company.

What is the answer of the Liberal Party to that problem? Is it a levy on employers, insisting that we pool our programs to make sure we are not having a beggar-thy-neighbour approach to training? Is it to deal with the continuing scandal of our failure to create an ethic of respect for the skill trades and a world of entry into apprenticeship programs? Is it to deal with the fact that today fewer apprentices are being trained than there were four years ago? No. The answer is something called a "skills bank." I do not know what the hell a skills bank is. It is something you put into a computer and it sets no obligations.

I see the Minister of Government Services and Chairman of Management Board (Ms. Caplan) is smiling. Quite sincerely, I tell her those things are words. It is the same kind of buffalo meat we got from the Tories and their programs for all those years. Until we establish a clear obligation to train on the part of employers, they are not going to train employees. All the talking, the computerized programs and the offerings from government are not going to make a tinker's bit of difference unless we say to employers in the province, "You are going to train and you are going to have to train," and use the carrot and the stick.

When it comes to the field of health care, which is the third major pillar of this throne speech, again we have the statements. I do not think any of us can disagree that there are major challenges to face. People are getting older and we have a crisis of ageing. We have a crisis of technology in our system. We have this dangerous and troubling epidemic of cancer, which continues to grow and to be a far more major factor than even health care experts were predicting five years ago. We have a need for better programs of preventive and community medicine.

That has been the consensus in this party for the last 15 years. If the Liberal Party is saying it now is recognizing that, all I can say is that is great, but we have heard this song before. When I became leader of the party, one of the first things I did, because I came from being a member of Parliament, was to read Tory throne speeches going back to 1971. I admit it was painful. There are aspects of this job that are more difficult than others, but I did and it was interesting going over those speeches. It is not something I would urge anybody else to do unless he has to do it. I would, however, suggest to the minister -- and the minister was in my position, coming in too -- that she should do it, because she would find that the same civil servants have been drafting the same rhetoric for at least 15 years.

Do not think that when Tom Wells of blessed memory, who is now our agent general and who is here today, was Minister of Health he was not talking about the same degree of concern in his speeches in the late 1970s about a similar issue. Do not think that the Leader of the Opposition, who was Minister of Health for a brief period of a year or so before he moved on to become the Treasurer, had it only in the throne speeches. Let us not forget that this is the same government that promised us home care in 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984, and it did it in its last gasp. It was a record for promises, and it was in its last throne speech, the one that took place after the election of May 2.

To hear that description of our problem and to have the government tell us that our response to the problem with respect to seniors is going to be the presentation of another white paper, I think if all our critics got together, we could probably go all the way up to the ceiling with the papers, the studies and the reports that have been kicking around the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. There are studies on the relationship between that ministry and the Ministry of Health. There are studies on the standards in nursing homes and homes for the aged. There are papers with respect to what a community health care program would look like. There is no political will to do anything about it.

To hear as the Liberal contribution to this problem of moving the health care system and of dealing with the vested interests in the system, "We are going to be proposing a white paper," I think it fair to say that it is to laugh -- and you have to, or else you cry.

With respect to some ideas that were not there, I was glad the notion of the health care tax was not repeated. That was the tax the Premier wanted to put on those who are sick. He said it was an idea that came into his head and was not policy. This is my first opportunity in the House to say to the Premier that if you have a stockbroker with cancer and a stockbroker without cancer, the idea that the stockbroker with cancer should pay a higher rate of tax than the stockbroker who is healthy is offensive to everything this party believes in.

The idea that one should somehow link one's use of the health care system to one's level of taxation is offensive. It is offensive whether it is tied to income or whether it is not tied to income. It is an idea that, as soon as it is uttered, should simply be rejected. The fact that it has been kicking around in the Premier's head for so long until he finally expressed himself on it is a sad statement.

The other thing he has proposed is the $53-million slush fund for doctors who now extra bill. Other suggestions he has made are that we have more injected into the health care system from the private sector, that some kind of committee be established and a study done -- yet another study -- that will look at the parameters of health care going into the 1980s and 1990s.

I have no opposition to governments consulting widely. I know the Premier has called me this week, among other complimentary things, a socialist dictator, unilateral, draconian and other things, for the simple reason that we have suggested it would be in the interests of everybody if the government were to take itself out of its misery, get on with the extra billing matter and put it on the legislative agenda.

4:10 p.m.

I have been called many things in my time, but I must confess to being somewhat baffled by the Premier's comments. I cannot for the life of me understand what is dictatorial about suggesting that, after a government has been in for nearly a year, after we have had a widespread process of consultation in the fall, an extensive period of debate in this House, one of the longest periods of hearings I can recall in living memory with respect to an area where there are really a limited number of issues to be settled and discussed, it should bring that legislation forward now so that it can be amended and ultimately debated and passed on third reading in this House. The premise that this is somehow dictatorial reflects a very curious definition of democracy.

I regard democracy as widespread consultation but also, decision at some point. At some point, the government has to recognize that a decision needs and must be made with respect to health care. All I can tell the Premier is that we do not need studies or task forces. What we need is a commitment to act on behalf of the people of this province and to create a universal health care system that will continue to be among the best in the world.

I am troubled by the inadequacies of the throne speech, but to be quite blunt about it, I am not sufficiently troubled by the rhetoric and bombast surrounding the speech to be diverted from our central task. Let us not forget what the real agenda is going to be this spring. I say to the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, who is here, that it is important for all of us not to be diverted from what is going to be on the agenda this spring.

This spring we are going to be dealing with legislation that flows and continues to flow from the accord negotiated between our party and the Liberal Party last May. All I can say to the Liberal Party is that before it can get to the Tory program, it has to deal with the program negotiated with the New Democratic Party in the accord. It is going to have to deal with the commitments that have already been made.

I know it will be sad and I know it will be hard for the Tories not to wrestle with the issues they failed to deal with over 42 years. Before the Liberals can get to the Tory agenda, which they laid out in the throne speech, they are going to have to bring in the legislation they promised to bring in. They promised the people of Ontario they would bring it in. In our view, the legislation can and needs to come this spring. Let me lay it out.

I have already discussed extra billing. The government is committed to rent control, demolition control and condo conversion. First-contract legislation is in committee and needs to come out. Other measures should include equal pay for work of equal value in the private and public sector; pension reform; Workers' Compensation Board reform; a genuine shift in child care away from welfare orientation and towards a recognition of the needs of the 20th century; and affirmative action, not only for women but for the minority and the handicapped.

That is the spring agenda. That is a good, healthy dose of work for the Legislature of Ontario this spring. That is the agenda that is going to have to be addressed by the government, not the phoney agenda it brought in in the throne speech.

Three other issues that we have been pushing hard are pensions, insurance and overtime. These three questions, which the government has in front of it and which it has refused to deal with and face up to thus far, but which it is going to have to face up to, relate directly to the working people of Ontario.

I hear the government say it is really interested in talking about beer and wine in the corner store. I was interested to read one of the columns the other day by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter). He was attributing views to us and the Progressive Conservative Party. He has not discussed this issue with me or with my critic, and I do not think he has discussed it with the Leader of the Opposition. I would be delighted to sit down with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to tell him why I think it is a bad idea.

If he asks the working people of Ontario whether affordable car insurance is more important than beer and wine in the corner store, I know what the answer will be. If he asks whether they think pensions that not only stay with them when they change jobs, but that will be indexed to the cost of living are more important than beer and wine in the corner store, I have no doubt which way they will go.

That issue, a peculiar obsession of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and of the Premier himself, is a nonstarter as far as I am concerned. Sometimes the minister says the New Democratic Party is in the thrall of the unions. Have members ever heard that accusation before?

Mr. Breaugh: Once or twice.

Mr. Rae: Have you heard it in Bellwoods? The members should come to York South. We hear it everywhere. The Tories used to say it too, but there is a certain mean-spiritedness to the way Liberals say it. They have this peculiar antiunion thing, which the Liberals have always had and which some experience in office may have tempered slightly. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations says, "I can understand the NDP position, because it is in the thrall of the unions," whatever that means. "They are completely beholden to the trade union movement." There is somehow an animal out there that continues to bark whenever I open the door, and then I bounce back and say, "Yes, sir."

Let me describe to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, since he has never asked me and he is not here today -- I am sure the cameras will reflect on the empty seat -- why I think it is an idea that will not wash. I will describe it for the record.

My reasoning is very simple. This is not 1950 and it is not 1960. It is not an era in which we feel a need to rebel against blue laws or something of that kind, as some generations have. It is a different kind of era. It is one in which more of us understand some very basic realities.

One, and perhaps the most basic, is that alcohol, which is widely consumed in our society, is a mixed blessing. It is something all of us -- I do not say all, but most of us -- imbibe from time to time, but if we imbibe too much, it causes problems. If young people imbibe too much, it causes problems, and if old people do, it does as well. If people imbibe and drive at the same time, it causes enormous problems and often death on the road.

I know people say, "If there is one thing on which the trendies and auto workers could agree, it is the need for us to have access to beer and wine in the corner stores." It seems like a good idea when you think about it, but this is really the way I approach this issue. Maybe it is too simple and maybe it is not the most complex way of approaching it, but it is the way I approach it. If the purpose of selling beer and wine in corner stores is to make it more convenient, as I see it, the purpose is to increase the accessibility and consumption of the product. You cannot have it both ways. If you are trying to say, "Let us make it more convenient," you are trying to improve accessibility. In the end, you are going to increase consumption.

That is my view. It is fair to say it is also the view of the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation. Our researchers and I have been talking to those people, and it seems to be the consensus of expert opinion that is what will happen. If that is the case, I do not think it makes sound public policy in the 1980s for us to be doing that.

It happens in Quebec; it happens in Europe; it happens in the United States and so on. All I can say is that we are faced with a situation in Ontario today where we can make a choice. We have a fairly good marketing system for beer and wine. There are problems with the way it works. There are some ways it can be improved, but if you ask me whether I think there is a clamour out there for a wholesale change in the way people have access to beer and wine, the answer is that I do not.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: There are Tories in all parties.

Mr. Rae: I do not think so. I say to the Treasurer in all sincerity, my view is this: If the effect is to increase consumption among kids and people who already have a drinking problem and the view of every authority I have talked to seems to be that will be the case -- it is wrongheaded public policy for us to be going in that direction. That is my opinion.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will say, "Bob Rae is speaking because the unions gave him a phone call." I have had this view and I have had arguments with members of my party and members of my family on this question. People have different points of view. That is how I feel.

