Journal des débats 1982-mars-19 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Bradley: I know March 19 is very important to many people on the opposite side, and I thought it would be wise to alert us all to this particular anniversary.

As members will recall, it was exactly two years ago, on March 19, 1980, that the Argosy collapse took place, when Argosy Financial Group of Canada Ltd. and Argosy Investments Ltd. were placed into receivership. This was an event of considerable magnitude, Mr. Speaker, and I know you will recall it involved approximately 1,600 investors and upwards of $30 million.

At the time, the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, now the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), assured the investors in the following terms -- I am talking of two years ago, and I quote:

"I can assure you an active investigation was being conducted into the affairs of Argosy by the Ontario Securities Commission some time prior to the announced collapse of Argosy because of their concern about its financial health. This investigation is still continuing, and I am sure that when it is concluded you will see what positive action has taken place."

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. With all respect, that is hardly a point of privilege.

Mr. Bradley: I just wanted to put a little background into the point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member identify his point of privilege immediately?

Mr. Bradley: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A year later, during the campaign, the Premier (Mr. Davis) avoided commenting on the Argosy matter, pointing to the OSC and Ontario Provincial Police investigation, but here is the point: There has been no report on these investigations, which have gone on now for two years. The only thing the government has done in this matter is to block an investigation of the Argosy collapse by the standing committee on administration of justice.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you, as the presiding officer of the highest court in this province, to use your good offices to press for some remedy for the Argosy investors.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard your point of privilege.

ELECTRONIC HANSARD

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, I wish to inform all members that I have had an opportunity to look into the question raised by the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) concerning the possible introduction of an electronic Hansard.

I am advised that at a joint meeting of the standing committee on procedural affairs and the standing committee on members' services held on December 4, 1980, a recommendation was made. I am further advised that the committee reported to the House on December 4, 1980, but that this matter was never adopted. I trust that may clear up any questions in the minds of the members.

SPEAKER'S PROCESSION

Mr. Speaker: I also wish to inform all members at this point that, commencing on March 29, the Speaker's procession will be implemented starting at approximately 1:55 p.m. I might say this is being implemented at the request of a number of members and as a result of a meeting I had with the members of the standing committee on procedural affairs.

DREDGING CASE

Mr. Conway: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I refer to a matter that was first raised in this House almost five years ago.

As all members will recall, in 1977 the Premier appointed Mr. Campbell Grant to investigate and report on matters arising from certain disclosures from the diary of Mr. Harold McNamara during the famous dredging trial. The Premier promised this House on July 8, 1977, that he would make this report available as soon as he could, having regard to the court cases being heard at that time. I wish to inform this House that not only has Mr. McNamara exhausted all his appeals but also he has already been released from prison.

This matter has been raised at least seven times in this Legislature, most recently on May 8, 1981, and on May 25, 1981, the Premier was asked in this House to produce the report of Mr. Grant; in each instance the Premier replied that he would consult with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). We have not yet heard from either the Premier or the Attorney General on this matter of importance, at least for this caucus.

On January 28, 1982, the Liberal Justice critic, my colleague the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), wrote an open letter to the Premier, requesting him to table Mr. Grant's report. The Premier has not yet replied to this letter.

I know that we have some difficulty in terms of time lines, Mr. Speaker, and I simply draw to your attention that it has now been almost five years since the commitment was given by the government, through the Premier, that Mr. Campbell Grant's report on that matter would be made available. I call upon you, sir, to use your good offices to bring about its release at the very earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

SECURITY OF LEGISLATURE

Mr. Spensieri: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: In the light of the tragic events of yesterday at Osgoode Hall courtroom, the Board of Internal Economy may wish to review the security provisions of the Legislative Assembly. Having had personal knowledge of and acquaintance with the eminent counsel involved in yesterday's shootings, we feel that matters of this nature tend to drift from one's awareness until they are called back by tragic occurrences such as these.

As members know, this matter has been raised several times over the years, generally after the occurrence of some tragic and critical event. Perhaps now is the time for a comprehensive review of public access and security matters to be undertaken under your direction, Mr. Speaker, with specific recommendations placed for the board's consideration especially in so far as security measures related to this assembly.

10:10 a.m.

Mr. McClellan: On the same point, Mr. Speaker: I want to express profound caution that we not be stampeded into tightening up security measures at the buildings here because of the tragedy that took place in another place in the city.

I, for one, and I am speaking for myself, do not want to see a tightening up of security measures at the Legislative Assembly here. I think members of the public have a right to come and see their MPPs unimpeded by the apparatus of search and other electronic surveillance devices. I simply wanted to make that clear on my own behalf.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of privilege: Lest anyone think this particular party or anyone in this party wishes to impede or try to make difficult the opportunity for the general public to come in and view the proceedings of this House, that is not what the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri) has said.

Sir, you know that when you are boarding an airplane or when you are going through different types of security checks, that can be done without any type of offensive action to the individual who has to be checked. I am sure that if we exercise good judgement, we can improve our security here without offending the general public.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to add briefly to the discussion here today. My concern is that if there is to be a review of security, it be done in a manner that allows all members of the House to have at least access to the information, if not participation in the discussion itself.

I am concerned that this be done with a great deal of sensitivity. As the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) pointed out, many of us feel that the members of the public have the right to have access to the building and to their MPPs at most reasonable hours. We are aware that, unfortunately, there is a need throughout the world to increase some kind of security, but we are very sensitive to the fact that in a building like a parliament there are special needs.

It is my request that if you do intend to proceed with matters that have been looked at previously, it be done in one of the committees, either the standing committee on members' services or perhaps the standing committee on procedural affairs but in a venue where the members themselves have access to the committee and where the discussion can be carried on with some sensitivity and reflecting not just the security needs but also the parliamentary needs of this building.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

IMPORT REPLACEMENT

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today that Ontario is embarking on a co-operative effort with the province of Manitoba, the other eight provinces, the two territories and the federal government to increase the Canadian share of six categories of goods purchased by our governments and public institutions.

This, as honourable members may recall, is in line with our objectives announced a year and a half ago by my predecessor to undertake a program of intergovernmental co-operation aimed at replacing import products in a variety of sectors.

Our first goal, in which Ontario played a lead role, was the very successful $1.2-billion-a-year health care products sector replacement program. Honourable members will be pleased to learn that the national results of that initiative have been much better than were anticipated. An independent and audited study, completed just recently, indicated that the health care sector in Ontario is expected to expand its investments by at least $55 million, helping to create some 600 new jobs in this province.

While work on the health care sector was under way, my ministry's domestic marketing section was working on studies in six other sectors that show promise of immediate returns in terms of import replacement. These studies show that of the $2.2 billion worth of government purchases of furniture and fixtures, appliances, laboratory and scientific equipment, sporting goods, nonprinted educational supplies and material, and audio-visual equipment, $1.5 billion is made up of imported products.

Our goal is similar to that of the health care program: to achieve a 10 per cent reduction this year of those imports by replacing them with Canadian goods of comparable price and quality. Success in achieving this result will mean some $150 million in new orders for Canadian manufacturers and at least 1,200 new jobs for Canadians.

Just as Ontario played the lead role in health care import replacement, this time Manitoba will be the lead province in the institutional import replacement program. At this moment my counterpart in the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, the Honourable Muriel Smith, is announcing the details of the new program, which has three main elements.

The first will be the launching of a major awareness program in which purchasing agents in all government institutions will be informed of the import replacement effort and the importance of buying Canadian-made products.

The second will be a systematic effort to provide purchasing agents with information on Canadian sources for products in those six major sectors.

The third will be a major trade show and exhibition in Winnipeg this fall at which purchasing agents from all participating governments will display imported products for which they would like Canadian sources. This approach worked extremely well for the health care sector, and I certainly expect success in this new program.

I wish to emphasize the importance we attach to this import replacement initiative. At a time when the country is undergoing a seemingly unending number of economic shocks, it is encouraging to see such projects being tackled, in a pragmatic way, by all of our governments working in a co-operative way. Such federal and provincial co-operation will assist especially the many small and medium-sized firms across the country to make corporate decisions to expand and accelerate their growth opportunities.

We are happy to be playing this role as an advocate and supporter of an initiative which promotes real benefits for Ontarians and all Canadians and creates jobs in the process.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the co-operation of all members, please, to limit their private conversations. There seems to be a background buzz that makes it very difficult to hear what is going on.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. On April 12, Robert and Lucy Waterhouse of Garnet, Ontario, will lose their combination home and small business because the interest rate of their mortgage has jumped from 11 per cent to 21.25 per cent. Even though the credit union that holds the mortgage has offered to roll back the interest rate to 17.25 per cent, the payments are still too high for the Waterhouses to make ends meet. Is there not something the government of this province can do to help the Waterhouses?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond in the particular but I will be glad to have an agency of the government, probably the Ontario Development Corp., look at the problems of the Waterhouses to see whether they qualify in any sense at all. I sense that if they are a retail establishment, they will not. The problems of the retail sector are extremely difficult right now; I have not seen them worse for some time. I share with my colleague not only a name but also a concern.

We were rather impressed to read the truth from Ottawa yesterday, when Mr. Kaplan commented on the political disaster of the federal budget. Part of that disaster has been to put tremendous pressure on interest rates. The honourable member well knows that interest rates are set by the federal government, not by the province; so I find it rather interesting that he, as a Liberal, would be asking me, a Conservative, that question.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I point out to the Treasurer that this party came up with a program to assist small businesses and home owners when there was a minority government. We suggested that it be implemented but because of the election on March 19, one year ago today, it was not carried out.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I point out to the Treasurer that many other provinces have assistance programs. Does the government not realize that in one blow the Waterhouses will lose not only their home but also their business and, consequently, their jobs? Is there not something this government can do to assist, besides blaming the feds?

10:20 a.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Again, the member knows we have done quite a few things but, in my opinion, the most important function of government is to create an atmosphere of confidence in both the consumer and business communities. Whether or not the member believes it, we have seen the lowest levels of confidence for a long time because the average Canadian citizen really does not believe anyone in Ottawa is running the store.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that he could create, or at least attempt to create, an atmosphere of confidence in Ontario by introducing an interest rate relief program or a mortgage moratorium?

Is he not aware that in the example we brought forward yesterday with regard to the houses in Chatham, many of the houses being repossessed are being offered for resale at a lower rate of mortgage interest than was being paid by the people who are having their homes repossessed? If that is happening there, surely the government can offer interest rate relief.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is easy to talk, of course, Mr. Speaker. I sense that the honourable member sitting on that side of the House rather enjoys the difficulties of the people he talks about each day. He finds it rather fun to stand up and tell this government it is responsible for the situation. He knows full well we have asked the federal government to implement policies. All 10 provinces asked them to implement policies.

If my friend would consider the total number of dollars out there and the interest rate subsidies he talks about and then look at the size of the provincial Treasury, which this year will receive $300 million less from the federal government than last year, he would discover that the pressures on me are very real.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar problem. Mr. Calder is the owner of a printing business in Mount Forest. To cut down on the expenses of his business, he moved his printing equipment into the basement of his home. Now the mortgage on his home has come due. He has applied at 40 different places for a mortgage, with negative results. He has more than 60 per cent equity in his home and business. Is there not something this government can do to help the Calders? I will send some further facts over to the Treasurer.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am rather intrigued to watch the Liberals using the techniques the New Democratic Party has used for years. They are using a case-by-case approach. It is very fine to use a case-by-case approach to get some degree of sympathy at home --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Grey has asked a question of the Treasurer. Please allow the Treasurer to respond.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The Treasurer was talking while I was asking the question. I think it might be only fair that I repeat the question. I do not think he heard it.

Mr. Speaker: I think the Treasurer heard your question. He has so indicated.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I challenge both opposition parties to join with Ontario and the other provinces and support the 40 measures we gave to the federal government to stimulate the economy of this country, to help increase confidence --

Mr. J. A. Reed: Blame the feds.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Why don't we get together? Are the opposition parties afraid to support the measures we brought forward? Are they not worthy of support? We asked for lower interest rates and for support for small business. Are they with us or against us?

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. I have a constituent, Mr. Robert Gibbs, a hog farmer from Dunvegan, who has been farming for 10 years. When he first started farming, he carried a debt of $6,000. Now he owes the bank $90,000. The rate of interest he must pay rose from 12 per cent in 1979 to 25.25 per cent in 1981. He ended up paying $2,000 a month in interest. The banks have called in his loan and now hold all his hogs, though they are allowing him to raise them. Mr. Gibbs does not know whether he can hold out until the end of 1982.

Can the Treasurer tell me what provincial government program exists to help Mr. Gibbs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as I interpret it, the question relates to hog raising. Does the honourable member realize we made $60 million available for the assistance of farmers?

Mr. Nixon: It is so bound up in red tape you can't get it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is not bound up in red tape. I want to say to the honourable member, I do not know whether he has qualified -- have you, Robert?

Mr. Nixon: I wouldn't bother applying if you were running it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We are not running it; the banks and the agricultural representatives are, and the accountants.

Just yesterday I talked to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, along with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell). Does the member realize that program was designed with their co-operation and that the OFA worked along with the government of Ontario and the banks to get a plan that would deal with the kinds of problems he is talking about'?

Mr. Nixon: We are the principal critics of the plan. Because of our criticism the application form had to be withdrawn and reprinted.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I worry about that party. The leader has missed two days this week.

Ms. Copps: The leader of the government party was missing.

F. S. Miller: The honourable member knows where my leader is and that he is ill. He is not like her leader.

I want to point out that this party is starting to worry about the opposition party. They are slipping so fast with their new leader that the third party is the real threat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Other members will have an opportunity to ask a question at the proper time. I have recognized the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) with a supplementary.

Mr. Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to point out that I asked this question on December 10, 1981. At that time I mentioned that of 142 hog producers in my area three years ago, only 25 remained and 20 of these were producing under contract only. Mr. Gibbs was one of those 25. What specifically can this government offer to Mr. Gibbs to help him out during these hard times?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, now that the member is getting into specific agricultural programs, I am going to redirect his question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member's constituent Mr. Gibbs is willing, I will be happy to have him meet the local agricultural representative for the county to discuss with him the farm adjustment assistance program to see whether there is some possible assistance there for his operation.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order first, and then I have a question. My point of order is that the Treasurer has misled the House. The banks do not make the decision. The agricultural representatives and the banks advise the farmers and if they say no, then it is the appeal board's decision.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) did not mean to use the word he did use, and I ask him to withdraw it, please.

Mr. MacDonald: I just want clarification from the Treasurer. He said the banks make the decision. Therefore, he has misled the House with misinformation.

Mr. Speaker: I ask you to withdraw that word, please.

Mr. MacDonald: I will withdraw it, but it is on the record that he has said the banks make the decision; and the banks do not make the decision.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes. In view of all of the bragging about what this program is doing, is the Treasurer aware that as of the first week of March 1982, out of all the 87,000 farmers in the province, only 46 had been given some assistance for a total of $300,000, or a third of $1 million, of the $60 million promised? Is the pipeline that is eventually going to make this program effective so clogged up that only 46 got through it? Is the Treasurer aware of that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the statistics. The OFA made certain suggestions to the minister a few days ago. He loosened the criteria. We are at least flexible enough to do that.

I will go back into Hansard for the words that caused this point of order. If I have said the banks run the program, then I am wrong. If I have said those words, I do not want to leave them on the record. If they are there, I quite accept the fact, but I did not mean to leave that impression. I was responding very quickly to a point.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, a constituent in my riding who was also trying to get involved in the production of pork for the Ontario market is having a very difficult time getting into the business. He is a young farmer, 25 years old. He has recently tried to take over the operation. He works full-time off the farm. He has introduced some new methods to the farm, which has been left to his widowed mother by the recent death of his father. He wants to take over the farm; he cannot get assistance from the banks. He does not know at this point whether he is even going to be able to get enough feed to feed his hogs in the next two or three months.

10:30 a.m.

How much longer must this young farmer wait to receive some provincial assistance so that he can own his own farm and carry on production without having the bank request his widowed mother to supply it with a guarantee?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, again we are going to the case-by-case approach, and again before I answer the question I throw back the need for the member's --

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The members opposite are here, whether they like it or not, for at least three more years as opposition. Whether they replace us at the end of three years is the luck of the Irish or whatever. The fact remains we do have serious economic problems in this province, and it would be nice once in a while to see the opposition parties join with us and accept the fact that Ontario has made a series of constructive suggestions to help the economy.

To get back to this problem, I cannot judge a case from here; I am not sure the member can judge the case. I have got some in my riding. We have set up a technique for it. We have said in the throne speech there will be more help for young farmers, and we are going to deliver.

AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware of the Ministry of Labour's alarming statistics that permanent and indefinite layoffs have increased in the last year by 47.2 per cent? Is he aware that Chrysler has announced in Windsor that it will close the Windsor spring plant on September 15, 1982? I thought I would give the Treasurer plenty of lead time. What action is he going to take to avoid the closure of that plant?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, there is no industry I enjoy watching more, because of natural interest, than the automobile industry; and I have had very little to be joyous about of late, whether it be the sales of units in North America or whether it be the jobs of workers. I understand Chrysler in Windsor itself has actually had more people at work this year than it had a year ago, if I am not wrong. It seems to me that the Windsor assembly plant for Chrysler is one of the few plants in North America that has actually been scheduling overtime, has it not?

The fact remains that we have suggested, and I think it has been well received by all segments of the automotive scheme of things, that we have a good reason to require Canadian content. Whether they are springs, whether they are differential housings, whether they are trans axles, whether they are engines, whether they are body stampings, or whether it is assembly, I think we as a nation have not only the right to expect, but the market to justify, 85 per cent Canadian content value added.

We have made that suggestion to Ottawa, but we do not expect it to happen overnight. I understand Mr. Lumley is in Japan right now and is, I believe, negotiating from a stronger stance than he did before. I do believe the meetings in Ottawa have been heard to a degree. But let us again join together and say that is in the interests of Canadian workers and it is in the interests of the Canadian economy, not just Ontario but the Canadian economy.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister prepared to say that Ontario will take the stand that not only should Japanese imports have 85 per cent Canadian content, but the Big Three assembly in Ontario should have 85 per cent Canadian content, and we should aim for 100 per cent Canadian content? Is he aware that more than 200 parts used at present could be sourced from the plant at Windsor hut are being imported by Chrysler from Mexico and the United States'?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Obviously I am not aware.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer has made a number of suggestions to Ottawa, not only when his Premier went to Ottawa but also in the throne speech, regarding the auto industry, particularly in the area of Canadian content, as he has repeated this morning. If this matter is resolved, what initiatives is Ontario prepared to take to ensure that our parts industry is sufficiently modernized to be able to fill the very ambitious program that the Treasurer and the Premier (Mr. Davis) have suggested? What initiatives are they prepared to take to help the industry?

F. S. Miller: The member speaks as if we have never taken any. We have pointed out one of the most important ingredients in keeping a competitive parts industry, apart from the general productivity costs which, unfortunately, in Canada are getting worse vis-à-vis the United States. That, by the way, should be of concern to the member, to me, and to all Canadian workers because Canadian wage rates in the auto industry are going up faster than they are in the American auto industry. Productivity rates are not rising as quickly as they should. Therefore, even the advantage of an 82-cent dollar is being lost quite rapidly.

What have we done? There was no sector that received more direct assistance than the auto parts sector through the employment development fund. We took a lot of abuse day after day for giving assistance to any number of plants such as Ford, TRW Canada, Hayes-Dana or Eaton Yale. Whenever we did something, someone over there found some reason to say it was a giveaway, a gift, a deal that was not needed. They said Volkswagen would have come anyway. We have negotiated hard with Volkswagen. I would say had it not been for the then Minister of Industry and Tourism, (Mr. Grossman) they would not be in this province. The plant would not be in this province at all, it would be in another province.

Mr. Wrye: Windsor is still in the province. It would have been there, it wouldn't have been in Quebec. The Treasurer knows that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It would have been in Ohio; that is where it would have been.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Those are the facts. The member does not want to look at that. The incredulity on his face makes me realize that the member does not even understand where the competition is.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Incredulity is the word.

Mr. Bradley: Don't be so condescending.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Don't talk to me about condescending. Look at your own benches.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, back to the spring plant. Is the minister aware that Chrysler Canada's Canadian value added or Canadian content is only 50 per cent'?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They are the most condescending bunch of nitwits I have ever seen.

Mr. Cooke: I wonder if the Minister of Education would shut up.

What is the Treasurer prepared to do to stop the closure of this spring plant, which would lower the Canadian content for Chrysler Canada below 50 per cent? Does he not agree that it is about time that an auto parts crown corporation be established in this province? One of its mandates would be to negotiate not only with the Japanese, but with the Big Three here in North America to bring their Canadian content up to at least 85 per cent, preferably 100 per cent. That is the United Auto Workers position.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The percentage by Chrysler or Ford, in terms of the 65 per cent requirement or thereabouts that was required under the auto trade pact of 1965, obviously has not been kept. I understand the federal government has for the last while waived the requirements in the interest of survival. If the member wants that company to survive at all in Canada, the member and I have to be realistic for a while. Chrysler simply has not had the resources to do some of the things it should do. I would hope that as a condition for our federal government's relatively generous support of Chrysler we will see that increase as time goes on and compliance again.

Right now with Chrysler, whether we like it or not, survival is the issue. I think the member understands that, does he not?

Mr. Foulds: So is the survival of our economy.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The survival of our economy has to keep us realistic, my friend, not dwelling up in the clouds and saying crown corporations can do it. Look at British Leyland. How well has it done since it took over the industry?

Mr. Cooke: Look at Volkswagen.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Look at Renault; look at Volkswagen.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Surely it is just good common manners to pay attention when somebody else is speaking.

10:40 a.m.

EQUAL PAY

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the federal human rights decision which finally forced the federal Treasury Board to agree to pay equal pay for work of equal value to female employees and male employees in the categories, for example, of watchman 2 and warehouse labourer, why does the minister continue to tolerate in the Ontario civil service the blatant discrimination that continues to exist between jobs of equal value and equal pay?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal said on that subject in the media in the past few days, including a conference held in Toronto this week. There have also been a couple of speeches given by Mr. Caccia and Ms. Erola on this particular matter.

As far as I am concerned, my ministry is moving to advancing proposals to strengthen our equal pay laws. I do not want to mislead anyone. I do not think that anyone's interest is served by bringing forward proposals which are impractical or unenforceable. Like my predecessor, I do have some problems with the notion or concept of universal equal pay legislation. However, there are certain revisions to the existing sections that we should be taking a look at. I hope to be coming forward in this House in the next few weeks with some proposed changes.

Mr. Foulds: Could the minister tell us if those proposed changes specifically eliminate the discrimination in the Ontario civil service that exists, for example, between a laundry worker 2, which is largely female -- 72 per cent -- and a clerk 2, which is largely male -- 82 per cent -- in which the difference in wages for jobs of equal value -- I think this is pretty well agreed -- is more than $2,000 a year?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The difficulty is in assessing the jobs. That is what we are going to try to address. We are going to try to look at the four comparative tests, which are skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions. We are going to see if they can be looked at in a collective manner rather than individually. We are studying that right now. I am having a meeting with Ms. Lynne Gordon on Wednesday of this coming week. We are optimistic that we can do something of a practical nature.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, if I heard the minister correctly, I believe he said such legislation may be impractical or unenforceable. Does the minister think the women of Ontario, who on average are earning 62 cents for every $1 earned by a man in this province, believe that such legislation would be impractical?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I do not think that at all.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that when the union attempted to negotiate job evaluation procedures in order to bring in equal pay for work of equal value, in spite of the present legislation the government took the union to court on this issue? The ruling was that job evaluation was not part of the collective bargaining process for Ontario civil servants.

In view of that, will the minister see that that law is changed so that job evaluation can be part of the collective bargaining process, and will he bring in a proper job evaluation procedure in the changes to the equal pay law he has forecast? These changes are still not unveiled yet and we are waiting to hear what they are.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer that question by expanding a bit on my answer to my colleague across the floor. I do have a real concern for the circumstances in Ontario. I think we do have to make some changes. There are some circumstances that are genuinely unfair to women in this province, and there is a great deal that has to be done. Certainly one of my objectives is to try to work towards a strengthening of our current equal pay laws.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour has the answer to a previously asked question.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) raised a question concerning the strike at Union of Canada Life Insurance, and I undertook to provide a report this morning.

A mediator was appointed last September and held a number of meetings with the parties which were unsuccessful. The director of the conciliation and mediation services branch of my ministry then travelled to Ottawa to meet with the parties to see if the ministry could be of further assistance. However, and regrettably, the positions of the two parties were so widely separated that further mediation did not appear to be a productive course of action. My ministry has continued to monitor the situation, and I am now advised that the union has brought a complaint of bad faith bargaining under the Labour Relations Act. In other words, we have moved from mediation to litigation.