4:20 p.m.

I also feel, and I do not think this is unreasonable, that if a government has a choice between creating stability in employment and forcing a technological change, or whatever one wants to call it, that will produce very substantial unemployment among a certain group of people, as much as 2,000 or 3,000 jobs, it has nothing to do with unions; it has to do with jobs and with people.

I am going to come back to this. I have already had letters. I am getting letters on pensions from people who work for Conrad Black and from people who work in insurance. There are questions on overtime. My office continues to be filled with people in their 40s, 50s and 60s from whatever industries they were working in who cannot get a job, who cannot get work. There are young people who cannot get jobs. I do not think it is wise for us to be sitting around in our constituency offices with rows of people who have been working at Brewers' Retail and Liquor Control Board of Ontario places saying, "I have just been laid off because the government thinks it is a great idea to change the whole marketing arrangement."

My God, if a government has a choice as to whether it is deliberately going to create industrial dislocation, why do it? There is no great public pressure to do it. I do not understand why it would want to do it.

I go back to what I started to say. If the agenda of the Liberals is this kind of 21st century bumf, and that is all it is, coupled with a kind of decision to give the high school system back to the chamber of commerce, to make the elementary schools safe for junior achievement and to turn the whole of our educational system into a training ground for Amway salesmen, that is fine. That is its approach. That is its decision. If that is its vision of the future, it can go ahead. That is fine; it can try to package it and sell it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: You want to make them hotbeds of socialism.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer is getting positively excited, which is a good sign. It shows there is still life there. It is good; it is healthy. I am told it is the joy of stress. I was reading a book the other day, The Joy of Stress. I will send it over to the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: What is it called?

Mr. Rae: It is called The Joy of Stress. The Treasurer will get off on it. It will be good for him. Get it all out. Let it hang out. Do not bottle it up. By all means let it slide.

If that is the agenda they want to take to the people, I wish them well. To the reporters who say, "The Liberals are going to get the biggest majority of all time, if an election were held yesterday, it would have 612 seats," I say, "Let history unfold and we will see what will happen."

I want to say to the Legislature today, to the Treasurer and the people who are here, not in any great depth because there will be ample time for that, what the alternative is going to be and what the alternative really is. There is another program and another agenda in addition to the one I have discussed in terms of the accord that needs to be addressed. Rather than a tired and pretty fatuous technocracy, we need a tough-minded populism, a populism from government that understands what the people of this province are going through, what they really want and aspire to and look to see in their government.

I know of the Treasurer's concerns. I ask him to look at what is going on in the economy today. I ask him to look at the degree of speculation that is taking place, at the amount of paper activity. When we open up the business section of the newspaper, what do we read? Do we read about a new investment, or a new invention or about entrepreneurship in the sense of people saying they will take a risk?

We see a process of acquisition, merger and paper activity that rewards the clever but does nothing to reward innovation, does nothing to reward productivity and does nothing to reward the creation of work and the creation of jobs. That is what the people of Ontario want to hear. They want to hear a government speaking from the business heart of this country say to the people of this province: "Much of what passes for business in this province is not business. It is pure and simple paper activity that does not produce a single job, does not put a single person to work and does not provide a single opportunity."

When Conrad Black and Dominion Stores take $62 million out of a pension fund and refuse to pay any severance pay, rather than have a minister like the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations say there is nothing immoral, nothing illegal and nothing wrong and nothing unethical about what has happened," the people want to have a government that says, "Surely to goodness there is something wrong with the moral basis of an economy which rewards people whose only skill is their ability to shut down plants, take the money out, disappear and go off to England because they aspire to a position in the House of Lords and want to imitate Lord Beaverbrook or Lord Thomson." Let them go; let that exodus take place; let the speculators and ripoff artists go. I am tired of them, and I say that with all sincerity.

I went to the Canadian Labour Congress convention yesterday. As I walked through the door, a woman came up to me and gave me a button. It was a funny button about Conrad Black. She started talking to me and she started to cry. She is 61 years old, she worked for 24 years in Dominion Stores and she now has nothing. She says she is going to lose her house and she has got nothing coming. We see that happening in this province. When we have a minister in this government saying there is nothing immoral and nothing illegal about that, there is something wrong with the capacity of that government to understand what the people of this province think is fair.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Does she not have a pension?

Mr. Rae: I am saying to the Treasurer --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Speak to the Pension Commission of Ontario.

Mr. Rae: Try it.

The Treasurer is in a position to do something, to express a sense of fairness and a sense of what is the guts of an economy. It is not people monkeying around with money here and speculating there, buying up this and acquiring that. That is not what makes an economy work. What makes an economy work is jobs, a commitment to production and a commitment to productivity.

What in God's name is productive about so much of what passes for business and economic behaviour? That is the contradiction we are going to have to deal with, and we are going to have to deal with that as government. We are going to have to recognize, when we look at what is happening across northern Ontario, for example, that the commitment of big business to big job creation and to big projects is not there. It is not there for a whole bunch of reasons.

Who owns Algoma? Canadian Pacific owns Algoma. I talked to the president of Algoma, and we had a good conversation. He emphasized that he has lived in Algoma and he is third generation. I am not taking anything away from him, but as I was talking to him, I reflected on the fact that his shareholders are not the workers at Algoma or the people living in Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa. His shareholder is CP and it tells him what to do. It is a bottom line for them; it is this thing here. What is there? If that does not work, we do this. If a worker is no good, then out he goes too. Off with his head. That is the approach.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Like politics.

Mr. Rae: If the minister looks at the forestry industry, what is happening with respect to a number of different plants in this province and what is happening in western economies, the preoccupation has to be to say, "If the private sector is not able to generate the kind of productivity and the kind of development and growth that is necessary, it is time the working people of the province and the people together pool some of their resources and started to invest in this economy."

I do not understand why workers have so little access to their pension money and why working people have so little control over their pension money. We see those things as playthings. A few people who are professional investment experts say, "We will put it here and put it there; if it makes a lot of money, we will take it out," and off it goes. The people who are affected by all these changes that are happening are almost like the people at the bottom of the sea. It is all a mystery to them.

4:30 p.m.

They get the news on a pink slip on a Friday afternoon. They are told that this is the way of the world. They have ministers who say there is nothing immoral about it, nothing illegal about it and nothing unethical about it. I think there is. It is time we created an economy that responded to people, to where they are really at, to what they want, to what their fears and their aspirations are. It is time we had an economy that looks at the Ontario family as a family and says: "We have to find and generate the means to regain greater control over our own economy. Whatever needs to be done, let it be done."

If it means more community control, then let that happen. If it means giving workers more access and more responsibility and, yes, a little more power, then let that happen too. But we cannot continue with a world in which fewer and fewer people are making decisions and things just happen to everyone else. We cannot carry on in a world where people are genuinely powerless in affecting their future. That vision is being given to us by the other parties.

Earlier in my speech, I said the question of streaming was not even mentioned. I get annoyed, to put it mildly, when I see this bridge to business stuff and all this about the chamber of commerce and Junior Achievement and the need to have classes in entrepreneurship starting in grade 3 and so on. That does not relate to the people I represent, and I do not think it relates to the majority of the people of this province.

We have a problem of illiteracy in our school system today. We have to face up to it. We have tremendous problems with respect to opportunities for people. We have problems with streaming. In many cases, we have a whole generation of immigrants who are simply slammed into dead-end jobs and positions and dead-end training. We have to deal with that problem and address it. We do not address it by talking nonsense about how all the world will be safe if we can have more classes in entrepreneurship. That is not the problem.

The problem is a school system which has left too many people behind. The problem is a failure to address the educational needs of people, not simply between the ages of six and 18, but to recognize that people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s are going to need continuing access to an education system -- and not simply to a system. They will need recognition from their society and their government that they matter as people and that whether a 40-year-old person can read or not is important. We should not have to go through 65 government programs and 22 welfare rejects before it is finally recognized that there is a problem. That is the reality -- not this nonsense about Junior Achievement and all the rest of it.

We have heard from our critic the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and from my colleague the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) about the related problems of health and safety in the environment. It is a question of what kind of power, access and control over their lives we give to people. The evidence is growing -- and we will be documenting it daily -- with respect to the health care and health needs of our people and how they are being ignored by their employers and by polluters who pollute and continue to get away with it.

I go back to my point. I strongly believe it is a question of power and control and the ability of people to affect their futures and their lives. It is an emotional question. No doubt, the House will be shocked, as I was, not simply to hear the statistics, but to talk to the shells of people in Timmins and Kapuskasing and across this province, who came up to us and talked about what happened to them in the work place, and to realize that 25 years ago the government of Ontario had information with respect to the levels of radiation in the gold mines. That information has been there and has been collected by the companies and by the ministry. Workers were exposed to levels of radiation which they should not have been exposed to, and nothing has happened to change the basic laws and the basic sense of fairness with respect to compensation.

Is this a social issue or an economic issue? Living alongside factories are people whose health care continues to be ignored. We still do not have a structure of environmental law worthy of the word. In the speech from the throne, the mention of the environment was negligible; clearly an indication that the activist tendencies of the Minister of the Environment have been put on hold. He has been told to put his sword back in its sheath, to sit at his desk and his deputy minister will take care of everything. He will go out and talk to people and he will resolve the problems. Whatever degree of activism was once there has been quieted. That is sad because we had an opportunity in this province, and we continue to have an opportunity, to face the reality that as long as it is cheaper to pollute than to clean up, companies will continue to pollute. Those are the economics.

It is the same thing with respect to health and safety. The record of the Ministry of Labour is 80,000 charges and 50 convictions. Look at the Ministry of Labour; it is pathetic. They cannot enforce employment standards and they have given everybody a holiday over the last three years for any overtime infraction that has taken place. That is gone. We have an occupational health and safety branch that has 50 convictions after 80,000 charges, and the minister comes in here and says in all seriousness on April 28, "Occupational health and safety is the most important part of my ministry and my most important responsibility." It is to weep because it is not being done.

Is that a social issue? Is that an economic issue? It is both because it is costing our economy and it is costing people in terms of their ability to produce and live rewarding lives. The alternatives are so clear: Give more power to people; give more responsibility to working people themselves to enforce the law; create a class of inspectors who can do things; create a greater degree of power in communities to deal with the levels of pollution in those communities and we will begin to resolve the issue.

Finally, the tough-minded populism that I think our province needs so badly will tell it like it is with respect to taxes and with respect to discrimination against women, the disabled and minorities. It will not be afraid to address the fact that in this cosy economic world that is out there there really is an incredibly unfair distribution of benefits, of opportunities and of chances, and all the rhetoric in the world is not going to overcome that.

The government slides off the words "affirmative action" and "employment equity." The record of this government and governments in the past with respect to the hiring of the disabled is pathetic; it is abysmal. The number of people hired in the public service of this province who are disabled is abysmal. The opportunities are there and the needs are so great. Again, where is the will? Where is the sense that this is what is troubling this province, not some nonsense about a world-class this and a world-class that for the 21st century? What is troubling and what is at the heart of this province is a sense that we can do so much better as a people if we can only pull ourselves together and work far more effectively as a team, recognizing that we are all diminished when people are treated not as people but simply as commodities.

That is the economy we have produced. That is the economic order in which we live. We seek not only a better world but also a different kind of economy. I say to all those who have observed the events of the last year and all those who will observe the events of the next year that there is an Ontario out there that is waiting to be heard. There is a sense of what our economy and what our province could be like.

Our party pays its respects to productivity and efficiency because we live in a world where those things have to be important if we are to make our way, but we recognize that those places in the world that are truly world-class are those which provide justice for all their people, that recognize that the dignity of individuals is recognized when we give them power, when we give them the means and the ability to do things.

4:40 p.m.

A Portuguese woman who is 45, illiterate and works as a cleaner in the Toronto-Dominion Centre is forced to work six or seven hours a night, the second job that she does. At one moment she asks the government to change legislation so she can have a little bit more bargaining power with the Reichmanns, Olympia & York, the Bank of Montreal or whomever it may be.

We look forward to the day when there is a government in Ontario that will not simply respond by saying, "We will try to take care of your individual problem," but will say: "We will change the law to give you the power to do what you want to do. We have a government that wants to recognize the claim and the right of that person to a place in the sun." That person's right is just as great as anybody else's. We must recognize we cannot have that place in the sun unless we have a government that is prepared to be tough, that is prepared to be the people's advocate and not simply the apologist for a corporate and economic order that has lost its sense of its own morality and its sense of where it wants to go.

Mr. Speaker, you will be hearing from our party about these issues. I suspect you will not be hearing a great deal about beer and wine in the corner store or about the other issues that flit across the agenda of the Liberal Party and are here today and gone tomorrow. You will be hearing about the gut issues that matter to the people of this province, that trouble them, move them, make them laugh and make them cry, make them sing and make them feel they are truly human. That is what politics is all about and that is what our party will be all about in this session.

Ms. E. J. Smith: The other day when I had the pleasure of listening to the throne speech, I had to pause and say to myself: "Are these not exciting times to be living in Ontario? In particular, are they not exciting times to be governing in Ontario?"

It was not just the speech itself that made me think this, but my knowledge that in the past year this government has proved it can do more than talk. Indeed, when it says it will do something, it sets out on a course to act. We have seen a session in which we received royal assent to 39 bills, many of them important. We know how many important bills are in committee at present and what a difference these will make in the province.

It is not only the fact that we do things that made me excited, but the way we do things, with openness and public input. I point particularly to that most contentious bill we received as our first piece of business, Bill 30. We took that bill out of the secrecy of the dark rooms of the ministry, where none of us could find out what was in the drafts, and brought it out into the open where it was discussed and available for people to see. We heard more than 500 delegations in committee. I am proud to say that as time went on, I heard tremendous reports about the attention paid to those delegations. This was reinforced for me when the minister submitted to the committee several amendments of consequence that he was going to propose for this bill that were the result of the public's participation and suggestions. This is openness of a kind not equalled before, and I am proud to be part of it.

I am proud as well because this is not just a throne speech that talks, but a throne speech that moves on to action. In this regard, I would like to mention the spills bill, which was passed in 1979 and left sitting around by the Conservative government for six years. The first committee meeting I had the pleasure of attending after I was elected was in the main committee room. A bunch of insurance agents and businessmen were telling us, as they had been doing for six years, why it was absolutely impossible to pass this bill. That was within the first three weeks of the election, when the Conservative government was still in place. When the government changed, we got action. We got a spills bill. It was talk, talk, but the talk stopped and then resolve took over. Fortunately for Ontario, we made great strides for the environment.

The speech from the throne is not vague; it could be if we knew it was built on no record of action. It is interesting that after 42 years the Conservative government, knowing it had only a brief period left to live, introduced a vast succession of detailed bills which it had failed to do over the past several years, simply because it finally knew it could not do anything with them anyhow. That is easy to do at that point.

When this government proposes something, it knows it will act on it. Therefore, it does it with care and dedication. We have seen bills and acts as varied as the first-contract legislation, which is currently being studied, and the Family Law Act, which became the first act passed, to such things as a fund to protect motor vehicle buyers in the event of bankruptcy. From very serious to very minor, we have moved through these many bills. At present, 69 are under consideration or have already been enacted.

As well, we have set up task forces to bring in reports for action on such things as midwifery, the loan and trust companies and all that can be done to get this difficult group back under proper control.

We have seen a setup where we know that we will be looking to consultants for complete improvements to the health and welfare delivery systems and at such minor and present problems as have arisen to date as, once again, overtime hours. These things are being studied by task forces. We look forward to their implementation. I share with members of the New Democratic Party their concern that these reports come in as fast as possible. I am confident this will happen.

As well, we have looked at regulations of importance to the people, from those with a great many consequences for people in jobs, such as the soft-drink containers regulations, to others more subtle but equally as important in a different way, such as regulations for rides at our fairs. We have seen the importance of regulations for openness and enforcement within our work place with regard to hazardous substances as they affect workers. We are proud of these regulations, which we have seen enacted.

I must tip my hat to the idealism of my NDP friends. I share many of their ideals. I share their grave concern about the huge conglomerates which are taking over so much of our business activities and wealth.

Mr. Cureatz: In the next campaign, I want the member to say that during the all-candidates' debate.

Ms. E. J. Smith: The member will be happy to know I have said that in my campaign. He does not need to worry.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order.

Ms. E. J. Smith: I agree with the bishops who reported in the paper their concern that unions must be strongly preserved. I agree with this position. As companies get bigger and stronger, more powerful and concentrated, we need to be assured that unions are also strong to balance that.

Mr. Cureatz: The member should ask her husband about that.

Ms. E. J. Smith: Mr. Speaker, would you care to remind the members that I am speaking?

Interjections.

Mr. Cureatz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I know the honourable member is new in this assembly, but I want to point out to her that if she takes a look even at the new rules, interjections are allowed in these chambers.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Ms. E. J. Smith: My point is that if members wish to address personal remarks, they should address them to me and to my activities. I am not here to defend any other individuals.

The Acting Speaker: Please proceed with your speech.

4:50 p.m.

Ms. E. J. Smith: I have said to many of my business friends and relations, who I know care a good deal about the decent wages and decent working conditions for the people who work for them, that they are indeed protected by the fact they can work along with strong unions. If this were not so, they might well have to compete in business with employers who are willing to scrimp on safety and who are willing to pay less than a decent wage. As far as I am concerned and as far as this government is concerned, a balance of strong unions, strong government and strong business serves the population, the business and the employees well.

I rejoice, therefore, in the reforms on which we ran and have been able to work out together with the members of the New Democratic Party in such areas as safety measures in the plants, first-contract legislation and reform of the Workers' Compensation Act. I welcome the new thrust in the throne speech towards Ontario ownership programs which will help encourage people working for a company to have ownership in it.

In the area I am about to address, I reflect more of my Liberal background, and that is that I feel a strong sense of the importance of small business. Small business is the backbone of this province. It not only is the biggest job creator, but it is also the area in which new people from different backgrounds can move up, make progress and share in the wealth of this province. Small business makes way for new entrepreneurism, and it is on such entrepreneurism that this province thrives. Small business keeps open the rewards of hard work and risk taking. As I have said, it is in this area that most jobs are created.

I am happy, therefore, to work with the NDP in the very things we share as common interests. I am happy to work for the Liberal Party and the government in those other areas I consider important. We have done well in the first year of the accord and I know we will do well in the second year and in completing the many jobs we have taken on at this time.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) has suggested we are going on vague promises and rehashed programs. The activities we have done in one year in this government and in this accord have proved the reality is far different. I defy him to produce any such list of accomplishment for any recent year of the Conservative government.

Because of that, the promises in this throne speech are not vague but are promises of a continuum of what we have seen in this first year. The particular areas I want to address are where we have come from and where we are going. In the area of small business and technology, we rid ourselves of the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp. not because of what it had intended to do, but because it had become top heavy and full of dead wood and it was better to move on with fresh ideas. We got rid of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program which had commonly and for good cause become known as the "bilge" program.

We have moved into new programs and new initiatives in small business development. We have given the parliamentary assistant, the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro), special responsibilities to look at small business plans, to look at those programs currently in place and to see where they do not fit the present needs, so that they can be adjusted and made appropriate for the needs of small business today. I have referred several businessmen to him for this reason and I will continue to do so. They are very satisfied with this approach.

We have extended small business help to greater areas and to other types of service. We will be extending small business assistance into the area of service as well as production. This is very important in a province where 70 per cent of jobs come from service industries. I do not know how many members were around at the time of Expo in Montreal. It was well demonstrated there that as machinery replaces men in factories, so indeed will we move into service industries and wealth that is shared, because machines have helped us all. This extension of service to the service industry is most important.

In the area of technology, the throne speech has promised a $1-billion fund for technological improvement and a council that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) himself will guide. The Leader of the Opposition sees no change in this; I see a tremendous change from the time, for instance, when he as Treasurer revoked the small business tax holiday.

In the area of education and skills development, we have a continuum of what was already promised and activated and what is promised for the future. When we took over, you needed a master of arts degree to be able to understand the programs available if you did not have the skills to get a job. We have taken all these programs and put them together in the Futures program which, because it is one program, is more easily understood and administered and will be more easily improved as time proves necessary.

We have promised new schools and courses in the area of technology; new programs in technology to be aired on TVOntario to help people throughout the province; and a new program of business and industrial training to help those who have been replaced by machines or other efficiencies in the market.

We have moved in the area of co-op programs to facilitate job placement, not only between colleges and businesses, but even with high schools. I am proud that Catholic Central High School in London has been one of the first to take advantage of this program and has had approved a $40,000 project to work high school students into business.