Since the issue is now in the process of litigation, it would be inappropriate to comment on the facts of the case or the particular matters the member raised yesterday. However, I want to assure the member that my ministry is monitoring the case carefully and will be ready at a moment's notice to undertake further mediation if that is required.

ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Mr. Ron Tonkin of Belle River has been employed as a terminal manager for a transport company in Chatham. He has been unemployed for almost a year now. The interest payments on his home rose from $627 a month to $950, and because he could not meet these payments, the trust company foreclosed on his home. Within a few months he will have to move out.

Is there nothing the Treasurer can bring in in Ontario to assist people in these conditions?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that question is one of a series. I have answered that kind of question at least twice today.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan both announced this morning that they will be including interest relief programs in their budgets, could the Treasurer indicate what advice I can give to a constituent of mine, Mr. Singh, who was laid off from Budd Canada in November 1981 and who has searched diligently in the meantime for a job -- he has been unable to get one -- and has also just been advised that his rent is going to go up 32 per cent because the building has been refinanced?

Is there nothing the Treasurer can do, either now or within the coming budget? Can he give us any kind of commitment as to what advice I can give to this constituent of mine?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, I will be bringing out a budget before too long. Obviously I will have the chance to respond.

It happens that in at least one of the provinces the member named today an election is imminent, and in the second one it is probable. Both had relatively large increases.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ASSISTANCE TO DISABLED PERSONS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question for the Treasurer as well, Mr. Speaker. On December 7 the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated her intention to seek provincial participation in an increase of Canada pension plan payments to severely disabled people, people who receive less than single senior citizens -- in fact, over 50 per cent of whom are below any poverty line one could mention.

Why then has the Treasurer indicated to the press that he will not go along with this proposal, thereby effectively vetoing these increases for disabled people not just in Ontario, but in every province across Canada except Quebec, which already has a more generous scheme? Why is he condemning these people to continue to supplement their income through welfare after they have already paid into the national pension scheme?

10:50 a.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the question is not whether the assistance should be given to the disabled but whether the Canada pension plan is the proper vehicle. The Canada pension plan is a pension plan with benefits supposedly to be paid for out of premiums. At the present time, the 3.6 per cent that is levied does not cover more than about 40 per cent of the cost of the pension benefits that are accruing or being paid.

There are proper and appropriate ways to deal with the problems of the disabled without trying to wrap them into a pension plan that was designed to give a pension benefit for people who have stayed in the work force.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Is it not ludicrous and shameful to make the argument that this move to a basic subsistence income of a maximum of $5,717 a year for these severely disabled individuals must be delayed until negotiations on some other alternatives are put into place, when it is understood that the additional incremental cost of this proposal to CPP will be a quarter of one per cent by the year 2050?

These are the poorest people in our nation. Will the Treasurer not act immediately? He will have public support if he would just say that for now these increases are added to CPP while we work out some other formula, if that is going to be the case, for providing this kind of income assistance to people in the future.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member is trying to tie two things together that should not be tied together. I have in no way tried to judge the merits of the benefits for the people who are disabled. The question is whether a funded pension plan should be used to do it. Ontario has done more work as the lead province on Canada pension in the last year than all the other provinces in Canada put together, and we have, in fact, got consensus from most of the provinces on the points of view we are bringing forward.

We are in no way precluding enrichment of benefits for people who are disabled; we are simply saying the Canada pension plan does not appear to be the vehicle.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer is telling us it is reasonable under these circumstances to use welfare as the alternative. Could he tell us if he thinks it is also reasonable for a single recipient of welfare to try to make ends meet with $218 a month?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that is a non sequitur.

ASTRA/RE-MOR

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General in regard to Re-Mor, which I know he will remember.

During the provincial election campaign which ended on this date last year, the Premier (Mr. Davis) promised Frank and Dorothy Parr, an elderly couple who reside at 126 Rykert Street in St. Catharines and who lost $17,000 in the Re-Mor fiasco, he would do everything possible to expedite the court process associated with the promised test case on behalf of the Re-Mor victims.

Since these senior citizens who lost their life savings, and many others in the same predicament, appear to be not very much closer to resolving this matter a year later despite the promise, what is the Attorney General prepared to do today to ensure that they receive the justice that the Premier promised during the campaign?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from reviewing this matter relatively recently with the director of the civil law division of the Ministry of the Attorney General that the stated case, the agreed-to litigation, was moving along at a rate that was acceptable to the lawyers representing the claimants in this matter; and I expect a resolution in the not too distant future.

If the member for St. Catharines is truly concerned about this issue -- and I am prepared to concede that he is concerned about the plight of the people who have lost these investments -- I would urge him, as I urged the former leader --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: From the beginning, we have indicated we would be prepared to enter into settlement negotiations, but we have been trying without success to bring the federal government to the table to discuss this. They have refused to discuss it whatsoever, and any cursory examination of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the federal charter to Astra Trust would indicate that of course the basic responsibility does lie there. I am not just engaging in a futile exercise of fed-bashing. We live in the real world of politics and the reality of the world of politics is --

Mr. Bradley: These are real people and don't forget it. They are not just statistics.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If the member was really concerned, I would like to --

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask the member for St. Catharines to please restrain himself and give the Attorney General an opportunity to reply.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: In my reply, I would like to withdraw something I said earlier because I really do not think the member is that concerned. I think he is much more concerned with playing partisan politics over this issue than really helping these people, and he knows that.

Mr. Bradley: I will not comment on that, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Premier stated in St. Catharines that if the Ontario government were found negligent or liable the people affected would be reimbursed, and in view of the fact that it appears the only people to benefit from this promise to this point are those in the legal profession, because the minister says that the lawyers are pleased with the rate of progress, is the minister prepared to stand by this promise and the other promise to expedite the court case and not delay it as it has been delayed?

Or are the people to believe the Canadian Press story of March 12, 1981, which appeared in the St. Catharines Standard and stated: "Government lawyer Thomas Wickett denied any knowledge of Davis' statement on compensation and suggested if the Premier made such a promise, he did so for political reasons."? Is the minister going to play politics with it? Is he going to quit blaming the feds and is he going to do something to expedite the case and bring about justice?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If the member was truly concerned and was not playing cellar partisan politics, he would accept an invitation that I am prepared to extend to his leader because I do not really believe for one moment that he cares for anything other than playing petty politics with this issue.

Interjections.

Mr. Sweeney: He is imputing motives.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is deteriorating into a debate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the Attorney General please withdraw that remark imputing the motives of the member.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I do not see anything that should be withdrawn, but if you are requesting me to withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, then because of my enormous respect for you I withdraw it, but I do not want anybody to misunderstand that my respect for you has anything to do with respect I do not have for the people across the aisle.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I would just point out to all honourable members that the respect the Attorney General has shown for the Speaker is indeed the respect for this chamber.

CANADIAN PACIFIC TRAIN DERAILMENT

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I have a belated question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications arising out of the rail incident in Orillia several weeks ago. Since the minister's provincial dangerous goods legislation has been piggybacked on the federal legislation or regulations, can he tell the House what he has done personally to pressure the federal transport officials to get their regulations in place as soon as possible, especially in view of the fact that we may not get them for another six to eight months?

Second, can he tell us what he will do in the meantime to protect the lives and security of Ontario residents? Third, will he press for an open, public inquiry of the whole incident if the feds should fail to do so?

11 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I understand some, but not all, of the member's question. I will try to answer part of it. Our legislation on the transportation of dangerous goods goes hand-in-hand with the federal legislation as it relates to the movement of specified dangerous commodities on the highway system. It does not piggyback, as the member suggested, on the federal regulations regarding dangerous goods on the railroads. I do not know if that is what the member said, but it sounded that way to me.

I am as concerned as anyone that we do not yet have the federal regulations. It has been a long and protracted process which has been going on for a number of years. There have been a number of ministers' conferences. The ministers of transportation for all 10 provinces meet once or twice a year with the federal minister. Each year the provincial ministers have requested uniform federal regulations we can all implement within our respective provinces so we have uniformity for goods being transported across our borders. I think the member would agree that is necessary.

I regret as much as him the delay we have had in getting those regulations. They are very complex. There has been a great deal of consultation with industries of all types, not only the trucking industry but the shipping and manufacturing industries as well.

Part of the member's question was, what have I done? I met a week ago tonight with the federal Minister of Transport, Mr. Pepin, and his officials between 6:30 p.m. and about 10 o'clock at night. I think that is dedication. He was on his way back from a meeting in Regina, his jet broke down in Thunder Bay and he had to change to another plane. We had an excellent meeting and discussed many topics, as we do when we meet. I again expressed our anxiety to get on with the implementation of the dangerous goods legislation as it relates to the provincial highway system.

We did not get into the rail matter at that meeting as there were many items on the agenda. As the member knows, the Canadian Transport Commission will be investigating that matter. I would not like to comment at this time on whether there is a necessity for a public inquiry. My colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) has been fully responsible for dealing with that incident. I am sure if he feels there is any need for a public inquiry after his investigation, he will ask for it.

Mr. Samis: In view of the federal foot-dragging and the fact that the provincial legislation will not take effect until those regulations come into effect, would the minister be prepared to recommend to cabinet that municipalities be given the power to designate truck routes for dangerous goods within their boundaries? Would he also press for the establishment of some form of provincial data bank to assist local police and fire departments in case of a future emergency such as the one that occurred near Orillia?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have a difficult time trying to connect the rail incident near Orillia with municipalities knowing about truck routes. I am sure the municipalities know the railroad routes through their communities. This matter has been considered. We have had discussions with municipalities. We have a committee of municipal representatives which has worked with the provincial and federal people on the dangerous goods legislation. As an interim measure, I do not think it would be advisable to do what the member suggests.

GO TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) is going to like this question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Now that the minister has the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority report on his desk, will he indicate to this House when he expects to make it public in terms of the possible extension of GO train service from Pickering to Oshawa?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I did receive the report prepared by the planning and engineering staff of the CN about 10 days ago, reporting on the improvements necessary to extend the GO train service from Pickering easterly to Oshawa, which are very extensive. As we suspected, it shows a requirement for a third rail line, which involves widening bridges and in some cases widening rights of way and replacing an overpass or two that are not wide enough to carry the third track, so it is an extensive job.

We are reviewing the report at this time. I am preparing a submission I can take forward to my cabinet colleagues in the very near future -- I would say within a matter of two or three weeks -- with our recommendations on our overall five-year plan for the expansion of GO Transit, not only in the Oshawa corridor but in other corridors as well. Certainly the Oshawa corridor is the major one on our platter at this time.

Mr. Cureatz: In the light of the extensive monetary involvement for the extension, will the minister consider approaching the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development committee for the necessary funding for the extension?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, I will definitely. In fact, I have already warned the Treasurer that this will be coming.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I notice the minister weaseled around the member's request to table the report. Will he try to answer that? Will he table that report from CN so the members can peruse it, and will he give us just a slightly more concrete notion of when we might anticipate his future prospects, the five-year plan, which we all know is going to be dependent upon the next provincial election?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) says she never saw anyone who looked less like a weasel.

Mr. Breaugh: So you are the world's largest weasel.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Also I do not remember the member for Durham East requesting me to table any report. He said he understood I had the report. I do have the report and I will give consideration to tabling it. It is a technical engineering report. It outlines the work that would have to be done on the line alone. I have to take the cost in that report and to that I have to add the expenses of land and the construction of the necessary stations. I also have to add the cost of the additional locomotives and rolling stock that would be necessary.

It is not just a case of taking the CN report and saying that is the whole package, but I will have the package before my cabinet colleagues in the very near future and I will give consideration to tabling the report. Certainly I have one on the corner of my desk. It is so confidential it has been sitting there for the last 10 days.

ASSISTANCE TO SMALL BUSINESSES

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Speaker, a new question for the Treasurer, now that he has resumed his seat and at least superficially regained his composure.

As the Treasurer chats with Ontario Development Corp. about the Waterhouse case referred to by my colleague, will he also confer with them and indicate to the House what this government can do for two small businessmen in my riding, Messrs. Nesbitt and Watson, who, upon receiving a loan offer from ODC, the very corporation that will rescue the Waterhouses, an offer of over $100,000 in 1981 -- quite close to March 19, 1981 -- proceeded to secure the assets of an American company that had closed down in my riding? They were thereby able to save 30 jobs in a riding recently plagued by some major plant closings and layoffs.

11:10 a.m.