We have recognized that because of a withdrawal of federal funding, there is an extreme problem in funding universities. We increased our funding by eight per cent, put $39 million into a catch-up fund for libraries and buildings and put $80 million into an excellence fund. More than that, in the throne speech we are addressing areas of excellence. Before I came to this House, I was on the board of governors of the University of Western Ontario and was able in that capacity to address the same issues I am addressing now. The throne speech envisions a time when universities must co-operate in creating centres of excellence in special fields. No longer can they compete; not every college can have the excellence necessary in every faculty. The throne speech recognizes that; it recognizes the need for this excellence and hopes for the co-operation of the whole university community in creating these excellence packages throughout Ontario.

5 p.m.

In women's issues, when we came to power there was a need for attention. Women are very prominent in all poverty groups. They earn 65 per cent of what their male counterparts earn. We have moved first in the area of equal pay for work of equal value in the civil service.

I note with interest that when first-contract legislation was proposed, both the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail had editorials suggesting the programs did not offer enough to please labour and offered too much to please management, so they were probably pretty good.

I suggest the same is true of equal pay. The women are finding the programs are not enough or not quick enough, while the business people are telling us they will create bankruptcies. The two extremes lead me to believe the first-contract act would probably have found a happy medium. I am happy and excited to see these programs move ahead.

In day care, we set up funds for 10,000 new spaces. I will continue to push for these to become mandatory at certain levels in communities. We set up latchkey programs, which are now protecting and assisting 70,000 children between the ages of six and 12 in this province. I am proud to say London has taken advantage of that program and has 2,000 children involved in its latchkey program.

As to women's issues, I want to make this point and make it strongly. The throne speech addresses many programs that are not specifically for women and yet do address women's problems. First, the push on small business is very supportive of women. It is interesting to note that many of the small businesses are started by women. Women's businesses have a success record after three years in 47 per cent of the cases, as compared to 25 per cent for men. Helping small business is really opening new opportunities to women, and women will take advantage of this.

Part-time-work legislation, first-contract legislation and training assistance are all helps that women need especially. Women are in the group of unemployed who need these. The new thrust in pensions also assists women. Portability, widows' pensions and division of assets in family breakdown are all parts of other acts, but are still of assistance to women. I suggest to anyone who says this throne speech has done nothing for women or that this government has done nothing that they have not really taken into consideration the thrust of all these programs.

The support systems for the frail and elderly are one of the most important new thrusts of this government. In 20 years, our old people will have increased by 41 per cent and they will have doubled in 30 years. Already, we have put $11 million into a pilot project for services to the elderly in their homes, and that will grow to $60 million. We have put away $1 million for those with Alzheimer's disease. I will not dwell on this because the minister in this area, the member for London North, will be speaking to this very shortly.

In the social assistance area, I had the opportunity of meeting with the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) in the company of the Ontario Social Development Council. I was pleased and delighted to hear from him, and to see repeated in the throne speech, that he considers our present social welfare legislation was written for the 1920s, for short-term assistance in another era, and must not be patched up any longer, but completely revised.

In the area of health, we are into a time of an explosion of information. The members of the opposition now are happy to point out to us the things we could be doing that are not being done. I wonder whether we will ever again reach a point where we will not be able to find individuals who need our help, and help that is theoretically available; however, in this tremendous area of expanded knowledge we will have to move to priorities and into introducing the plans into our society.

I can give the House two examples of this tremendous explosion of knowledge and what it can mean to us all. Recently, I was speaking to two orthopaedic surgeons in London. We were not discussing extra billing but the creation of industries in Canada to serve the medical fraternity. These two orthopaedic surgeons alone use $1 million worth of hardware for surgery in the course of a year. This is the cost of the hardware, the hips and joints alone. It does not take into consideration the physiotherapy, the drugs or the hospital treatment. All these are added on to that $1 million.

In London, we also have a treatment of leukaemic children which is now 80 per cent successful, and yet its cost is approaching $1 million per child. For all of society, we need to stop casting about and calling names. We need to sit down together to work on our long-term health priorities and planning, recognizing that the money comes from the taxpayers. It is the taxpayers who become sick and who need the service. However, it is with the doctors that we must sit down to work out the delivery of services and the priorities that are meaningful and that we can afford. I hope we can get beyond the discussion of the one per cent that goes to extra billing as soon as possible and get on with these important issues.

In the last budget, we were introduced to a new realism, and I know we will receive more of the same in our new budget. We got rid of bad debts that we recognized would never be paid, such as debts owed by one part of the government to another. Those were not assets. We got rid of bad investments. The money we lost in Suncor was an embarrassment to everybody. We got that off the books. We got rid of bad and silly ideas, such as Minaki Lodge. It may have cost us money in the books, but it cost us no money in reality. Instead, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) introduced new plans for long-term planning with a finance committee to look at them. For the municipalities and the school boards, he introduced the ability to plan in the long term by giving them in advance a promise of a minimum increase for next year.

In the area of housing -- and I am glad to see the Minister of Housing here at this time -- we have already put forward plans for what must be done: 10,000 nonprofit units, 5,000 subsidized units and a $50-million fund to look towards this. We are moving in new and creative ways, towards $400,000 in granny flats.

As well, we look forward anxiously to the new proposals that are coming from this ministry. We look forward to them with excitement, because the ministry has found a new approach to the housing programs. The two groups that suffer most, in their own view, from existing problems have sat down together -- the tenants represented by the tenants' associations and the developers who feel so strongly about rent controls. These groups are being asked to work at creative solutions. I am confident they will come forward not only with compromises for short-term solutions, but also with long-term plans that will finally resolve the long-term housing situation for Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: Bash the Tories some more. I want to hear the member bash the Tories some more. Come on.

Ms. E. J. Smith: We have done more than promise. In looking back at the issues, I note that when I was running a year ago, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (G. I. Miller) introduced as a private bill in this Legislative Assembly, a bill to give a reduction in interest to farmers. That bill was defeated and not passed on to committee because 25 members of the Conservative government rose to oppose it.

5:10 p.m.

When we became the government, we not only brought in interest relief, but we were also the first province to get the tripartite agreement through. We acted for the farmers. We acted on drinking and driving, on tainted wines that had been sitting around for some time and which had not been dealt with, on the fact that 50 to 70 per cent of alimony payments --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) and the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) will please --

Mr. Mancini: l just want him to know why he is over there.

Mr. Ashe: I can tell him his inconsistency will be back to haunt him.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Let the member for London South speak, please.

Ms. E. J. Smith: We acted on alimony payments, 50 to 70 per cent of which were not being paid. We have put in legislation that will correct this situation. We acted on the indexing of child support where it was needed, an essential service in an essential area.

We acted on patronage. One now hears the names MacDonald, Di Santo, Elgie, Drea and Jamieson, and today, Ramsay. We now know that Liquor Control Board of Ontario appointments will be done in the way all government appointments are done, by who can do the job best, rather than by whom the cabinet selects.

We have opened up advertising and lottery agencies for tenders and proposals. We got rid of the title Queen's Counsels, which had become meaningless and patronage in nature. Instead, we introduced the Order of Ontario in the throne speech.

The Leader of the Opposition suggests nothing is new. I suggest there is so much new I was unable to cut down my speech in pointing out the new things. I suggest that members of the official opposition stick around and be with us to enjoy the excitement of what we are about to do in this new throne speech. It is too late for the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), but I would suggest the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) and the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) stick around. It is going to be a very exciting session.

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to remind honourable members that the provisional standing orders provide for a 10-minute period to ask questions and to comment on the speech of a member. A member may ask questions and make comments for not more than two minutes. Following such questions and comments, two minutes are reserved out of the 10-minute period for the reply of the member originally speaking. In other words, there are eight minutes for questions and comments and then two minutes shall be reserved.

Are there any comments or questions that members wish to ask the member for London South? There being none, the next member to speak is the member for Mississauga East.

Mr. Gregory: I am really quite underwhelmed by the speech I just heard from the member from Wonderland, although I always thought her first name was Alice. I am quite amazed at the repetitious litany. As a matter of fact, we heard that speech just the other day, but I must confess I thought the Lieutenant Governor (Mr. Alexander) read it much better and without the bias. There was a certain amount of bias from the member from Wonderland. She requested that members stick around. We are going to stick around because we know they are not going to be there long and we do not want to miss it. Believe me, we will be here to see these wonderful things that are going to happen.

The Deputy Speaker: I am glad the member for Mississauga East does not wish to comment on the speech of the member for London South, but is only going to address the speech from the throne.

Mr. Gregory: I was under the impression that is what I was doing. If I do anything wrong, I want you to correct me as I go along. I want to comment on the speech from the throne. I see all my favourite members are across the way. It is nice to have all my good friends here. It is going to be difficult to speak at great length because there is really nothing of any great consequence in this throne speech to talk about, so I will speak for a short time.

Despite the rhetoric we heard, there is really nothing new. There are a lot of good ideas in there. It is a darned good thing the Conservatives were here for 42 years and did write some throne speeches; otherwise, they would not have had anything to state over there in this throne speech. There is nothing new.

Since the Liberals became the government, they have been doing nothing but continuously stepping on the toes of business and entrepreneurs. They have done this in many ways. The throne speech makes it quite apparent that they are now trying to appeal to the business community, but the specifics are hard to tell from reading it.

The speech does make one reference to small business development corporations and the fact they are going to be expanded. I gather this is another new Liberal idea. As a matter of fact, the SBDC program was begun by the member for Muskoka, who came up with it many years ago. It was continually expanded until the last budget, the first Liberal budget, when the Liberal government -- I am on the throne speech because definite reference was made to this -- cut down the SBDC program. It was so successful the Liberals cut it back. Remember when they did that? The 30 per cent refund to investors for investment in southern Ontario was cut back to 25 per cent. It was working so well that they cut it back.

They have taken that approach with so many programs. The Urban Transportation Development Corp. is another example. It is doing so well that they will sell it.

As I said, it was introduced by the former Progressive Conservative government. That was one of the programs the member for Wonderland was speaking about a moment ago -- I am sorry, the member for London South. It is very close to Wonderland. When she was speaking, she asked what the Conservative government had done. The SBDC program is one of the things, a small part. That was the Conservative government. As well, the health care system we enjoy in Ontario today was started by a Conservative government. They are doing their best over there to destroy it right now.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I thought it was Judy LaMarsh.

Mr. Gregory: I am sorry, it was started by the Ontario government as far as Ontario is concerned. There was nothing mandatory about it. The minister knows that. The federal Liberal government encouraged us to start it, but then promptly withdrew any funding on it and left it up to Ontario. We have been doing very well, thank you very much. However, the new, dynamic, open government is trying to destroy this in its present dealings with doctors.

Another item, a small thing that the previous government started, was workers' compensation. That is not something new. It did not come about as a result of a New Democratic government -- Lord knows there has not been one of those in Ontario for a lot of years, if ever -- and it certainly was not started by a Liberal government. It was started by a Conservative government.

The highway system in Ontario came to be, for the most part, under Leslie Frost, the great Conservative Premier. He began the highway system as we now know it in Ontario.

Interestingly, nowhere in this throne speech is there any mention of transportation and communications or of money going to transportation and communications. They just vanished from the face of the earth. That is not too hard to understand, because in the last Liberal budget $34 million was ripped out of the transportation and communications budget, notwithstanding that an additional $23 million in revenues came in through gas taxes, fees, automobile registrations and fuel taxes. Despite that increase in revenues, they lopped $34 million off the transportation and communications budget. Obviously, this government does not care one whit about transportation, particularly highways, in Ontario. That system is something the previous Conservative government began and developed to one of the finest highway systems in the world. It is going to be destroyed.

5:20 p.m.

I was interested in the point made by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations the other day. When asked whether the government should be reducing gas taxes, he said: "No; people are not too worried about paying gas taxes. They want the roads the taxes will build." That is an interesting statement, considering the fact that there are no new initiatives in the throne speech for highway construction or anything else. Where is this money going?

Mr. Callahan: There is no election coming up. That is when the members opposite did it.

Mr. Gregory: I am just dying for the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) to get back from his trip out to Expo because --

Mr. Callahan: All our roads got fixed when we were going to have an election.

Mr. Gregory: I must be getting somewhere because the member for Brampton is interjecting. I am sorry. I did not mean to rattle the member's cage, but if it is feeding time, we will see what can be done about it.

I am very interested in that comment. I know that minister is very honest in his approach to his job. He has stated he does not think there should be tax reductions on gas, fuel or anything else because the people want to maintain the road system. I assume that also means building the road system, but are we ever going to see it?

I can only hope in the upcoming budget the minister will be more successful than he has been so far in convincing the Treasurer. I regret the Treasurer is not here at the moment because he is usually a very good audience and his heckles are at least intelligent for the most part. I am sorry he is not here.

Mr. Callahan: The Leader of the Opposition spoke and left.

Mr. Ferraro: The member will only get intelligent heckles when he says something intelligent.

Mr. Mancini: As a matter of fact, the whole Conservative front bench is gone.

Mr. Cureatz: I am here.

Mr. Gregory: The important people are here. They know when I am speaking that they can depend on the fact that I have it under control.

Mr. Cureatz: They are going to read Hansard tonight.

Mr. Mancini: The three most important members of the Conservative caucus are right behind the member; all three of them.

Mr. Gregory: They are here. That is right. Yes, the member for Mississauga North is here.

Mrs. Marland: Not north.

Mr. Gregory: Sorry. The member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) is here. The member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) is missing. He is not here. I do not know where he is. When I am going to be talking about Mississauga, the member for Mississauga North is notably absent. He probably has a lot to worry about in that riding. I expect he is going to be quite busy retaining it, especially in its new configuration, which I congratulate him on, by the way.

The social assistance program started with a Conservative government; no other kind. It did not start with a federal Liberal government, but with a provincial Conservative government. For the member for London South, I am just going over some of the things the Conservative government did provide. She said we did not do anything. The members opposite continually say we did not do anything for 42 years. I was just going over the list, which might go on for a long time because it is quite a list of accomplishments.

Another thing we started was something called the Urban Transportation Development Corp. Members will recall UTDC. The Conservative government, under Bill Davis, began this program. That has developed a very high degree of technology that is being sold all over the world today.

Mr. Callahan: And the president wanted to sell it, the members opposite wanted to keep it.

Mr. Gregory: Do I have to --

The Deputy Speaker: Pay no attention to the interjections.

Mr. Gregory: I do not normally pay attention to that particular member, sir, but he has such a loud voice. I understand he got himself into a little bit of trouble with it a little earlier on. I want to protect him from himself.

Mr. Callahan: All I said was Davis was supporting our York East --

Mr. Gregory: I heard what you said.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gregory: As I mentioned, I just want to protect the member from himself. I know he gets carried away. He is not always in control with his interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the member will address the chair and that will discourage interjections.

Mr. Gregory: I was on the subject of UTDC. At this very moment, the Premier is out in Vancouver for a test run for the pavilion, no doubt to take some bows and kudos on the light rail transit system -- they call it the Skytrain out there. No doubt he is taking a ride on it and taking the applause of the crowds when they say what a wonderful system it is.

I bet he is not saying, "We are going to sell this." As a matter of fact, that is not entirely correct. He is giving it away; he is not selling it.

An hon. member: We believe in free enterprise.

Mr. Gregory: They certainly do. I have seen this in previous federal Liberal administrations. What do they say? "If you love the post office, you will like some of the other programs we have in mind." People will be crazy about some of the other initiatives those Liberals have over there. I have seen their actions regarding free enterprise so far. If the future is going to be any worse, I can hardly wait. It will be quite interesting.

Mr. Speaker, I neglected to perform two traditional functions when beginning to speak on the throne speech debate. One is to congratulate you for having attained the honour of continuing on in your position as Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you. It is like a breath of fresh air because your decisions are always beyond question. As you know, I would never question your decisions at any time. I am delighted to see you there and I hope you will convey to the Speaker my personal congratulations to him. He is also very fair in his decisions.

I should also like to congratulate the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin), who impressed me as the Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House, for continuing on in that function.

I would like to take this opportunity to offer my congratulations to the new member, the member for York East (Ms. Hart). I congratulate her. As a matter of fact, when I was first elected in 1975, I was sitting in almost that very seat in which she is sitting. Things have gone somewhat downhill since then.

Mr. Ferraro: We had to get a new chair. We threw out the old one.

Mr. Gregory: I have not been sitting in it for eight or nine years, so somebody else was responsible for that. I think the past nine months of certain heavy Liberals sitting in it probably did some damage. I was not talking about the present member. She has been here only a few days. I did want to offer her my sincere congratulations. I wished it could have been different; I cannot lie about that. I worked reasonably hard to try to have another person elected, but since that was not to be, I join my colleagues in welcoming her to this House.

No doubt she is here with rose-coloured glasses on. They will soon disappear, I can assure her. Sooner or later, she will be wearing dark glasses, like the member for -- where is Fast Eddie from?

Mr. Barlow: Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Gregory: The member for Grey Bruce (Mr. Sargent). That is correct. I wish the new member much success, at least until the next election when we will certainly try to replace her. Now where was I?

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: She said, "Thanks but no thanks."

Mr. Gregory: I do welcome her while she is here on a short sojourn. She will not be alone in disappearing from this House. A lot of people over there will disappear. She can take comfort in that.

Mr. Callahan: I think the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) is Alice.

Mr. Gregory: I think the member from Wonderland will make an excellent whip in opposition, so I hope she will stay on.

Ms. E. J. Smith: If we both can stay here that long.

Mr. Gregory: That is true. There is that possibility.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, shall we adjourn and leave these two alone?

An hon. member: I do not like this love-in taking place here.

Mr. Gregory: I am trying to be nice. I do not want the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) to walk out on me.

Mr. Breaugh: I get the feeling we are intruding on a very private affair.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member would again address the chair.

Mr. Gregory: I do not want the member for Oshawa walking out on me; so I am trying to be very nice.

An hon. member: The member should be himself.

Mr. Gregory: Be myself? I knew I had something here I wanted to talk about. All right, wait a minute now.

I want to get back to business. I do not know whether you are aware of it, and you can look at this -- I saw one of those on the car. On the back seat of a car, there was something like that. It was Margaret Campbell -- forget Margaret Campbell.

Ms. E. J. Smith: I do not know what the member is referring to. I am waiting for him to say something. I am encouraging him.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Gregory: The member's seatmate is heckling me. She is using body language and heckling me.

Mr. Breaugh: I think we had all better leave now.

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: Is this the throne debate?

Mr. Gregory: Yes. I am just an animal at times like this. Back to business.

Mr. Breaugh: I think the member for Mississauga East is rattling the cage from inside.

Mr. Gregory: I listened again to the remarks of the member for London South, pertinent to the throne speech, of course. She made the Liberal Party seem like a legend in its own mind.

Mr. Callahan: The member should come on down and get his seat back.

Mr. Gregory: The member obviously missed that. I think Hansard is going to pick it up whereas the member missed it. I am used to the member missing things, so it does not matter.

I want to comment on the thrust of the throne speech relative to business. I do not know whether the government members are aware of it or not, or whether they are just hiding from the fact, but business is mad at them. Business does not like this government and business is expressing that every day. It does not like what this government is doing to it. Business people are saying that if they want to start a small business, they should buy a big one and wait, because this Liberal government is going to destroy all business in Ontario if it keeps listening to the crew over here. It is well on its way.

Ms. E. J. Smith: I think the member has been listening to Conrad Black.

Mr. Gregory: The accord will come back to haunt this government because it is being suckered in to some of these programs that in its heart of hearts it does not believe in.

Mr. Breaugh: Like medicare.

Mr. Gregory: I can listen to what the member for London South said about thanking the New Democratic Party for putting through all this legislation in which she totally believes. She should look around her at some of the other members in her party. They do not believe in it. They are voting party line.

It will be interesting to hear the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) comment in private on some of these things. We do not have to go any further than the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson), who is a little more honest than most. He has expressed his particular opinion about one program this government has, but it was nice that the whip could get him to leave before the vote.

Ms. E. J. Smith: These are Liberal policies we ran on.

Mr. Gregory: It is a good job. I congratulate the member as whip that she was able to get him to take a walk when it came to a crucial vote.

Mr. Callahan: A lot of people were missing from the member's party when we voted on certain items too.

Mr. Gregory: There are no votes going on right now. I would not say that the member for Brampton has all the numbers in the world over there right now. The government party has 12 people out of 49 here, and the member is criticizing us. Let us face it. The world does not stay here to hear my speech, and the members are beginning to realize why. I do not expect them to.

Mr. Callahan: It has probably flipped to As the World Turns by now, I would imagine.

Mr. Gregory: Obviously, the member is here by choice, so he must appreciate what I am saying. I think it important to recognize that the business community is not really with this government. The business community is hurting.