But the reality of March 19 was that ODC has changed its offer, has in fact reneged on its offer, and these gentlemen, after having put out $225,000 of equity venture capital of their own, now find themselves high and dry. Is there anything that ODC and this government can do, or is ODC a federal responsibility as well?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say it is not, and I redirect the question to the Minister of Industry and Trade Development (Mr. Walker).

Mr. Mancini: He is not here.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Has he gone? Then we will get the facts from him.

Mr. Spensieri: The alleged reason for the ODC's change of heart was that the purchase price of the assets was $225,000 and was not justified by the value of the business. When the book value of the business turned out to be $800,000, as the Treasurer will see from the compendium I am about to send him -- I believe the Treasurer is familiar with compendiums -- what can be more justified than an $800,000 purchase for the sum of $225,000? And how secure does this province have to be to lend money, or does it lend only to people who do not need it, as Leacock used to say?

F. S. Miller: It is interesting, but the great thrust of the leaders' comments in my area, almost every one of them, alleged that we lent money in a profligate way to people who were poor credit risks at places like Bala Bay Inn. I recall it very well.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I am sure the Minister of Labour is acquainted now with the white paper on workers' compensation, and he knows that his predecessor, the present Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), in answering a question I asked him on November 10, said he would keep talking to the interested parties and that by January he would review the comments and documents submitted and then discuss the matter with his colleagues in the cabinet.

In view of the fact that in the speech from the throne there is, among other nebulous propositions, a threatening proposition regarding the Workmen's Compensation Board which says that the government will continue to confer with interested parties, can the Minister of Labour tell the House, first, who the interested parties are who have said they still want to talk to the minister and, second, if it is true that his predecessor had completed his consultations with the people who wanted to discuss the white paper report? If there is such a contradiction, can the minister tell us what course of action this government will take vis-à-vis the problems of the injured workers who are dealing with the Workmen's Compensation Board?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the contradiction the honourable member is referring to, but the consultative process is still going on as far as the white paper is concerned. In fact, just this morning I received a request to take part in a forum that is being conducted by the trades and labour council or a similar body in Hamilton in early April.

We still have all sorts of requests for organizations to come in and talk to us, both union organizations and management groups, so I do not think there is any contradiction. We are piled up. We have obligations ahead of us, and we plan to honour those obligations.

Mr. Di Santo: The only obligation the minister forgets they have is to the injured workers. Since it has been two and a half years since Professor Weiler was appointed by the minister's predecessor, how long will the process of consultation go on?

In view of the fact that the chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Board, Mr. Lincoln Alexander, said in Sault Ste. Marie -- and I hope the minister reads the newspapers of his home town -- that the present system, from an administrative point of view, is completely unworkable, can the minister tell the House if he has any timetable of when the process of consultation will end and if he will be ready to introduce legislation before the end of this session? The injured workers, towards whom he has obligations, are fighting against inflation from a worse position than any other group in our society.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I appreciate and understand what the member is saying. I think the process was slowed down a bit by the change of ministers, and we are trying to expedite that now.

Mr. Foulds: What an admission to make.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: It is not an admission. It is just telling the facts in a forthright manner. We still have people we are scheduled to see. I am still hopeful that the legislation can be introduced this year.

ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Would he indicate what his government is prepared to do for Mrs. Slusarczyk of Tyndall Avenue, who is forced to sell her home in which she has been living for 20 years because her mortgage is now up for renewal and she will not be able to make the payments on a new mortgage at today's rate?

The Premier was ready to act in 1975, when he assured the people of Ontario during an election campaign that his government would not stand idly by and give up its housing objectives. He was prepared to extend tax relief on mortgage interest costs --

Mr. Speaker: Your question?

Mr. Ruprecht: -- higher than 10.25 per cent at that time. The reality of March 19, 1982, is that some Ontarians such as Mrs. Slusarczyk must sell their homes because of these high mortgage rates. This government was once prepared to subsidize. Other provinces have introduced programs to deal with this --

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting for the supplementary.

Mr. Ruprecht: What does the government intend to do about it in 1982?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have said before I am intrigued by the process the Liberals are using this morning. First, they keep their leader in a closet and break a tradition we have had for a long time. The tradition has always been that the leader could designate the deputy leader to ask questions. I wonder if they have lost confidence in their new leader already.

They are keeping him out of the House for the first two questions of the day because he has been such an absolute total loss this first week. They have come back with a series of prepared, written questions, any one of which, they know, the ministries would be glad to deal with directly on a one-to-one basis. They are the kind of constituent problem on which they have always dealt directly with ministers.

Mr. Ruprecht: Supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION IN WORK PLACE

Ms. Bryden: On a point of privilege: I would like to ask why the Minister of Labour has not informed the House that the practice of requiring women at the Block Drug Co. to punch time cards for washroom visits has been discontinued? I would have thought he would have wanted to bring to the attention of the House that his efforts and ours --

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

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that yesterday after question period I rose under standing order 28(a). I informed the Legislative Assembly at that time that I was dissatisfied with the answer --

Mr. Speaker: The requirements of standing order 28 were complied with and the member spoke last night. I was here. I listened very attentively. There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Mancini: I was not up on a point of order, but a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Your privileges have not been abused in any way.

Mr. Mancini: The Speaker has not heard my argument, but already he knows the answer.

Mr. Speaker: I listened to enough of it.

11:20 a.m.

MOTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that the standing committee on procedural affairs be authorized to adjourn to Aylmer, Ontario, to visit the Ontario Police College on Wednesday, March 31, 1982.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

UFFI REMOVAL ACT

Mr. Swart, seconded by Mr. Philip, moved first reading of Bill 32, An Act to provide for the Removal of Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide recourse for persons who had their dwellings insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. An expeditious method is provided for obtaining an order for removal of the insulation where health problems exist and for restoring the dwelling to its former state at no cost to the owner, or for reimbursement where the owner had the insulation removed.

GASOLINE TAX INCREASES

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker. I am not sure if this is a point of order or a point of privilege. I think a privilege has been abused and that I, as a member, have not had a proper opportunity. I want to draw to the attention of the House that about a year and two weeks ago the tax on a gallon of gasoline in Ontario was 20.7 cents a gallon. Today it is 28.3 cents.

I want it known that gasoline tax went up 40 per cent without anyone in this House having the right to vote on it. I think that is a real privilege taken away from me as an elected member. The 60,000 people in my riding have not had the opportunity, through me, to discuss or vote on the raising of taxes and that is very unfair.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech I would like to convey my best wishes to the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and also to the leader of the third party. I have always believed that to have good government we must have a strong Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

One of the most important cornerstones of our society is individual freedoms and rights. Collectively, we live in a society that gives us the opportunity to do our own thing provided, of course, that reasonably acceptable forms of behaviour are recognized and tolerated by other members of the community.

Many people today have become accustomed to doing what they want and expect the state to clean up after them and pay their bills. Our social services are seen by many as a right that is limitless. It is taking a while for people to realize that the well is not bottomless, that we cannot be selfish and that conserver ethics must apply even in this area.

In the 82 years of this century, we have developed miraculous cures for a variety of diseases that have plagued mankind since the beginning of time. As a result, most people have come to rely heavily on the network of the publicly funded institutionalized care that has been supported across North America and Europe.

Now, in a highly regulated and inspected environment, we have the dubious distinction of living longer than our ancestors. When we die it is often from a series of new diseases, some of which are self-inflicted. Some are environmentally caused, and by that I do not mean in the occupational sense but in the larger social context.

On the self-inflicted end of things we are doing quite well. According to 1978 statistics, more than 1,200 Ontarians died of alcohol-related problems and over 1,200 died from suicide and self-inflicted injuries. How many people died as a result of smoking is anyone's guess, but the link between smoking and cancer is becoming more obviously apparent.

Deaths from cancer and from heart disease are on the rise. In 1978, close to 14,000 Ontarians died from cancer and over 22,000 died from heart disease. In 1979, approximately 1,500 people were killed in motor vehicle accidents -- which makes me wonder if it is better to be done in by yourself or to wait for natural causes.

The reason I have run through these statistics is to illustrate the kind of problems we as individuals, our society and the health care system faces. If a person wants to smoke three packs of cigarettes a day it is great for tobacco growers, but doctors consider it deadly.

We are paying for our own collective stupidity and carelessness through absenteeism at work, family breakdowns and injured health. The only way in which we can hope to reduce both the human and the institutional costs is through prevention, and prevention entails many things. Good physical and mental health requires regular exercise, good eating habits, reduced drinking and smoking and a home atmosphere that is loving and supportive.

The throne speech has indicated that the Ministry of Health will be promoting the prevention message to the young people of Ontario, and maybe a little will rub off on their parents. We live in a stressful world and the out-of-shape bodies of most of us are unable to cope with it. Often, we ignore the signals our body is sending us and carry on convinced that nothing will ever happen to us.

At this juncture I would like to express my deepest sympathy to Mrs. Thomas Cossitt and members of her family. Canadians have lost one of our most colourful and dynamic politicians in a tragic and sudden way. It is a sobering reminder to all of us, not just politicians, that we must learn how to survive in the environment we have created. If the environment is bad, it must be adapted to us.

Life-saving assistance is not the sole responsibility of the medical profession. Anyone who wants to can learn first-aid techniques, cardiopulmonary resuscitation or other skills. In the case of heart attacks the first few minutes are crucial. The introduction of special CPR pilot programs on a broad scale will give many heart attack victims a much better chance of survival than they have now. Seattle is often cited as being the model for this type of program. It has the most comprehensive and responsive system in the United States.

More than 200,000 Ontarians are trained in CPR, but for a population of eight million we must do better. Toronto will soon be getting the emergency telephone number 911, which will be an important step in co-ordinating our emergency services and in developing a system whereby laymen have the capability of helping people in those important few minutes following heart attack, not just to save lives but to allow for a full recovery.

Detection of illness and disease often requires sophisticated diagnostic equipment. This government will be taking some positive and concrete steps to combat cancer. The Princess Margaret Hospital will be receiving a nuclear diagnostic system which will have the capacity to diagnose malignant tumours at the earliest stage.

11:30 a.m.

How many times have we heard the litany from the other side of this House attacking our health care system; and how many times have we said we are committed to supporting that system? Those members know, as well as we do, that health technology is getting more complex and more expensive and yet we are more than willing to support our doctors in their efforts to reduce cancer in Ontario.

This preventive approach will also cover the people driving our ambulances. Almost all of Ontario's certified ambulance service attendants have achieved emergency medical care attendant, or EMCA, status. This means they are familiar with such things as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, advanced first aid, clinical hospital experience and emergency patient care as well as having a background in the basic health sciences such as anatomy and physiology.

With this training as a base, ambulance attendants who graduate from a special six-week college course will be certified to perform basic paramedic services to assist critically injured victims. Up until this point, medical doctors were the only people allowed to administer these services. Now, the physicians at base hospitals will be able to delegate instructions and monitor the services done by the paramedics. According to the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), the first group of paramedics will be working in the ambulance system by the fall.

Specially trained attendants are also aboard our air ambulances flying across the province. At present, northern Ontario is served by four jet-powered aircraft that have cruising speeds ranging from 115 to 405 miles per hour. In an emergency, both speed and safety are crucial factors for the aircraft and the people working in them. In the short space of two years, we have taken major steps to expand the services and make available the ambulances to all parts of the province. Again, this serves as an example of the vitality of Ontario's health care system and the type of flexibility that allows this government to find new approaches to old challenges.

Certainly one of our greatest challenges in the future will be with our senior citizens. Within government, there is a great variety of programs and services that touch almost every ministry. Some critics may say that too much confusion exists, and I would have to agree that the legislation and the jurisdiction of some of the ministries may be totally confusing to most people. This is why I am especially pleased that our new seniors secretariat has been created within the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development.

Many members have probably read the final report of the Task Force on Ageing which was submitted to the government in December. It makes excellent reading, because it pulls together the diverse responsibilities of many of the ministries and relates them to other activities and policies being carried out.

The seniors secretariat will have an important role to play in co-ordinating these activities and in working with seniors and volunteer agencies. The task force report reviews the history of provincial services to seniors over a 30-year period. As Ontarians, I think we can all take pride in the record of service we have maintained and expanded throughout the years. The establishment of the secretariat is another step forward, not only for the government but also for hundreds of thousands of seniors who need our help.

One of the best ways we can assist our elderly people, especially the frail elderly and the physically handicapped, is to provide programs for them in their homes. The ministries of Health and Community and Social Services will be extending the homemaker program and will integrate their services to ensure they become more accessible and available to the groups I have already mentioned, whose needs will be assessed.

The program, beginning in 1982, will permit those seniors not in need of medical assistance to receive services that will allow them to lead independent lives within their homes and communities. The program has four major objectives.

First, it will provide comprehensive shopping and services.

Second, it will provide services available through the Ministry of Health's home care program to people without medical needs.

Third, the new program will significantly increase the hours of service available.

Fourth, it will relieve municipalities of the costs of providing services to the frail and physically handicapped elderly. It is hoped that some of these funds will then be used for other support programs at the municipal level.

The program will be phased in over a five- to six-year period in those areas that already have established acute and chronic home care programs that can adjust and expand to the new services.

Speaking of new services, members may remember that a recent announcement was made concerning prosthetic devices for children. As a member of the select committee on company law, I am pleased that the unanimous recommendation to extend Ontario health insurance plan coverage for prosthetic devices was recognized as valid by the Ministry of Health. Beginning July 1, approximately 75 per cent of the costs of these devices will be paid by the government for people up to and including the age of 18. This new program will cost an estimated $13 million and will assist up to 15,000 children.

This is especially important at this age, since youngsters either wear out the devices or grow out of them. The costs of replacing artificial limbs, braces and so on will no longer be the sole responsibility of the parents. It would not be possible to extend this coverage to everyone right now because the costs would be enormous. However, as members can see, this government does listen and respond to legitimate demands for more health services. We have undertaken new programs this year despite the fact that our funding from Ottawa is being severely cut back. We are not cutting back on services or programs, we are responding to the diverse needs that exist throughout Ontario.

There is always an element of cost control and efficiency built into the system, because we must find new ways to keep costs reasonably in line. For example, the home care programs are geared to helping people remain in their homes while receiving support services that will not only help in their recovery but also keep them from spending time in hospital beds away from their normal surroundings.

New financial measures that will come into effect on April 1 will give hospitals greater flexibility in earning money, retaining revenues and putting them to better use. There is nothing wrong with taking a pragmatic approach to make the system more streamlined. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations not to be saddled with a monstrous system that is too big for our own good.

Many people seem to think that if we spend more money on health care then the system automatically gets bigger and better. This does not necessarily translate into substantial improvements in life expectancy or disease control, since these are already at high levels. There is really only so far we can go before we reach a saturation point. Taxpayers have enough to worry about at present and the government must make the difficult decisions about where those funds will go.

Some of those funds are allocated to day care services. We have restated our commitment to assisting single-parent families and working women. For 1982 and 1983 we will be providing funds for an additional 600 day care spaces in Metropolitan Toronto. The series of initiatives announced in December 1980 is designed to make the day care network more responsive and flexible to individual needs.

Day care must be a partnership among parents, municipalities, employers and the provincial government. The provincial government does not and cannot take full responsibility for providing day care. We believe that a majority of parents can and do make their own private arrangements. We are always prepared to provide financial assistance --

Mr. Elston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I note that the delivery of the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn) on the throne speech is quite good and intriguing, and I can see only 14 members in the House. There are very few members of his own party, and these are important issues we are listening to.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you for the point of order. I will ask the table to check whether there is a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.

11:44 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is present. The member for Lakeshore may continue with his speech.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, we are always prepared to provide financial assistance to parents and families in need. Day care is a service, not a right, and the new leader of the third party recognized this when he said, "Quality day care must be affordable, accessible and universally available."

Like any other social service, day care costs money. We have comprehensive day care and health care systems in Ontario, and we are committed to supporting them. Co-operation with the federal government, municipalities and the community will result in better programs and services for everyone.

In the speech from the throne much mention was made about the automobile industry. The fate of Ontario's largest industry is being decided over the next few months and years. Our province's automotive industry, an industry so large that its success affects one out of five Ontarians, is facing unprecedented challenges.

Around the world, a revolution is taking place in the automotive industry. Trends that became apparent in the mid-1970s have now taken hold and are becoming the new orthodoxy. Today no one questions the strength of Japanese automobile manufacturers. Their success lies in their ability to design products the public wants and to build these products at a low cost. Indeed, the low cost of labour in Japan is hurting automobile manufacturers not just in Ontario but around the world.

Despite this challenge, European auto makers have come up with more effective responses to Japan's low-cost exports. France's state-owned car manufacturer, Renault, is making a strong bid to become one of the leading manufacturers of cars and trucks in the world. Renault is already outshining its French competitors, Peugeot and Citroën.

During 1980. Renault was the only major European or American auto maker to increase production, turning out an unprecedented two million vehicles. Renault has transformed itself from just another manufacturer of compact cars into Europe's number one seller, winning 15 per cent of a highly competitive and fragmented market, bigger than that of the United States.

Renault has achieved these results through skilful use of research and development. The French auto maker is one of the world's leading manufacturers of industrial robots and has widely mechanized its own operations. Approximately three quarters of the robots made by Renault end up in their own factories. Company officials say 4,600 robots are operating in Renault factories, with others in use elsewhere.

The US automotive industry, impressed with Renault's track record, is quickly attempting to catch up with its French competitor. General Motors plans to buy a Renault robot to perform jobs currently accomplished by hand. American Motors, which plans to manufacture US versions of Renault designs, is looking ahead to a production facility employing 16 robots for spot welding.

In the United States, both employees and employers in the automotive industry are scrambling to find a way out of the present market slump and to counter tough Japanese competition. In recent contract agreements American auto workers have been willing to accept wage concessions in return for job security and retraining. US workers believe the writing is on the wall for their industry and are co-operating with management in an attempt to improve productivity.

But in Ontario sales continue to climb for Lada and Japanese auto dealers. The Board of Industrial Leadership and Development committee has already announced the creation of a robotics research centre in Peterborough, but plans for an auto parts technology centre have been stalled by a lack of support from Ottawa. However, the challenges facing Ontario auto makers go beyond the need for government encouragement and involvement.

There are serious questions emerging that can only be faced by Ontario management and labour. What if US auto makers follow Renault's lead and automate plants? Where does that leave Ontario and the auto pact? What if US labour accepts contract concessions? Where does that leave the cost of production in Ontario? What if Canadian automotive unions are wrong about opposing contract concessions? These questions cannot be ignored. The automotive industry has too big an influence on the lives of all of us for the present drift to last much longer.

At this time I am pleased to say a few words on the Ontario Energy Corp. Under the dynamic leadership of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch), I think we have been forging ahead in looking for alternative energy sources.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Do you agree with Suncor?

11:50 a.m.

Mr. Kolyn: I will get to that.

We all know that approximately 50 per cent of all gas and oil used in Ontario is used in the transportation industry and we know we must reduce that figure substantially before 1985.

I am also pleased that the money allocated for hydrogen research and all of the other alternative fuels by this government is being pursued. I had the unique pleasure of attending a plant opening in my riding. The company's name is Emco-Wheaton. It is a subsidiary of Emco, that is, the Empire Brass Co. of London, Ontario, that makes brass fittings and plumbing supplies. This company also makes gasoline pumps and other products for the petrochemical industry.

Emco-Wheaton is a subsidiary company that has been recently started in our area to help convert cars from gas to propane gas. They have a specific carburetor and a specific program. While the cost of converting an average car is approximately $1,400 at this time, a lot of the catering fleets and other truck users are going to this conversion. I would just like to point out that the Ford Motor Co. is putting out a car in 1982 that is fuelled by propane gas, and that is a step in the right direction.

I presume there is no one here in the Legislature at the present time who is driving a vehicle fuelled by propane gas, but I venture to say that by 1985 there will be quite a few of us driving such vehicles, because under the Canada energy agreement Canadians will be paying somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5 a gallon for gas by 1985. I think that people are going to be looking at alternative energy sources, such as propane gas, in a more realistic light. It is true that it is kind of expensive to convert one's car, but at present propane gas is 20 to 30 per cent cheaper than the gasoline we buy. As long as our government is committed not to taxing it any further and to encouraging these changeovers, I think we can be very successful in these energy programs.

Someone asked about my version of Suncor. It is no secret. Those of us who were not here during the Christmas break took speaking engagements. For most of my speaking engagements, I made my little speech and had a question and answer period. Suncor was one of the questions. Certainly I have my reasons for what I think about Suncor and they do not happen to coincide with what a lot of members in this House think, but I never professed to be a follower.

Mr. Bradley: What did you think of the dividends they paid?

Mr. Boudria: Was it a good deal?

Mr. Kolyn: I certainly would like to go over Suncor. I happen to think that Suncor has a lot of potential for us and I want to make a few comments on it.

Mr. Bradley: You will be moving up now.

Mr. Kolyn: Suncor owns and operates a 90,000-barrel-a-day oil refinery in Sarnia. It markets a variety of oil- and gas-based products, such as petrochemicals, lubricants and home heating oils. In addition, we have a lot of service stations and I think that these service stations could really be of tremendous use in selling alternative energy. When I talk about propane gas, there is no reason why in time the Sunoco stations could not be selling propane gas as well as selling regular gas.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Why do you have to buy the company?

Mr. Nixon: There is a Sunoco station open 24 hours a day right near you.

Mr. Kolyn: That is certainly one of the ways --

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is about the worst excuse for buying Suncor --

Mr. Nixon: They are laughing at you.

Mr. Kolyn: They are not really laughing at us. I think we own extensive holdings in the tar sands --

Mr. Bradley: They laughed the day they paid the dividend though.

Mr. Kolyn: Oh, I don't know. The dividends will show in time by the 1985 election. Time will tell. I think we will be in a good position then.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the honourable member would answer a question.

Mr. Kolyn: I am not here to answer questions, but if the member wants to ask me privately later I will be glad to answer.

Mr. Bradley: No, it is good practice for later when you are --

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention that a tar sands plant in Alberta is part of Suncor's holdings. In 1967, this plant was built at a cost of $2 billion. At present this plant is producing approximately 58,000 barrels a day and its replacement cost in today's money is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $8 billion. The technology and the technical data Suncor has accumulated up to this time puts it in good stead for future exploration. Looking at that small part from that point of view, we certainly got a good deal there.

We can debate what else it owns, but I want to say that from a political point of view, I have believed since John Turner's time that we should be energy self-sufficient and should go for that goal. Unfortunately, after Mr. Turner stated it, we did not achieve it by the early 1970s and now Mr. Lalonde has stated we will possibly be there by 1990. I fully concur with him that Canada should and can be oil and energy self-sufficient by that time if we are willing to pay the price.

It is very important. Even though the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries now has a soft market and may be reducing prices, there is no reason why they cannot raise the market price in six months, not by $10 a barrel but by $20. If Canada could become energy self-sufficient by 1990, it would certainly relieve us of the burden of worrying about the Arab sheikhs and their kingdoms. I have stated my position on Suncor. It is a good deal and time will prove it.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in the debate on the second throne speech since I was elected a year ago this very day. It was a sad day last year, generally speaking, for Liberals in Ontario, but I was very lucky and I am grateful to the electors of Prescott-Russell for having elected me to this Legislature.

I would like to pay special tribute not only to the electors of Prescott-Russell but to those people who worked in my campaign. I am very fortunate that with us today in the gallery is Mr. Bill Woods, who was my campaign manager. I would like to pay a special tribute to him. I would like to congratulate my new leader, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), on becoming the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure all members will want to wish him a successful career as Liberal leader and as the future Premier of this province.

I also want to congratulate the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps), the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) and the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), as well as Mr. Richard Thomas of Parry Sound, for their participation in the leadership campaign of the great Liberal Party of Ontario. We are truly blessed as a political party to have people of the calibre of those candidates and I am grateful to be part of such a group. I would also like to congratulate Mr. Robert Rae of the New Democratic Party.

Prior to an in-depth study of the throne speech, let me refresh the members' memories on the constituency of Prescott-Russell. My riding is the easternmost region of Ontario. To the north lies the Ottawa River; to the east, the province of Quebec and, more specifically, the city of Montreal, the second largest French-speaking city in the world; to the south, the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry; and to the west, the cities of Gloucester and Ottawa. Needless to say, this is the most beautiful area of our province.

My constituents are 78 per cent French- speaking and are very proud people. They have that certain joie de vivre for which French Canadians are so famous.

12 noon

M. le Président, mon comté est composé de 19 municipalités dont cinq villages, trois villes et 11 cantons. Prescott-Russell et l'est ontarien sont le berceau de plusieurs mouvements francophones dont l'ACFO, l'Union des cultivateurs franco-ontariens, l'Union culturelle, et plusieurs autres mouvements. Les communautés principales sont Hawkesbury, Orléans, Rockland, Vankleek Hill et Embrun.

M. le Président, j'ai écouté attentivement l'allocution du Lieutenant-Gouverneur, espérant qu'il mentionnerait un programme d'aide aux électeurs, spécifiquement ceux de ma circonscription, mais comme vous le savez, malheureusement, le gouvernement a choisi d'utiliser la plus grande partie du discours à blâmer le palier fédéral pour tous les malaises économiques dont souffre notre province. Je dois dire que je vois d'un très mauvais oeil un gouvernement qui en accuse un autre de gaspiller l'argent des électeurs, et qui choisit, en même temps, de s'acheter un avion à réaction au coût de $10.6 millions, et qui emprunte $650 millions pour l'investir dans une autre province. Oui, en effet, incroyable. Je trouve hypocrite un gouvernement qui dit aux francophones que leurs services seront améliorés, et qui refuse de le répéter en anglais dans le même Discours du trône. Je suis d'avis que c'est l'indice d'un manque de courage, et surtout de bonne volonté.

We heard yesterday from the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) an excellent speech on the need to put more emphasis on high-technology industry. It is commendable to hear a Conservative member -- although it is somewhat debatable whether the member is in fact a Conservative -- talk about high technology and the need for expanding educational facilities and all kinds of services as they relate to that industry.

I had the pleasure earlier in the week, along with some of my colleagues, to visit some of the high-technology industries in the Ottawa area. They have no compliments to give this government for the way it has handled the training of their workers. They are of the opinion this government is to blame for much of the manpower shortage they have now in that industry.

I was happy to learn from the throne speech that the government wants to help our farmers. The pork producers in my area need more than help. With the situation the government has allowed to develop, they need a Messiah.

Last weekend there was report in Today Magazine by Roy MacGregor. This is a story about Mr. Robert Gibbs of my riding, who is now in a situation many farmers have found themselves in. The members will recall I asked a question about this gentleman during question period this morning.

Let me read some of the excerpts from this report. It is called, "Busted by the Banks." It is a grassroots report by Roy MacGregor:

"For two weeks he had put it off. But now, with the first snow tickling his eyes as he hurried from the farrowing barn to the century-old farmhouse, Robert Gibbs knew this December would hold no miracles. Today he would have to tell Derek. He found his five-year-old boy downstairs, lost in cartoons, and at first Derek's eye kept drifting back towards the television where he had first seen and set his eyes on a brown, stuffed monkey known as Monchichi.

"Robert turned off the set and made Derek look at him straight, and when he told the boy that Santa Claus would not be stopping by the Gibbs farm this year, the soft eyes barely blinked. 'That's all right, Dad,' Derek said in his quiet voice. 'I understand.'

"But Robert Gibbs knew Derek did not, not any more than he himself understood. The boy did not return to the fantasy of television. Instead, he took his reality upstairs, quickening as he reached the top steps, and for the next two hours Robert Gibbs sat reading, knowing his youngest child was lying on his bed with his face buried in the pillow. He knew because every so often he could hear the sobs break free of their muffle, the boy already in mourning for Monchichi.

"Robert sat, smoked and stared out the front window, down the laneway and out on to concession road 9, twisting east from St. Isidore de Prescott, not far from the Ontario shore of the Ottawa River. He was on watch. Not for the mail. Not for the plough, though the snow was mounting. He thought this might be the day the bank came to collect on the $24,000 demand note loan that he'd taken out before interest rates began spinning like gas pump readouts.

"The note was not only fully payable on 24 hours' notice from the bank, it was on a floating rate, meaning each month Gibbs was expected to pay whatever the prime interest rate was plus one per cent, a rather difficult feat for someone who was pouring 83 cents into every pound of pork he produced but could only sell for a meagre 61 cents a pound. Every time a finished Gibbs piggy went to market, Robert Gibbs ended up $35 in the hole, causing him to fall one, then two, then three months behind on his bank payments and putting an $8.99 Monchichi as out of reach as a new cultivator.

"A man can mull over such thoughts only so long. It was time to warm up the school bus for the afternoon pickup at Laggan Public. Forty kids to haul over 32 kilometres of back road, most of them running through the cold to the comforting farm houses of eastern Ontario ..." Most of their parents are hog producers who are "reeling under the same assault that Robert Gibbs was himself fending off. On one concession there were already three bankruptcies and endless talk of others to come. One day, Robert Gibbs imagined, he might be driving an empty bus through empty dreams, the final witness to a Canadian way of life.

"At mid-morning the low December sun runs across Gibbs's lane and in through the storm window, warming the inner sill. A housefly stirs in the heat, one wing lifting slowly, pushing, hoping to tip the fly from its back to its feet, to renewed life. Robert Gibbs takes up yet another coffee spoon and measures out his life: the decision, 10 years ago, to buy this 100 acres for $16,500; the five years he continued working in Montreal to afford the necessary repairs to the old house, put in heat and electricity, bring water to the barn; the high prospects he once had of a profitable beef operation; and then, a bit reluctantly, the accident.

"Robert's retired father, George, had a premonition that day, a bitterly cold November afternoon in 1976. He was working on the truck and suddenly felt he should go down towards the far fields where Robert was gathering the last of the feed corn. Robert, however, was already on his way back, driving the tractor across the frozen ruts, naked from the waist down. His pants and underwear had been twisted off by the power-takeoff shaft of the corn picker and when he met his father he calmly pointed back towards the few remaining rows of corn. 'Dad,' he said, I think I left my foot back there.

"He hadn't. He just couldn't see the foot the way it was hanging, from a single muscle, under the foot-rest. They tied a crude tourniquet and made it to Cornwall, where the foot was reattached and, 18 months of therapy later, eventually returned to use. But though the foot was almost normal, the farm was not: steers and equipment had been sold off to make ends meet, and in the end, the switch to less expensive and complicated hog production seemed like the only logical turn to take.

"The outlook for pork was very good, prices up to 90 cents a pound at the market, and costs, four years ago, could be figured out with a pencil rather than a calculator. But best of all, pork had no extra cost tagged on; like beef, it had no quota system, no need for a farmer to buy the right to sell. In pork, he was on his way the moment the first sow entered her stall. Straight down the road to disaster.

"When Robert Gibbs went into hogs he owed a mere $6,000. Today the bank figures he owes nearly $90,000 -- all of it loaned by a system in constant agreement with him that he was not only a good worker and manager but that pork prices couldn't keep falling. Unfortunately, too many had the same idea. The quota-free hog market was glutted. Hog prices drooped like the animal's ears, and stayed low. Loans granted to Robert Gibbs in 1979 at 12 per cent also changed, rising at one point in 1981 to 25.25 per cent. He was working hard, managing with the sophistication required of the times, but he was somehow caught in a stranglehold that he couldn't escape.

12:10 p.m.

'What his friend and fellow hog producer Robert Irwin said seemed to make sense: 'It used to be that young farmers went by a set of rules that always worked. You work hard, and you borrow, and you pay back the money, and you get ahead. Now, somewhere, they've changed the rules.'

"Falling three months behind in the $2,000 a month the bank was expecting, Robert Gibbs's lot was falling to one last hope, and that was the Farm Credit Corp., set up specifically to help farmers with low-interest loans. He applied for a consolidating loan, which would put his debt within manageable bounds, and by year's end was sitting with a formal letter from the FCC confirming that such a loan would be made available to him at the end of 1982. 'That is just fine,' he says over his coffee, 'but the problem is I won't be here by the end of '82.'

"Shyly, from the bedroom above, young Derek slips silently down the worn stairs. He edges to the partition, a single interested eye peeking down at his father. The talk he has heard before, too much this winter. There are carols on the radio, but he knows better than to mention Monchichi again. The coffee grows cold, the sun is lower. The heat vanishes from the sill and the fly grows still, having never regained its footing.

"A few days before Christmas a mailbox along concession 9 opened on a parcel addressed, simply, 'To Derek, from Santa.' Robert and Denise Gibbs, recognizing the postmark as the town of a new acquaintance, peeked inside, just enough to see a small, stuffed monkey smiling out from its plastic cover, and they rewrapped the present and hid it away for Christmas morning. When Derek found it and tore the wrapping off, his eyes grew as big as Monchichi's own. That night when he crawled happily into bed he insisted the present be tucked in beside him. He went to sleep convinced that Santa Claus had somehow heard him.

"Downstairs, Robert Gibbs sat up late, worrying. Unlike Derek, he did not believe in miracles. A week later the Bank of Nova Scotia in Hawkesbury called in his loan. It was over. They were, the bank manager said, doing him a favour."

Such is the story of Robert Gibbs.

This is a story that has been repeated many times in my riding. As I said this morning, we have hardly any pork producers left. The only hope recently was that this government was going to assist in providing slaughterhouse facilities in eastern Ontario. That has now been turned down by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program because "it doesn't qualify."

A few days ago, my leader selected me as the opposition critic for the Ministry of Community and Social Services. I am very grateful for this new challenge bestowed on me. No sooner had I been selected to be the Community and Social Services critic than my phone started to ring, with various groups across the province wanting to tell me about the serious underfunding and the terrible situation this ministry finds itself in. A group from the Children's Listening Centre of North York, which applied to become a children's mental health centre, came to see me in an attempt to get assistance for their very valuable project. A group from Yorkview has been in to see me, and I have also received correspondence from Algoma-Manitoulin. In other words, it is not just a local area. I am glad to see the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) is here.

Allow me to talk about the Algoma-Manitoulin situation. The people in the community of Espanola have been working feverishly to enlarge and update their hospital and to construct senior citizens' care facilities. I am sure the members will know that. In 1980, a resolution was passed in this House urging the government to construct a senior citizens' complex in Espanola. In the last election the project was promised again by the local MPP, and just prior to last Christmas there was again another promise of a senior citizens' complex.

To someone with an untrained political ear it may be assumed that this would mean there would be three senior citizens' complexes in Espanola. Not so. There is none. There is still the promise from the folks who told us they keep the promise. I wonder when they will, or if they ever will. I fear they will not.

In the area of day care, I am especially happy to note that in the throne speech the government is committed to expand day care facilities and to use empty classrooms in schools for such a purpose. I know Madam Speaker Fish would agree with me on this matter.

I am calling upon the government to establish forthwith day care facilities here in Queen's Park. Perhaps an office of one of the Conservative members could be used. Perhaps the Deputy Premier's office would be an excellent spot to have day care facilities for the children here. I am glad to see that the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) is here; I am sure she would concur with that. She is probably looking at plans right now to find where to locate this potential day care centre.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Maybe in her office.

Mr. Boudria: I will agree with that. Her office would be a suitable place.

An hon. member: It's large enough.

Mr. Boudria: It is large enough.

Finally, let us talk about welfare. The welfare rolls in this province seem to be increasing by the minute. In my own area, unemployment has reached crisis proportions and help is needed immediately. It is nearly impossible to survive on the present welfare allowance.

I was asking the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) this morning how he would make ends meet on $218 a month. It is not a question of whether or not those people want to work. How do you find a job in Hawkesbury when something like 15 or 17 per cent of the population is unemployed? Jobs are just not there.

Je voudrais aussi prendre un moment pour parler d'un sujet qui m'est très cher. Il s'agit de l'école française d'Orléans. Comme vous le savez sans doute, Madame le Président, les écoles françaises de la région d'Orléans débordent d'étudiants, et des salles de classe portatives, des édifices en désordre, sont utilisés pour enseigner à nos citoyens de demain. Une fois de plus, la population francophone de l'Ontario s'aperçoit que ce gouvernement de demi-mesure donne au compte-gouttes les services à sa population d'expression française.

Aucune mention n'est faite de cette école dans le Discours du trône. Pourquoi?

Yesterday, my colleague the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) pointed out some of the squandering of public funds that has been engaged in by the Urban Transportation Development Corp. over the past years: the purchase of four homes in Vancouver at $200,000 or $300,000 each for executives of this corporation and the purchase of 26 automobiles for just about everybody and anybody are proof of this mismanagement.

An independent engineer believes that Ontario should abandon the technology used in the development of the rapid transit systems on which the government has already spent $86 million. The president of the Ontario crown corporation, UTDC, says there have been three incidents in the past six weeks at the Kingston test site, where a model linear induction motor has burned out or exploded.

Yesterday, some members suggested that perhaps the explosion was that the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) blew his top when he heard about the purchase of the 26 cars and four homes. As a matter of fact, I think it was my House leader who mentioned that.

12:20 p.m.

Industry sources said the linear induction motor could not handle a power surge caused by a drastic short-to-ground situation. The motor was fitted to a prototype rapid transit vehicle. Brian Caldwell, a UTDC spokesman in Kingston, has confirmed the incident but could not confirm that a hole had been burned in the aluminum third rail, which feeds power to the intermediate capacity transit system vehicle.

In the Legislature, the Minister of Transportation and Communications defended the $86-million investment of the province in UTDC, protesting against the series of stories in one of the Toronto dailies, the Globe and Mail.

All in all, we can say that this is a terrible set of priorities.

Madame le Président, je voudrais discuter un peu d'un sondage d'opinion publique que le gouvernement de notre province a choisi d'entreprendre l'an dernier sur le sujet de la disponibilité des services aux francophones de notre province. Notre gouvernement a posé la question suivante: "Croyez-vous que la protection et la disponibilité des services aux francophones est trop rapide, adéquate ou trop lente?" Le fait même que le gouvernement pose cette question, Madame le Président, est ridicule. Ce serait dire que le gouvernement s'est basé sur un sondage d'opinion publique pour établir le besoin des services de notre minorité francophone. Imaginez-vous ça. Si je peux dresser un parallèle: imaginez-vous un sondage d'opinion publique pour augmenter les taxes afin de construire un pont à Brampton. Pensez-vous que la population serait en faveur?

I will repeat this in English, Madam Speaker, just to make sure all the members understand. I am sure you do, but there may be one or two members who have missed some of the highlights of what I just said.

We have a government here that has decided to hold another one of its famous public opinion polls at the taxpayers' expense. This public opinion poll asks the following question, "Do you believe that the protection and equality of the French-language minority and the availability of services is moving too quickly, at the right pace or too slowly?" I will try to draw an analogy, as I did moments ago in the French language. This is like asking the people of Ontario, "Would you be in favour of increasing taxes so we could build a bridge in Brampton?"

Obviously, if you are asking a majority of people how they feel about expanding facilities for a minority, and then you use that information as the criterion for whether or not you will establish the services, that is dead wrong. It is proof that this government has used this kind of information to divide the population of this province and then to take the side they consider to have the most votes in it rather than to provide the services that are necessary to our francophone population.

This, of course, was referred to yesterday in the House by my very distinguished colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid), who has succeeded in obtaining this information. This must have been a rather difficult feat in itself.

Madame le Président, la population de notre province s'aperçoit que ce gouvernement est fatigué, et elle attend avec impatience la prochaine élection, afin qu'une fois pour toutes, elle puisse nous débarrasser de ce vieux cheval de bataille.

I am very sorry to see that my colleague the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) is not with us at this time to participate in the discussion we are having now, because I am sure that what I said about the priorities of this government and about the way this government has divided this population would have made the member for Cochrane North attempt to cross the floor at this very moment and take up the chair behind me here, beside the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller), which is where the member for Cochrane North should be, anyway. But perhaps he will cross over when we come back in a week or so.

I see my colleagues from the New Democratic Party are coming to life all of a sudden. They have a lot to worry about. The member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) may move and take over this seat before the member for Cochrane North. Anything is possible.

Mr. Ruston: And Robert is not going to run in the byelection in Hamilton.

Mr. Boudria: My colleague the member for Essex North is indicating that the new leader of the NDP --

Mr. Ruston: The phantom leader.

Mr. Boudria: -- the gentleman referred to by my colleague the member for Essex South as the "Limousine Socialist," will not be running in the riding of Hamilton West.

My very distinguished friend, the gentleman who writes for the Toronto Sun, has referred to him as Chicken Bob. Would that be the proper name? In any case, I did not say that and I would never accuse anybody of being cowardly.

This government has done everything except keep the promise, and it is evident to all residents of Ontario that "Davis can't do it." This government has been in power too long, way too long; it is completely devoid of energy, vigour and imagination. But its days are numbered now, and I am sure we in the Liberal Party will cross the floor in 1984; we will give to this province new energy and vitality, and we will lead this province once again into an era of prosperity that it once knew.

Mr. Breaugh: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join in this throne speech debate on Friday morning when the galleries are jammed with the citizens of Ontario, hanging on every word, the press gallery is full in an attempt to provide to the people of Ontario full information, and all honourable members are in here and some are even awake. It is a wonderful opportunity for the members to participate.

Interjection.

Mr. Breaugh: I did not mean to wake the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg). I am sorry. He should go back to sleep. There is a rule that if you cannot find your own seat, you cannot make interjections, but I do not want to push the member because I know it is Friday and tough for him.

I want to make a few remarks about the throne speech, some of the things that were contained in it and some of the things that were not.

There is one area in which I noticed a definite decline in influence in this throne speech. I suppose it is quite understandable that a government that is not terribly concerned about its population until an election is around the corner would forget about, a year after an election, things like health and safety for workers in the work place. It is a very complicated field, one that was the subject of much debate in this Legislature, and we thought, as I suppose we did with our environmental laws and things of that nature, that in legislative terms we had put together a good package.

Some of our laws on health and safety and on the environment look good from a legislative point of view. What seems to be missing, though, are all the nuts and bolts that come from a government that has a commitment to do some of the things it talks about. That is what is missing from this throne speech. That is why things like the controversy over video display terminals continues, even in offices that are run by the government, by a ministry.

It seems to me that a minister such as the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) ought to be meticulous in seeing that laws are respected, not just to the letter of the law but to the intent of the law. I cannot fathom how one can have an Attorney General, who is committed to the preservation of law and order in Ontario, as I suspect this one really is, but who manages to have in his own ministry's offices something that is clearly running contrary to a law in Ontario. Whether or not it violates the letter of the law -- which it may not; that part is debatable -- it certainly does violate the intent of the health and safety laws in Ontario, and that part is not debatable. I cannot understand how we could have an Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) so righteous as he was earlier today about certain allegations that were made, yet he is not very conscientious about applying health and safety legislation to his own ministry staff.

12:30 p.m.

I think there was some mention in the throne speech about employment. If we were to ask people on the streets today what their major concern is, I think most people would be able to talk about people in their family currently out of work, or at the very least in communities like mine about people in their family who are concerned about the stability of their jobs.

For example, a job at General Motors may be something a lot of people have had for 15 or 20 years. Through that time period there have been good times and bad times, but the one strength of it all has been long-term job stability. That is no longer the case. In almost all the families in our community there is at least one person who is out of work. In almost all these families there is that general feeling, that malaise, that they cannot be too sure a job they have counted on for a lengthy period of time will still be there six months from now.

They already know that job, that source of income, will be interrupted regularly. Since about October of last year, almost every week we have had announcements from perhaps the world's largest and most successful corporation that it will have a substantial number of layoffs. It has been a common sight in Oshawa for more than six or eight months now to have at any one period of time from 4,000 to 6,000 or 7,000 people on temporary layoff.

The backup, or the thing they rely on, is the use of the word "temporary." We have not had the massive permanent layoffs that other auto- producing communities have had. But after one has been given that week's layoff the first time, then the second time, and now into the third round of layoffs, one begins to get worried about whether this word "temporary" is something that really means just a week or so or whether it really means that the status of one's job is being challenged.

There is also some lunacy involved in this which is not just true of Oshawa and the General Motors plant there, but also true of Chrysler plants in Windsor and Ford in Oakville. In the midst of an economic depression, layoffs and termination of jobs, there are plants working overtime. That is the phenomenon of the car industry. When the production lines roll, they want to maximize that, and even if they roll for short periods of time, one is prepared to work overtime one week because the company will have layoffs the next week. They are worried about their stock-piling process.

That brings me to another thing I find interesting. Ontario has traditionally ignored the whole auto industry. Three or four years ago in this House one could not get any of the ministries over there interested in talking about the auto sector. They did not want to talk about auto parts, the auto pact or production and assembly here. The auto industry was just the backbone of the industrial sector in the whole province and they just took that as some kind of God-given right.

I suppose they never believed for a moment that somebody in some other part of the world could successfully challenge the Canadian auto industry, which in large measure is the Ontario auto industry. Yet through all that time period everybody was saying: "It just cannot happen here. There will always be a certain number of people who will buy those funny-looking little foreign cars, but by and large, North Americans want Chevs, Pontiacs, Fords and Chryslers."

Then the sad thing happened. Over that period when the government assumed that the base for the industrial sector was there, permanent and untouchable, that base was eroded. Slowly but surely the price of energy, the cost of the machine itself and the operating costs took their toll until suddenly we woke up and found this year that the sale of import vehicles has been taken to a record high.

Nearly 34 per cent of the market is now made up of the type of automobile we used to consider a freak. I remember when the Volkswagen bug came out and people said: "That is really a funny-looking little car. Who would ever buy it? It is not a real car." Well, those funny little cars now occupy more than a third of all sales of automobiles. The big cars, the ones we have traditionally produced -- in fact, the ones we are still producing -- were considered to be the real automobiles. The problem is that the real automobile, so to speak, is not selling very well any more. There is a market for it, that is true, but we are now realizing that we have to get a North American auto industry that is competitive with offshore imports.

A lot of people talk about protectionism, and I am one of them, because there is a need in a crisis period such as the one we are in to realize that we are talking about people's lives, jobs and families. We have to set aside for a moment all of the economic costs that are going to be built into this system that we live in, because if people are unemployed for a lengthy period of time they will sooner or later find themselves on the welfare roles. We will find them in the social assistance programs at a time when this government says we are going to have to put a cap on all of those things and we are going to have to stop expanding those programs.

I have learned from my personal conversations with people who work for social service agencies in my area that they are seeing a strange phenomenon. They are seeing tough, hardened, industrial workers, people who may not have said very kind things about people who would take welfare assistance even six months ago, needing social assistance. They are seeing these same people who have worked all of their lives, who have been independent, tough, worked long hours and bargained hard in their unions for a decent day's wage, coming in now for social assistance. Their lives are shattered. They do not know how to deal with this.

These are the kinds of people who live around my neighbourhood. They thought one got a job and worked hard at that job. If one bargained hard through the union for a decent day's pay, that is all life was about.

A lot of them do not understand. They just do not comprehend what it means to be without a job, without long-term security, because a worker in the auto industry understands that it is cyclical in nature. Sometimes they will build an automobile which is a great seller and they will go through a boom period as we did in Oshawa with our truck plants over the last three or four years. Then they understand there will be great drain periods when the vehicles that are made in their plant are not selling, when there is a glut on the market, but at least in Ontario's history it has been traditional that the cycle will be repeated and that a new model will sell.

What is different about these days in the auto industry is that there seems to be growing understanding that is not the way it is going to go this time. We will have to completely retool our industry. We will have to redesign our vehicles. We will have to go into competition with a group of producers that have a different set of circumstances at work for them. That is very difficult for something as massive as the auto industry to understand. Even if they do understand, and it strikes me now they comprehend what the problem is, they just do not have the capacity to turn around overnight, so there will be a need to provide them with some protection over the next few years.

I was pleased to see that the government has finally understood the problem, if not the solution. It talks about encouraging some kind of an 85 per cent value-added quota system. It strikes me that there are a lot of other things they have to consider as well. If we were to follow just what other car-producing nations do, we would probably say, "There is a cap of 10, 11 or 12 per cent on quotas." If we had any brains in our heads, we would probably say: "We are prepared to negotiate some kind of formula of around 100 per cent value added. If you want to import vehicles into our country, if you want to sell them here and our people want to buy them, that is fine, but you get your parts from this country and assemble those vehicles here." Whether the thing is in name an offshore vehicle or not, the job market in the auto industry in this country at least comes out even to where it was before.

That is not an easy thing to do and it must be particularly difficult for this government which traditionally has just assumed that the auto industry is there, healthy and strong. It must be difficult for this government to turn around now and understand that whether it likes it or not and whatever name it wants to go by, it has to intervene in that marketplace for its own survival, if for no other reason, because without question the auto industry is the base for taxation for this province.

There are those interesting developments in this particular throne speech. There is at least some kind of final recognition that Ontario is beginning to understand that it just cannot sit back and let somebody else do all of this work, that it must be a participant. Whether it is reluctant or not, it has to intervene in that sector as well. It does that in a number of other places.

I have always wondered at the mentality of this government, which talks so strongly from time to time about being a free-enterprise political party and yet has so consistently over its history intervened in the economy. How does it pretend that it is a free-enterprise government and then run Ontario Hydro? One gets into the interesting argument: "We do not really run Hydro. We set the thing up and fund it, but we have nothing to do with it."

12:40 p.m.

This government has come around to some small degree to understand what it must do. Is it prepared to do what it has to do? It is sad to say that every time someone points out to them something they could do, an area they could move into, whether it is building diesel engines or whatever, they always seem to have a weird and wonderful way of participating.

Who asked them to buy part of an American- based oil company? I do not know. Why would that be the priority purchase? Not that there is anything particularly wrong, but what is wrong with Canadian oil companies? What is wrong with Canadian industry? What is wrong with Ontario industry? Why is the government of Ontario not prepared to move in and support those things?

They have developed this fantastic little system of grants and loans and things like that. Every time you look at the detail of one of those proposals it really is difficult to ask yourself: "Just how rational is this? What did the people of Ontario get out of this involvement?" Very often we do not get anything.

At the other end we very often see showbiz at work: a Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, a new high-technology centre, all of which sound good, I am sure, to a great many people, except when we start to look at the nitty-gritty of it all, just exactly what did it do?

I want to bring members one little example of this in my own area. We have a harbour facility in Oshawa that serves the region of Durham. For some years now it has been the centre of quite a bit of controversy about how it will be developed and what it will do. A lot of plans were put forward. It is run by a federal agency and federal agencies, as we all know, are given to grandiose schemes, most often at the expense of common sense. They drew up a plan costing in the neighbourhood of $10 million to $12 million to redevelop the harbour in Oshawa. It would affect a piece of the environment that I think is worth preserving, which is called the Second Marsh. We went through all of this: little plans, they are great ones for developing plans; models of the new harbour as it would be; costing arrangements.

As part of all of this, Ontario said it would love to participate in that. It just happened about a year ago today -- this is the anniversary of one of Ontario's greatest disasters -- that the government in the middle of an election decided it had to participate in that one. That is a hot one; that has all the show business there. After all, they have a nice model, they have plans, and it is in the middle of an election. "We ought to make some promises to do something in that regard," they said and they did.

They participated in the funding of a little roll-on, roll-off system. I think about $1.5 million went into that. It is a project that I think has some long-term potential but may have some short-term problems. Since they plunked their money in there, it has turned out that it has had those short-term problems. I am told that this wonderful system that we invested $1.5 million in has put about five or six vehicles across the lake in the course of the last year, and that is kind of expensive.

The whole master plan for the harbour is sitting there and the province is saying, "We will kick in $10 million if the federal government kicks in the remainder of the cost." In the middle of all this, people like the longshoremen are standing around asking: "Why can't we get lights fixed so we can work on the dock at night? Why can't we get the holes in the dock paved? Why can't we put up a shed to shelter material coming off the ships?"

So they put together their own little proposal, which cost probably about $1 million. Do members think we could find somebody around here who is prepared to participate in that? The government is prepared to throw away money in a grandiose scheme that is probably not necessary and certainly has not been proven to be necessary. They are prepared to do that, but are they prepared to do something for about 10 per cent of the cost of this grandiose scheme, something which is an immediate need, which would provide some job stability at the Oshawa harbour, which would provide a facility that is modest in size, it is true, but for which there is already a proven need?

I should have anticipated what would be in the throne speech because when I wrote to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) about this particular proposal in December 1981, it really came back to what he had said before: "All of this is a federal responsibility, not ours." He was not saying that 10 months earlier. In the middle of an election, he was quite happy to participate in the developments around the Oshawa harbour.

What happened between March and December to cause him to lose his enthusiasm for it? In his letter to me, dated December 9, he really says, "It is not my responsibility now." I suppose it may be an argued that we should have elections at least once a year in this province if that is a way of getting a little more responsibility in the system.

A lot of people have said, as we did today, that it makes sense to have an extension of a transit system because of the many people in the commutersheds around Metropolitan Toronto. I do not hesitate to remind the House that these people are there because the Ontario government in the early and mid-1970s said, "We want these people out of the city." Perhaps they said that for planning reasons or because they had friends in the development industry. I do not know the reason but they did say that.

They said it to me when I sat on the regional council of Durham and on the city council in Oshawa. From time to time they told us, "You are going to have a lot of heavy development." The town of Newcastle has a spanking new sewage treatment system that is a dandy. It was built on advice from the province and it cost us about $10 million. The only problem with it is that it is not hooked up to anything; it just sits there in the middle of a field. It is new, it is nice, and certainly it is clean because there is nothing going through it.

In the region of Durham one will see the North Pickering airport, which is now a collection of barns with funny slogans painted on them. One will also see the North Pickering community project, another great scheme which came out of this government in the mid-1970s. It is not even a little information office any more; even that has been abandoned. Now we have a population there of which the substantial number of 22,000 to 23,000 commute into downtown Toronto.

The price of energy and interest rates is driving the costs up to where it hurts people who have to commute every day. It seems logical to those of us who live in the area to have a rail transit system. There are train tracks with trains on them, empty trains even, between that region and Toronto. It seems logical that we should have a GO rail system from downtown Toronto to somewhere around Oshawa, Whitby, Bowmanville or wherever it is convenient to establish a rail terminal. It is not as though there are no existing rail terminals; there are. There seems to be no reason for not providing GO rail service.

However, in the wonderful way in which governments work, this government cannot provide that service without first having reports. They report to themselves and gather in reports from other people. This particular project now has -- I understand it is on the minister's desk -- a report from the great federal agency, Canadian National, which I understands wants Ontario to rebuild the entire track system, put in another track, build a few bridges and do a few other things, probably at a cost of $65 million or $70 million, before the process of providing a GO rail service can begin.

It is hard for people to understand that when they see empty trains. One would reasonably assume that the existing tracks could be used on which to run the commuter trains. I am sure if a group of citizens in Oshawa went to CN and said, "We would like to charter a train every day," CN would probably find that those tracks are now okay to handle those trains, even though GO trains cannot run on them.

Mr. T. P. Reid: CN is a nationalized service.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. Which government nationalized CN in the first place? Was that Sir John A. or was it you guys?

Mr. T. P. Reid: I don't know, but it is one of your favourites; it is nationalized. Doesn't it operate the way you like?

Mr. Breaugh: No, it does not. There are a lot of things that do not operate the way I like.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That does away with the reason for your party then, doesn't it?

Mr. Breaugh: I am not sure about that. I am not sure whether I am dealing this morning with a Communist heckler, a Liberal heckler, a Socialist heckler or a free enterprise heckler. That is the trouble.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Liberal-Labour, please.

Mr. Breaugh: That is another variety. The federal member who made a very interesting speech describing the Liberal Party probably does not even know that a Liberal-Labour Party exists within the Liberal Party. I read in Hansard what he said in a speech about their being Communists, Socialists or businessmen when necessary, but he missed the Liberal-Labour Party. It seemed to me his speech could have been shortened somewhat if he had just described his party as a cesspool.

12:50 p.m.

I want to leave the local things and talk about this Legislature. In the federal Parliament over the last little while, there have been some rather significant events. In the weird and wonderful way in which legislatures and parliaments around the world work, one gets impasses such as the federal Parliament just had. In committee in the past week we have discussed whether it would be possible that this kind of monumental stupidity could actually happen here. It appears that it could, and that means it probably will.

That is so despite the fact that we at least have had a standing committee on procedural affairs which has met regularly over the past six or seven years since it was started. Although the federal House has had a procedural committee for a lengthy period of time, it has not had a meeting for a couple of years and did not even meet during the crisis.

We have talked a great deal about trying to bring this House into a system of committees, rules and electronic Hansard that would help individual members to be participants in the process rather than just observers. We have tabled reports and resolutions, we have had joint committee meetings and we have gone through just about everything there is to go through.

We have been unable to make many changes. We have changed the standing orders a fair bit, mostly in a housekeeping way, but the recommendations in Dalton Camp's report, the Morrow report and the procedural affairs committee report all sit on the shelf awaiting the pleasure of this House. I suppose many members have not even found them on the shelf, let alone read them.

The last crisis in the federal Parliament should have pointed out to the members here that there is a need for a parliament, like any other organization, periodically to renew itself, to take a look at what it is doing, to challenge that premise to see whether that is a sensible thing to do. In a parliament, one of the first things one runs up against is: "We always did it that way. This is the way it is done somewhere else. This is the tradition of the House."

I want to point out that it was the tradition of the federal House that got it into hot water over the last little while. It is a simple tradition, and probably a sensible one, that when the whips come in for a vote, they do one another the courtesy of waiting until all whips are present. In this instance, the Progressive Conservative whip took what one calls a "hike." He did not bother to show up for a couple of weeks.

In the middle of that crisis, did the House leaders meet with one another? Did the political leaders of the nation sit down at a table over a beer, a coffee or smoked salmon and say, "Let us resolve this problem"? No. Did the House leaders, who are responsible for organizing the business of the House, meet? No. Did the whips try to get together? No.

Over in one corner was one House leader having his press conference, in another corner was the other House leader having his and in another corner was the third party represented by its House leader commenting on what the other two were doing. None of them had the presence of mind to sit down at the same place at the same time.

We went over our standing orders the other day in committee and, quite frankly, there is nothing on the books here which says that when an impasse is reached there is an obligation on the part of certain people to sit down and resolve the impasse. We could very well have precisely the same thing happen here as happened in the federal House. Out of all the work we do in the next little while, we might resolve that one.

The federal Speaker was put in an awkward position because she attempted to deal with the matter as a procedural matter and, of course, looking at it from that point of view, there was not a thing in the world Mme Sauvé could do to resolve that problem. It really was a political problem.

What it points out is that no matter what one does, no matter which side of the House one is on, if one's actions do not seem to other honourable members to be reasonable in nature, if one really does not want the business of the House to proceed, one will find some procedural tactic that will grind it to a halt.

Government members may say: "We will solve that one. We will not let the bells ring more than 10 hours." It can probably get everybody back in here, but they will find another device or repeat the same device. That is the point people often miss.

It is true that a parliament is a forum for debate and for processing, in this case, the province's business. I think there is an obligation on our part to see that process is of a realm that is sensible in 1982, that we retain all the traditions so that our pages go around in costumes that are not quite what my kid wears at home and that the officers of the table wear clothes that I would not normally wear on the street.

There is nothing wrong with retaining all those traditions of a parliament, but when the organization and the process that the members are forced to use is stupid -- and we all recognize it as being stupid; I think that is a reasonable statement to make -- then we ought to sit down and sort it all out again.

That could be done by taking a report on committees and dealing with it instead of talking about it or by putting in an electronic Hansard. It always seems to me to be insane that I can go home and watch Oshawa city council on my television set in my living room and I can watch the federal Parliament from my living room, but it seems that Ontario's Legislature is not worthy of that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Which does the member watch?

Mr. Breaugh: I am a bit of a freak. I do watch city council and I do watch late at night. I do not understand this, and my wife criticizes me for it. At the end of a long day here, I am one who goes home and watches the federal question period on television.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Comic relief.

Mr. Breaugh: It gives me a sense of purpose in life, because I am sometimes dismayed with the question period in this House as being akin to a loony bin. Then I watch the federal question period and somehow I feel better about it. We are not quite as bad after all.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member is blaming it on the feds again.

Mr. Breaugh: I always sympathize with those who are disturbed and have problems of that nature.

In the last couple of minutes, I want to say something about a few things I see happening which I did not see much about in the throne speech.

There seems to be a big argument going on in this nation about which the public is not too aware because the public is not there; most members of this Legislature are not aware of this because they are not there either. For the past two or three years there has been a long and, I take it, expensive series of negotiations among civil servants from all the provinces and from that mass of people who work for the federal civil service. They have been arguing about established programs financing, block funding, transfer payments or changes in responsibilities for programs.

All of this is an incredibly complex piece of business. Very rarely does it surface in newspapers. Once in a while Monique Bégin will say, "If the doctors in Ontario do not shape up, we are going to cut off some of your money there," but only a little tip of the iceberg shows.

Those negotiations are continuing. In the process, Ontario is saying to many of its municipalities in specific areas and to all of them in general: "Wait a minute. We are going to have to put a halt to some of the money that flows to municipalities to run social programs and hospitals, to build streets, to do all of the stuff that provinces and municipalities do."

In the past couple of years, the government has put the brakes on. There is the argument about whether the government actually cut back or whether it just held firm or whatever it did. The end result is that the municipalities now are in a bit of a bind, some of them more and more so because they took a lot of development over the past few years.

We are now seeing legislation before this House -- it was not mentioned in the throne speech; I thought it was an interesting piece -- that will authorize municipalities to get into the hospital funding business, something that has not been clear over the years. We are going to see some expansion of that concept.

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

The House adjourned at 12:59 p.m.

19 mars 1982