Mr. Mancini: It was never really that bad.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Send the member a red tie.

Mr. Gregory: A red tie?

The Liberal Party seems to be working very hard. It has been working overtime.

[Applause]

Mr. Gregory: One can always find something to applaud if one wants to continue to take things out of context. If that makes members opposite happy, then applaud that statement. The government is working very hard in trying to discredit all the Conservative initiatives that took place in the past. It is disguising things. It talks about the great new Liberal initiative, the program it has for high technology, this so-called $1 billion.

I heard the Liberal whip talk about the $1 billion going there. Talk realities. It is not $1 billion; it is $500 million of new money. Spread over 10 years, it is $50 million a year. This government is not going to set the world on fire in that business for that kind of money. It can talk about $1 billion if it wants to, but it really is not. The fact of the matter is it is not as much as was provided under the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program. Why does this government not call its new program Son of BILD-SOB? That would be great.

Ms. E. J. Smith: The member can have it.

Mr. Ferraro: The member should watch his language. He is in the House.

Mr. Gregory: Son of BILD. That is a good name for it because that is all it is. It is not nearly as good as BILD was; it is too limited in its scope. The government can dress it up all it wants and have the Lieutenant Governor come and read about this bold Liberal initiative. It boils down to $50 million a year over 10 years for a program that is trying to help us to compete with people such as the Japanese and the Germans. Let us get serious.

The small business development corporations program is a Conservative program that the Liberals are trying to make appear new. It is not. There is less in the SBDC program today than there was a year and a half ago. The Liberals have taken money out of it and have not expanded it. They have expanded it by giving it a new name and saying it is going to give -- what do they call it?

Mr. South: A bigger bang for a buck.

[Interruption]

Hon. Ms. Caplan: That baby crying is an appropriate comment.

Mr. Breaugh: The member is frightening children.

Mr. Gregory: We can see that even babies do not like that party over there, and I agree.

Mr. Breaugh: This is your worst performance.

Mr. Gregory: That child is going to do well. She or he is discerning already.

The throne speech talks about -- I cannot find it -- some business initiatives and the SBDC program. Whatever that means, I am quite sure there is nobody over there --

Mr. Warner: That is a new one, frightening babies.

Mr. Gregory: The member for Brampton is frightening the baby. Consider the fondness the previous member for Brampton had for children and that children had for him, and the current member for Brampton scares babies and makes them cry. I find that totally disgusting.

Mr. Callahan: No, it is what you are saying. This child knows what you are saying.

Mr. Gregory: The member may not like this, but I am having a lot of fun. The members should stick around; it gets worse.

Mr. Breaugh: That is apparent.

Mr. Gregory: I had not intended to speak this long. If it had not been for the interjections and inane chatter from that side of the House, with the occasional even more stupid remark, I would have been finished sooner. However, I will keep talking as long as they want to keep rattling me.

I want to speak about some of the local problems. As is traditional, most members touch on their riding for a moment. That is permissible in a throne speech debate, as I understand; we can speak on almost anything. Is that right, Mr. Speaker?

I will preface every remark I make with the words "throne speech." Throne speech, transit problem: There is a problem or going to be a problem with transit in Metropolitan Toronto and its neighbouring areas. There has been some talk at the Metro level about two corridors for a subway system or rapid transit system. I am of the very strong opinion that the Eglinton Avenue corridor will best service areas such as northern Toronto, Brampton -- where my good and faithful friend who makes babies cry is from Mississauga, Pearson International Airport, which is totally in Mississauga, and Halton. A transit line along Eglinton Avenue would more readily service those areas, as well as Metro Toronto, than any other corridor.

I urge members of the government party to do whatever they can to encourage Metro to make this happen. We have to. We have to think in terms of there being life beyond the Metro border, because there is. From some of the remarks we hear from time to time, particularly in the local press, we tend to think life stops beyond Metro, but there are other communities. One of the larger of those is Peel region immediately to the west, where there are half a million people. Where did I hear that figure before? This is people as opposed to half a million dollars.

5:40 p.m.

By the year 2000, the growth in Peel has the potential of well over a million. We have to stop thinking that rapid transit belongs only in Metro and think in terms of the surrounding community.

If we go to the east, we have Durham, which has the same sort of problem. We are going to have to think along the same lines. I will continue to press for the Eglinton route and I hope some of the members on the government side will be very supportive of this position.

I attended a rather interesting meeting the other night at the York municipal offices. There were presentations from people who are interested in this subject. A rather interesting history of the background of Eglinton Avenue was presented by Mrs. McDowell, who is a teacher in York. I commend this history to all members. As a matter of fact, in a state of generosity, I may supply each member of the House with a history of this road and the razzle-dazzle that has gone on in various councils in the Toronto area over this road. First it was supposed to be one way; then it was supposed to be another way.

The position is that sooner or later we are going to have to take that bull by the horns and go with it. I know I can count on the member for Brampton, who will support me as he supports me in all things.

Mr. Callahan: The jury is instructed to forget that second part.

Mr. Ferraro: He is a supporter. So is a jockstrap.

Mr. Gregory: Whatever the member wants to call him. They were his words, not mine.

Mr. Callahan: I will support the first part.

Mr. Gregory: However the member wants, it is okay with me.

On housing, Peel region and Mississauga primarily -- and I will include Brampton in that for the benefit of my friend -- what was it the member called him again? -- are where it is at as far as building is concerned. I do not think I am going to get too many arguments on that. Housing is going up as fast as they can approve it, but it is not going up fast enough. We have a couple of problems. There is no question that mortgages are a problem, as are getting such things as severances and plans of subdivisions approved. All these things naturally delay building.

We do have one problem there that is quite a phenomenon today. That is the preselling of houses before they are even in the ground and then an unconscionable delay in the closing dates on these houses. This leaves many people hung out to dry. They buy a house and the builder tells them it will be ready in three months. A year and three months later, they might get it if they are lucky.

Mr. Haggerty: That practice has been going on for years in Ontario. Is the member just waking up to it now?

Mr. Gregory: I just woke the member up now. I had not heard a thing from him. He is usually going pretty good about now.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gregory: This practice has not been going on for years to the extent it is going on right now. It has become much more prevalent. There was a time when one could wait an extra two weeks for the closing on a house -- I am talking about a new house -- but with the advent, which is a fairly recent phenomenon, of selling from a plan rather than from an actual house, this has been accentuated. Even the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) will admit that, although he does not have the kind of development down in Erie that we have where we are.

Mr. Haggerty: We have the same problem down there.

Mr. Gregory: The same problem, but smaller scale. That is right. I expect he does not really want to take issue with the point I am making because he agrees with it. He may want to find fault with why it is so. All I am suggesting to members of the government is that this is an issue they may want to do something about.

Mr. Haggerty: They do it by municipal bylaw.

Mr. Gregory: I do not believe they can, as a matter of fact. I understand the municipalities must have provincial legislation to enable them to do this, and I do not think they have it now. If it could be done by municipal bylaw, Mississauga would have done it already.

Mr. Callahan: Hazel McCallion would have.

Mr. Gregory: They are not exactly asleep at the switch. If the member thinks they are, I will send Hazel McCallion in to argue with him personally. Notice how he quietened down?

It certainly is a problem, and I like to think the government will try to do something about it. There is very definitely a lack of construction on rental units. We are hearing a great deal about social housing, rent-geared-to-income housing and co-operative housing, but there is another facet that we have to consider, that is, the ordinary market rental units. Everybody cannot qualify for subsidized housing, nor would everybody want to. Everybody does not want a co-op apartment. Some people just want to be able to rent an apartment. There is a real problem there.

We heard from the Minister of Housing, if one could discern some answer out of the things he said today. It was very difficult to find out what he was really saying. I do not see a good housing policy on that side of the House at present.

I sincerely wish the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) were the Minister of Housing. I am not trying to be condescending. I say that from the standpoint that the member for Waterloo North was elected in 1975 at the same time as I. He has had 10 years' experience, and frankly, he knows what he is talking about, even though I may not agree with him all the time. In an area where things are as crucial as they are today, it is unfortunate that we have a new member as Minister of Housing who really does not know what he is talking about and who has no concrete plan for what he is doing.

Mr. Breaugh: The member can tell him now.

Mr. Gregory: The Minister of Housing has just entered.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Say it now.

Mr. Gregory: I will say it now. With greatest personal respect, I sincerely wish the member for Waterloo North were the Minister of Housing.

Interjection.

Mr. Gregory: Does the minister want to hear what I have to say or does he want to argue with me? With greatest personal respect, I sincerely believe the Minister of Housing is in over his head. I do not believe this program he has will really accomplish anything. Virtually since the last budget, he has been telling us, "Wait for it." He has been telling us about these grand negotiations that are going on which will produce all these wonderful things. That is virtually what he said today. I have not seen it. I talked to some of the people on the so-called consultative committee he has and they are not greatly excited either.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I have approved some already.

Mr. Gregory: The minister is talking again. I appreciate the fact that he approved some low-cost housing, co-op housing or whatever. It was rent-geared-to-income; that is correct. I wish the minister had been here earlier. I covered those things. I am talking about the free market rental system. Does the minister remember what that used to be? There is such a thing as a free market rental system.

Mr. Ferraro: Is that why the Tories brought in rent controls in 1975?

Mr. Gregory: Before the member for Wellington South has a hernia, I am not commenting on rent controls.

Mr. Ferraro: The member is talking about the free market system.

Mr. Gregory: I am using the words "free market system."

Mr. Breaugh: The socialists brought in rent controls.

Mr. Gregory: Would the member like to wait to hear what I am saying? I am talking about the free market rental system to clarify, in the minister's mind, the difference between that and the subsidized rental system. I am talking about renting an apartment that is not subsidized by somebody, except for rent controls of course, in which the taxpayer or somebody subsidizes it. I want to see some new initiatives that will work to start building --

Mr. Mancini: More government intervention.

Mr. Gregory: No. Assistance is a lot different from intervention.

Mr. Mancini: What about rent controls? Is the member in favour of them? Yes or no on rent control .

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Gregory: I am not into rent controls at the moment. I have not even mentioned rent controls. It is the Liberals who mentioned rent controls. If they are unhappy with rent controls, they should speak to the Premier or the Minister of Housing.

Mr. Barlow: Did the member compliment the Speaker?

Mr. Gregory: I did.

Mr. Speaker, you can appreciate I am working under the greatest of hardships with the heckling that is coming from across the way.

The Acting Speaker: Please proceed with your speech.

Mr. Gregory: I have lost my place. I will have to go back and start again.

I was trying to make a subtle distinction between subsidized rental and private rental. We know there is a market and there is definitely a need for private rental properties. I am trying to encourage somebody on that side of the House to do something, to encourage, to force, whatever. The government is very heavy-handed when it comes to doctors. It is going to take away their right to extra bill. Perhaps the Liberals can be equally heavy-handed with the developers, most of whom they appear to know from their cocktail parties at $1,000 a plate. Perhaps the government can convince some of the developers, using the same heavy-handedness it is using on doctors, and force them to build rental accommodation. The government does not mind tackling the doctors; so it should go ahead with the developers. The Liberals know some of them. I am sure they would be willing to co-operate, in their red ties. Obviously, I am not getting anywhere with the Minister of Housing, but that is not surprising because nobody got anywhere with him today.

I would like to go on to something that is totally noncontroversial, that is, redistribution. I am not going to criticize it. I am totally content with the new plan for redistribution as it applies to my riding. I am not saying that in any way to say it should go forward, because other ridings are not so happy about it. Something unique happened in the debate on redistribution between the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) and myself. Although we are on opposite sides of the House, we agreed totally. That does not happen very often in this Legislature. Lo and behold, at least as far as our ridings are concerned, we both seem to be satisfied. I will not presume to speak for my colleague, the member for Mississauga North, who is also affected by this change, but I think she is also reasonably happy about it.

Mr. Barlow: She is the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) .

Mr. Gregory: Mississauga South. I am facing the wrong way. The member is behind me. Usually, I am facing north.

I want to express to this House that in this instance alone I am totally satisfied with the findings of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission. If any of its members read this speech in Hansard -- if anybody ever does -- they will see that at least one member of the House is reasonably satisfied with the findings the commission has come up with in its recommendations.

Having said all those very important things, I do not want to get into too much more. Certainly, I do not want even to border on being controversial. I think the speech goes downhill from here. Rather than be controversial, and while the Liberal and New Democratic members are totally in agreement with what I have said, I will take my leave.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. Breaugh: I have a couple of comments because I am afraid the member for Mississauga East was not terribly clear from time to time about his intentions. Was the member attempting to slander the Transit Man of the Year and resurrect the Spading Expressway? I felt the member was trying to say that in his comments about transportation, but for some reason the clarity was not there. I really wondered about that.

There is a second point to which I would like the member to respond. It is well known around here that the member has been totally opposed to rent controls since they were initiated. Has he weasled out of that position yet?

Mr. Gregory: Well, I --

Mr. McClellan: He has to wait.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mancini: I would like to make some comments on the speech we just heard. I was quite surprised at the nostalgia in the member's speech. He went all the way back to Leslie Frost to talk about the good old days of the Conservative Party. That is one of the main problems the Conservative Party faces today. It keeps looking backward instead of forward. It looks to the past instead of the future, to which a progressive government must lead its people.

We know the policy and position of the member's party in regard to the doctors' dispute. His party's position on the matter of extra billing was enunciated very clearly by his leader, who appeared before the committee and said he did not necessarily favour extra billing, but if anyone who visits a doctor's office wishes to tip his doctor or leave a sum of money, he should be free to do so. His party wants members of the general public to go into a doctor's office when they have to and leave a tip for their doctor.

The third matter I wish to address is the member's point on business, that this government has been unfriendly to business. That is not true. Many of my colleagues are bringing forward ideas as they deal with business. As a matter of fact this government has a small business committee --

The Acting Speaker: Your time is over.

Mr. Mancini: -- which a number of parliamentary assistants work on.

Mr. McClellan: I want to address a couple of questions to my honourable friend. The main theme of his speech was similar to that of his leader, which is that the throne speech was so bad because so much of it had been stolen from the Conservative Party. That seemed to be the message.

Mr. Breaugh: That was not the message. That was the theme.

Mr. McClellan: I must have misunderstood the message. Certainly, the message that is coming through is that it was so bad because it was so Conservative.

My friend is from a rapidly developing suburban area and knows a lot about the real estate market and the housing business. He is a senior member of the Conservative Party and a former cabinet minister. When he speaks on housing issues, we have to be very attentive to what he says. He talked about a wish to go back to the untrammelled free market in the housing sector. Does he mean his party is opposed to Ontario being back in the home-building business after six or seven years without a Ministry of Housing? Is it his position that Ontario should go back to the good old days when there was no Ministry of Housing and no housing development program?

My other question is, why will he not be candid and tell us what he really thinks about rent control? Most of us know what he really thinks. He hates and despises rent control. He is and always has been opposed to it. This is his opportunity to stand up and get it off his chest.

Mr. Callahan: I have been sitting here listening attentively and I find it very interesting. I know the job of the opposition is to oppose. Yet the Leader of the Opposition, who is not here -- he may be out on the links or the basketball court: I do not know -- says, and this is what my friend raised before, that everything in the throne speech has been grabbed from the past.

6 p.m.

Did the Conservatives not support what their former Premiers recommended over the past 42 years? I suggest to them that they did because I recall it was reported in the press. The Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program is really a Leslie Frost budget speech that was taken out of the refrigerator and brought forward. If that is what their government did, how can they possibly stand there and object to the fact that the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) looked into the past, said that maybe they were not bad ideas, and then brought them forward.

I am not suggesting he did that, but whether or not he did does not matter. That is leadership. Leadership is defined as the best possible ideas whether they be from the past, the present or the future. I suggest the member take that back to his leader, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, and find out what his score was in the hoop game.

Mr. Gregory: I am going to be totally honest and I am going to answer these questions.

Mr. Breaugh: They cannot throw him out of cabinet now.

Mr. Gregory: The member is going to have to listen to them. I have only two minutes.

I will answer these questions in the order of their importance. This will put Brampton right down at the end. In answer to Spadina, I favour the position on Spadina that this government has had all the way along. I did not even mention Spadina at any point. I did mention Eglinton.

On rent controls, the position of this government has not changed since we brought in rent controls in 1975. The only changes in it are deteriorations that are taking place right now. I do not agree with what was done on extending rent controls to buildings built since 1976. I think it was counter-productive.

The member asked the question and ran. I do not blame him after that question. The member said I was trying to live in history. I am not. My reference to Leslie Frost was that the major part of the highway system, as we know it today in Ontario, began under Leslie Frost. I am very proud of that. It is being destroyed now with what is happening here.

I do not agree with extra billing. I do not agree with the interference in the business of a doctor. It is counter-productive. With the number of doctors who are extra billing and the small amount that is being extra billed, I think the government is destroying the system. We saw one sample about one important doctor who has already left. I know he said it was not the fault of extra billing, but that is counter to the statements he made a few months past.

Mr. Callahan: He was lying when he told us that.

Mr. Gregory: Does the member want to hear the answer? I know he wants to argue with me. He asked me whether I agree with extra billing. I said, "Yes, I do."

On business, I disagree with my friend, the member for Essex South. I do not agree that the Liberal government has been very helpful to small business, but I do not blame the Liberal government; I blame its puppets over here.

Mr. Warner: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this throne speech debate. I must say at the outset that, along with all members of the House, I have come very quickly to appreciate our new Lieutenant Governor and the manner in which he discharges his duties. He strikes me as being a very warm and sincere person who is attempting to fulfil very fully and very energetically the role he is occupying. He is off to an excellent start.

I confess, however, that I felt very sorry for him on the day on which he was asked to deliver the speech from the throne. I felt very sorry for him because I listened very carefully and intently to the speech, I went home and I thought about what I had heard. I re-read the speech the next day in case I had missed something and I came to the conclusion that the speech from the throne can best be characterized as being akin to trying to eat a bowl of jello with snowmobile mitts on. Just when you think you have something solid, it all goes to mush. Does that not characterize that speech?

It was very disappointing. There were some generalities. In the next few days, the members of the government attempted to apologize weakly for the speech. They said it is part of the tradition, part of the pomp and ceremony, and that no one should expect to find specifics in a throne speech. It is just part of the tradition of Ontario, so we really should not expect too much of throne speeches.

I am sorry; the Liberal government is not going to get off the hook that easily. Throne speeches are important and they should contain specifics. They are supposed to signal to the population in which direction the government is moving and what specific things it will seek to accomplish. It is very disappointing. If we reflect back a year, we had an election in this province, the result of which produced a momentum for change. We now know, looking back exactly 12 months tomorrow, the majority of the people of Ontario wanted change. Two parties sat down and between them forged an accord which set out certain conditions.

I do not wish to be provocative with my remarks, as I normally am not. The items set out in the accord were entirely items of the New Democratic Party to which the Liberal Party agreed. What probably has been forgotten is that there were many more items on the table than those to which the Liberal Party agreed. In total, and I stand to be corrected on the numbers, we put 108 items on the table and the Liberals agreed to approximately 37 of those. We fashioned the document, the accord itself. We put out those items which we felt were of importance to the people of Ontario, items on which we had campaigned during the election -- they were not surprise items -- and they included some substantial changes.

The most current one, about which most of us are concerned, is extra billing. We have campaigned on the question of extra billing for many years. This is not a new issue to us and it is not a new issue to the people of Ontario. It is new for the government. One need not be an expert in reading Hansard to recall that various members of the Liberal caucus, including the current leader, have spoken on various occasions in favour of extra billing. The common phrase used during that time was that it was a "safety valve." I do not think I am mistaken. The term used by the Premier when he sat in opposition was it was a "safety valve." However, the Liberal Party realized it had made a mistake. They misunderstood the people of Ontario, they misread the public and perhaps they even misunderstood the depth of the problem.

Perhaps they did not realize the people in this province shell out $1 million per week from their pockets in extra billing. Perhaps they did not realize the number of senior citizens every year who are vulnerable to extra billing by doctors. For many people, there is no choice. It is fine for some folks living in Metropolitan Toronto, but for those who live in smaller communities, if one or two doctors are opted out, it poses a very serious problem for many people. Those people become dependent on individual doctors and they are very vulnerable to extra billing.

6:10 p.m.

Some doctors make no bones about it. They say: "I bill everyone. I do not care about their finances and I want the cash up front." You have heard the honour stories, Mr. Speaker, no doubt from your own riding, as have I and other members in the assembly. We are frustrated by that kind of action. We are horrified by that kind of treatment of people. We have decided to do something about it. What troubles me, frankly, is what I see unfolding is that the Liberal government is stalling. It is dragging its feet on the issue of extra billing. The resolve of this party is unshakable. If the Liberals have any notion of backtracking on this issue, we will fight them tooth and nail. They should make no mistake about it.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: We are clear and firm.

Mr. Warner: If the government wants to go to the people on this one, it should go right ahead.

Mr. Callahan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I do not see a quorum in the House. There is one Conservative and four New Democrats; the balance are Liberals. However, there is only one Conservative in the House, and I am bringing this to your attention.

The Deputy Speaker: Fine, thank you. I am sorry. You said that is a point of order, but it is not a point of order.

Mr. Warner: I do not get sidetracked easily. There are a number of issues with which I want to deal. They are items that were mentioned in passing in the speech from the throne and they are items that were left out, unfortunately. Before I get into that, there are a couple of items I think are important, which I wish to mention in general.

All of us have gained respect for the Lieutenant Governor as he has assumed his new duties. The same can be said of the honourable member whom we have chosen to be the Speaker in our Legislature. The member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) serves us well and continues to do an excellent job. I am very impressed with how he is conducting question period. Back-bench members are getting more questions on, and there is a greater opportunity for them to participate. That can only be of benefit to the Legislature. It is certainly in part the result of the new rules; it is also in part the result of the excellent leadership of our Speaker. Similarly, the Deputy Speaker and the Acting Speaker, so chosen by the House, are serving us extremely well.

I do not think any of us around here could function well and at our best if it were not for the staff of this building. Whenever any of us wishes to prepare bills for presentation or to participate fully in debates, the people we rely on are the people who work in the legislative library, the research department and the legislative counsel, and those who serve us in the chamber. These people, with their abilities and expertise, quite often make us look good, perhaps even better than what we really are. They do an excellent job.

In general, I find the staff around the building, whether the maintenance crew or the people in the dining room, go out of their way to make the lives of the members easier. I appreciate it very much. They have a difficult job at times, but they are always quite cheerful and they serve us extremely well.

Also, at the last of my congratulatory notes, I would like to mention --

Mr. Breaugh: Why did you not include the Sergeant at Arms?

Mr. Warner: Occasionally, the Sergeant at Arms is very frightening because of the sword; however, he is an honourable gentleman who does his job exceedingly well. I discovered that he has a great deal more authority around this place than I had dreamt. He is a man who helps to keep this place functioning well. He is not just a symbol.

I wish to mention my own staff, because I have come to realize that they are the people who solve the problems daily, both in the riding office and here at Queen's Park. For many constituents, they are the first voices heard on the telephone, though not always, because when I am in the office I like to answer the telephone myself. However, much of the time we are here in the chamber or in committee. In particular, I want to pay special tribute to my staff members: David Lee; Kaarina Luoma; Eileen Chalk, who works here at Queen's Park; Penny Gerie, researcher; and part-timer Costas who has done a great job.

If I can turn for a moment to a number of items, what disturbs me quite deeply is the approach and the serious problems we have confronting senior citizens. I say that with some background. The previous government decided that institutionalization was fine. It decided, however, that there could be other answers and that we would study them. It then began a continuous series of studies with no results.

The present government has been in power for almost a year and has chosen almost the same path -- the white paper. I say that with the greatest of respect to my colleague the member for London North, the Minister without Portfolio, who has a very sincere attitude about senior citizens and is trying to understand how we can present a better situation.

During the last campaign, I decided that if I were returned here, I would do something about the horrible situation we have. The more I read about the programs and the services available to seniors in other countries, the more ashamed I became of what we have not done in Ontario. That became confirmed with me the deeper I dug into the research. Fortunately for me, and I hope for others, I was returned here on May 2.

The next week, I went to the legislative library and spoke with the research director and started doing some research. As you know, Mr. Speaker, our party had a task force, and out of that task force came a superb document, Ageing with Dignity. That document contained a number of recommendations. I expanded on that. I did research, which included looking at the approach of 26 different countries to senior citizens, and I was absolutely astounded at how many things were available in other countries, primarily in western European countries, which we had not thought of here.

6:20 p.m.

Let me take one small example, which struck me as being simple, inexpensive and so humane. In the remote part of Norway where there are tiny villages -- not unlike parts of northern Ontario where there are small villages -- one small town had half a dozen senior citizens living in their own homes who required some minimal assistance, someone to come in once a week to help with some cleaning, to prepare a meal occasionally or to do a bit of maintenance. The town was so small that it did not make economic sense, among other considerations, to put in a centre. The government hired a couple who lived in the village. Their job was to provide the needed services to the other six couples, who were senior citizens living in that village. Imagine such a simple, inexpensive approach to help those people stay out of an institution.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Did you see the Norwegian government was defeated this week.

Mr. Warner: I did not know that.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: And the senior citizens got beer in the process.

Mr. Warner: I am sure that has nothing to do with me.

Mr. McClellan: If they had not, the socialists would have won.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It was a socialist government.

Mr. Warner: That is right. To the Treasurer, I am not suggesting for a moment the socialists have all the answers. It may be sheer coincidence that the very best programs for seniors exist in socialist countries. Fortunately, in Sweden, which has some of the most advanced programs for seniors anywhere in the world, on the one occasion in the last 50 years when the socialist government was replaced by the Conservatives, every one of those programs was kept intact. There was not a Tory who would dare to dismantle those programs.

A couple of things became very clear to me through research. Institutionalization is the worst route to go socially and it is the most expensive route to go. Those two messages are very clear from research. No matter which country one looks at to approach the situation, I take the first concern to be the most important, and that is socially. Whenever seniors have the opportunity to remain in their familiar surroundings and to remain active, participating in society, they live longer and they feel better.

Based on the work I did, which took some six months, I went about drafting a bill. Yesterday I had the privilege of introducing that bill in the House. In approximately three weeks, I will have the privilege of debating it. It disturbs me that I alone, as an individual, did that in less than a year. The message about the problems of seniors has been around for a long time and we have not seen one piece of legislation. That disturbs me.

I do not understand the reluctance to move. I will say it now -- and I very much appreciate that the minister is present -- I will say it again when my bill comes up and I say it unabashedly, I am offering him the bill. He can take the bill, remove my name from it, put the government's stamp on it and reintroduce it. I want the thing made into law. I will tell him why, among other things. I am not going to go through the whole bill, but I will give a little snippet of what is possible. The short title of this bill is the Seniors' Independence Act. I think that is important. The big formal title -- everyone has to have formal titles for these things around here -- is An Act for the Provision and Integration of Community-based Services for Seniors. I prefer to call it the Seniors' Independence Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Several copies of that were mailed to my constituency. I appreciate that very much.

Mr. Warner: The Treasurer is welcome. I am pleased that he received them. I hope he will read them carefully.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I did not get one.

Mr. Warner: Among other things, here are the services which can and should be provided to seniors: Individual evaluation and counselling; social, recreational and exercise programs; meal programs; medical, health, psychological and dental services, including referrals and follow-up programs; educational programs, including but not limited to preventive medical and dental counselling; nutritional counselling; financial counselling; information referral programs referring to local community programs; interpretation services; full-time or part-time day care on a regular basis and occasional and emergency day care; home help programs; assistance in the performance of routine tasks away from the senior's home; daily contact by telephone or in person; transportation services to encourage the senior's independence; regular assistance from adult protective service workers; arrangements for care in day hospitals; temporary care provided, where possible, in the senior's home or at a community health and social services centre, to provide respite for the family members or other individuals who have assumed responsibility for the care of a senior without remuneration; counselling and other assistance for the family members and other individuals; a prescribed support service, with dental care.

That is a beginning, and it should be triggered by one phone call. I am proposing that the government, in addition to accepting this bill, institute a line across the province, 1-800-SENIORS. No matter where the senior citizen lives, he or she can pick up the phone and call that line. The senior makes one phone call and does not have to worry about the bureaucracy. Let the bureaucracy worry about itself. The senior makes the phone call and someone will attend to precisely the needs the senior would like assistance on, so an institution will be a place of last resort.

Very respectfully, I am saying, please take the bill, put the minister's name on it, make it become law. I do not care if I never get a line of credit anywhere for it.

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: The member knows I would never ignore him.

Mr. Warner: The minister has never ignored me in the past. If I can accomplish nothing else in whatever my career is here, I wish to accomplish one thing, that is, to provide the framework so older people can live a life of dignity. Too many seniors are denied that opportunity.

The time is drawing to a close for this afternoon. I will return, and when I do, I am going to talk about the other side of it, the nursing home situation. The minister knows very clearly about it because he and I at one time were seatmates up here, he on one side of the aisle and I on the other. We used to chat from time to time about a number of things. We talked about nursing homes. I have never seen a more disgusting situation in a so-called civilized society than what happens daily in many of our nursing homes.

I have one in my riding in particular. Quite frankly, if I had my way, that home would either be cleaned up inside of a couple of months or closed. I am sure many who have been around here for a while know about the home of which I speak, the Kennedy Lodge Nursing Home. Three times inside of six years that home has had the ownership transferred. It is simply an opportunity to make money. They then decided that the well-trained staff, who happened to be unionized, should all be thrown out on the street, and they were replaced at $4 an hour.

Mrs. Marland: How long does it take the member to do something about it?

Mr. Warner: I am not the government.

Mrs. Marland: No, but you are the member.

Mr. Warner: Do not get me started. It is the incestuous relationship between the nursing homes inspection branch and the Ontario Nursing Home Association that is at the root of this problem.

The Deputy Speaker: I draw the honourable member's attention to the clock.

Mr. Warner: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps you would like to move adjournment of the debate.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week, if I may.

On the afternoons of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and on Thursday morning from 10 a.m. to noon next week, we will continue this debate. Routine proceedings will be at 2 p.m. on Thursday, May 8. Through the agreement of the House leaders, the throne speech debate will conclude on Monday, May 12.

The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

May 1, 1986

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WASTE DISPOSAL

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

VILLA COLOMBO

UNEMPLOYMENT

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

FARM CHEMICAL LOSSES

RECYCLING

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

HEALTH APPOINTMENTS

BUDGET DATE

ORAL QUESTIONS

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION

EXTRA BILLING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

HOUSING POLICY

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

NUCLEAR SAFETY

INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

ABORTION CLINIC

OVERTIME WORKERS

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

PROVINCIAL PARKS

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

EXTRA BILLING

MOTIONS

TRANSFERRAL OF BILL 34

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS AND AGENCIES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

SIMULTANEOUS TRANSLATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES ACT / LOI DE 1986 SUR LES SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE