Journal des débats 1984-avril-02 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today two initiatives that are important steps in my ministry's efforts to maintain the high quality of drinking water in Ontario. One involves a new public interest component that will play a significant role in dealing with key water quality issues. The second is a significant step forward in our scientific research program.

Since my appointment last July I have been meeting, talking with and listening to people who are active in Ontario's environmental public interest groups. Throughout this dialogue I have been extremely impressed not only by their sincerity and dedication but also by their expertise and capability.

The people I have dealt with from groups such as Pollution Probe, Operation Clean Niagara and the Canadian Environmental Law Association are rendering a valuable service to the people of Ontario in their efforts to protect water quality in the Niagara River, Lake Ontario and elsewhere in the Great Lakes. I believe the Ontario environment will benefit from a closer working relationship between the special interest groups and my ministry. Accordingly, I plan to invite officials of these organizations to nominate representatives to serve with staff of my ministry on a new public interest committee on drinking water quality.

The resources available from public interest groups are as valuable in their own way as the considerable research expertise we obtain from private companies and the academic community. Working together, I believe these groups and ministry staff can do a better job of providing the public with clearly defined and accurate information on Ontario's drinking water quality and water quality protection programs.

The research initiative I mentioned earlier involves the awarding of a $1-million contract over a three-year period to MacLaren Plansearch Inc. to operate the Niagara Falls pilot-scale water treatment plant as a comprehensive facility to test activated carbon filters and other treatment methods. For the duration of the three-year study program, water from this pilot plant will be used for analysis and research.

This contract is being awarded after an intensive review of proposals submitted by six companies. A scientific steering committee of federal, provincial and American environmental and health experts was assembled to review the proposals.

Our aim in the study is to identify the most cost-efficient and effective treatment technology, should it be necessary to enhance the treatment systems now in use throughout Ontario. I emphasize that the methods currently used by my ministry and our municipalities already provide a very high level of protection for the quality of Ontario's drinking water.

This research project has three components: first, the evaluation of conventional treatment in removing contaminants; second, the development of improved analytical techniques for detecting trace organic contaminants; and, third, the evaluation of the activated carbon filtration and other treatment processes in removing these contaminants.

Results from the program will be evaluated by a committee comprising staff from the Ministry of the Environment and the federal Department of National Health and Welfare, as well as a panel of internationally recognized water experts.

I will continue to draw on the best expertise and advice available from all quarters -- from the private sector, from government, from the scientific community and from our public interest groups -- to ensure the highest possible level of protection necessary to maintain the high quality of drinking water in Ontario.

YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a matter I know is of interest and concern to many members of this House. This is the implementation of the Young Offenders Act.

As honourable members know, the Young Offenders Act is the new federal legislation which deals with young persons aged 12 to 17 who commit offences against federal statutes. The new act is intended to hold young persons more accountable for their behaviour, while recognizing they have special needs as persons not fully mature. The act was passed in the House of Commons in July 1982 and is being proclaimed today.

The Young Offenders Act, which will apply throughout Canada, has been the subject of long and protracted discussions between the provinces and territories on the one hand and the government of Canada on the other. These discussions have dealt with both the substance of the act and the need for adequate cost sharing to meet the significant additional costs the act imposes on each province.

Despite persistent efforts to try to achieve an equitable cost-sharing agreement, Ontario today finds itself with a responsibility to implement and administer the act without such an agreement in place. I might add it is my understanding that only one province has signed a cost-sharing agreement with the federal government. This is the case, despite the fact that since 1976 and earlier we have repeatedly stated that a reasonable level of cost sharing would have to be provided by the federal government if the provinces were to be able to meet the expectations the legislation has created.

The very real and serious concerns of the provinces and territories have been consistently communicated to the government of Canada. In September 1983 the Premier (Mr. Davis), as chairman of the Premiers' annual conference, wrote to Prime Minister Trudeau to convey the unanimous view of the provinces that a satisfactory cost-sharing agreement should be concluded before proclamation of the Young Offenders Act.

In replying to the Premier, Mr. Trudeau said, "I am confident a satisfactory agreement can be reached prior to proclamation, thus facilitating the timely implementation of the Young Offenders Act in a manner consistent with our respective constitutional responsibilities in this area."

The provinces and territories were again unanimous in the view that the federal cost-sharing proposal was substantially inadequate when the matter was discussed at a meeting of federal-provincial ministers in Montreal in late February 1984. It must be recognized that the Young Offenders Act imposes substantial new costs on every province's justice system at a time when we are all facing both severe constraints and many other demands for increased services.

It is estimated, for instance, that under the Young Offenders Act operating costs for this part of the justice system here in Ontario could increase to $163 million a year. Under that proposal the federal contribution would cover only about one third of those costs. The capital cost of providing additional court and custodial facilities is estimated to be about $65 million. The federal cost-sharing offer provides no direct funds for capital costs.

2:10 p.m.

Ontario is most concerned that an inadequate cost-sharing agreement will undermine the very reforms the Young Offenders Act is supposed to produce. We will continue, therefore, to try to reach a more satisfactory funding agreement.

Notwithstanding its concern to ensure adequate sharing of the costs imposed on the province by this legislation, Ontario has long supported the intent and philosophy of the act. We are, therefore, moving immediately to take all necessary steps to comply with the requirements of the act. These actions, of course, must be taken in a series of stages.

Steps have already been taken to deal with those sections of the Young Offenders Act which come into force immediately in Ontario, namely, those pertaining to 12-to-15-year-olds. Other necessary measures will be taken later this year to ensure the effective implementation of the act for 16- and 17-year-olds as of April 1, 1985.

Legislation enacted last December to deal with provincial offences by young persons and to designate the youth courts is proclaimed in force today. Orders in council have been issued to enable designation of provincial directors, youth workers and places of detention and custody, as required by the Young Offenders Act. This will be followed by further legislation, which will be introduced in the House in the next few days. This legislation is largely of a housekeeping nature. For example, it will repeal existing statutes where they are made inoperative by the Young Offenders Act.

This additional legislation will also clarify the authority of the police to apprehend young persons under 12 who are engaged in behaviour which would constitute an offence if the young person were over 12 years of age. It will maintain current practice by providing for the police to return the child under 12 years of age to his or her parents wherever possible. If this cannot be accomplished in a reasonable period of time, it will provide for the police to take the child to a place designated according to the provisions of the Child Welfare Act.

Young offenders in Ontario will continue to be served by the ministries best able to meet their needs at this time. This will mean that, while all young offenders will receive the same services, these services will be delivered by more than one ministry.

As noted earlier, the Young Offenders Act will require Ontario to raise its maximum age, effective April 1, 1985. This will mean that young offenders will range in age from 12 years to 17 years, inclusive. Honourable members will be aware that for several years now the services related to detention and custody of young persons aged 12 to 17 have been delivered by two ministries. The Ministry of Community and Social Services has provided these services to young persons aged 15 years and younger; the Ministry of Correctional Services has been responsible for these services to 16- and 17-year-olds.

It is our intention to continue to build on the strength and experience of both these ministries in implementing the Young Offenders Act. This administrative distribution of responsibility has served young offenders well, and it is not our intention to change it at this time. All necessary measures have been taken to ensure an integrated and consistent approach to the planning and delivery of all services for young offenders.

Honourable members will be pleased to know that staff members of the ministries of Correctional Services, Community and Social Services, the Solicitor General and the Attorney General have been working together for many months now to prepare for the implementation of the Young Offenders Act in this province.

A tremendous amount of work has already been done. In addition to the various measures outlined earlier in this statement, extensive training and orientation have been undertaken for all relevant personnel to ensure their ability to implement not only the letter of the new law but also the spirit of that law.

Having said this, we acknowledge that more needs to be done. Once the act has been in effect for a period of time, we will be in a position to assess our current systems and organizational agreements and to review potential alternatives.

In closing, I think we can all commend the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) and the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk) for their joint efforts to ensure an integrated and consistent approach to the correctional treatment of young persons under the Young Offenders Act.

Speaking on behalf of these honourable ministers and of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor), I can assure members we are prepared to meet the challenges the Young Offenders Act presents and to see it enhance the very fine justice system this province already possesses.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB SECURITY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Page 5 of the throne speech stated: "The upturn of a severe business cycle will alleviate much of the hardship our people have experienced. Nevertheless, without responsible leadership and co-operative action, it cannot assure just and secure growth with decent opportunities for all our citizens."

I refer the Premier to the specific figures on industrial layoffs in this province. To refresh his memory, this year we have had permanent closures of 331 jobs in February, 380 in March and 411 in April, and it was announced in January that a further 434 jobs would be lost some time in the course of this year.

Now that he has been fully informed of the moves of Shell Canada, will the Premier bring this House up to date on what he is doing to provide responsible leadership and co-operative action to protect those jobs in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there has been some communication with Shell. There will be more tomorrow. I am not at liberty to disclose the discussions at this moment.

Mr. Peterson: With respect to the ongoing question of loss of jobs in Ontario, would the Premier bring this House up to date on his discussions with Inco? The company is now suggesting it will cut 490 jobs from Port Colborne. What responsible leadership and co-operative action is he providing to maintain those jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) has been dealing directly with this matter of Inco, which does not fall within the category the Leader of the Opposition is referring to. I am sure the Minister of Labour would be delighted to inform the House of all the knowledge he has about it. I suggest the member ask him.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to meet the senior officials of Inco on this matter on Thursday last week. It is devastating news, but it has been brought about by the worldwide nickel situation and has nothing to do with the circumstances here. On the world market, Inco is producing its product at much higher cost than it is able to sell it for. It is a part of continuing rationalization by Inco in an attempt to get the company back into a profitable situation.

We are having continuing meetings with Inco officials. There will be one tomorrow. We also plan to meet with representatives of the United Steelworkers to make sure everything possible that can be done will be done for the workers dislocated by this severance.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can explain, if he was told on Thursday, why it was that when the president of the local in Port Colborne, Ray Moreau, went into the company, having heard rumours that something was going on, he was told on Thursday that absolutely nothing was in the works? It was not until Friday that the company completely reversed itself and told him about the layoffs. Can the minister explain why the union and the workers involved, the people who are being laid off, have been kept totally in the dark about what was happening?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, there is a logical and reasonable explanation for that. The company wanted the opportunity to speak to labour leaders, management personnel and workers all at one time. It wanted to be able to tell them the facts in an orderly fashion rather than make a premature announcement, which would have led to all sorts of speculation and other problems.

When Inco officials came to see me on Thursday, they asked that the information they gave me be of a confidential nature until they had that opportunity to communicate properly with their workers.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I also want to keep in line with the spirit of the throne speech. My question relates to the economic challenge of long-term employment.

I was rather shocked at the news the other day that 490 persons would be permanently unemployed at the Inco operations in Port Colborne. I had some discussions with the person who gave the release and he based his knowledge on the marketing of nickel.

I thank the minister for sending expert staff into that area, particularly as it relates to the pensions in question and the transfer of employees to other Inco operations in Manitoba and Ontario.

Why are we selling Inco nickel worldwide for American dollars? If we must remain competitive in the world market, why is nickel not sold at the value of the Canadian dollar? Then we can be competitive.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to disagree with the honourable member opposite, but I do not think that is the case at all. From the various briefings I have had on Inco, not only this past week but also over the past two years, it is my understanding that is not the case. I will be happy to get the information for the member. Whether it is in Canadian or US funds, Inco is still not competitive in the world market.

ASSISTANCE FOR SENIORS AND DISABLED PERSONS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. He will be aware that the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) has finally promised to move with respect to the single elderly. Now, a single elderly person receives on the order of $622 a month minimum in Ontario. That still leaves a glaring inequity in the social programs of this province.

I am referring specifically to someone who is on a disability pension under the Family Benefits Act. That single disabled person will receive $382 a month. The provincial secretary will realize no one can live reasonably on that amount. As the provincial secretary responsible, when is he going to move on this glaring inequity?

Hon. Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will know the record of this government is exemplary in extending social programs from year to year. I refer him to the recent steps taken regarding increases in allowances and pensions to various classes of people. I ask that he give the government an opportunity to bring forth the budget proposals so he will more clearly know our intentions for the future.

Mr. Peterson: The provincial secretary learned how to answer questions from the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch). What is he telling us? Surely he must be aware of the fact that there is a glaring inequity, not only in terms of the amount of money but in terms of the procedures as well.

The provincial secretary is aware that someone qualifies at the age of 18 for a disability pension. If a person applies for the pension prior to the age of 18, they tell him to wait until he is 18. When he applies on his 18th birthday, it sometimes takes up to six months to get that disability pension because of bureaucratic red tape. Indeed, the Hamilton branch of the Ontario March of Dimes, with which the minister will be familiar, reports this often happens in the case of the psychologically disabled. There is no retroactivity in the payments.

Parsimonious as it is, why is the system so slow to respond to those people in need?

Hon. Mr. Dean: To begin with, I thank the member for comparing me with the Deputy Premier, whose skill at answering --

Mr. Peterson: He has never accomplished a thing in his life.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Dean: With respect, I do not think that is a fair or truthful comment on the competence of the Deputy Premier. Although the member's blandishments in flattering me by comparing me to the Deputy Premier are noted, I will not allow them to colour my answer to his question.

I think the member would have to agree that the best way the freedom and the actual exposition of the policies we believe in so well here can best be exemplified is by the quotation of a poem I am sure he is familiar with, which I will spare the member, to the effect that, "Freedom slowly broadens down."

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, that was quite a bizarre answer from the minister.

Mr. Martel: Could he give us another one of those?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough West has the floor.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, although the provincial secretary is new to his post, surely he understands that the handicapped people of this province are living in poverty, most of them below any poverty line we know. Eighty per cent of those who wish to work are unemployed at this point, and his government has not acted to assist them with the extra costs they have.

How does one deal with the fundamental inequity of the fact that a single older person is going to be old for the rest of his life and a handicapped person is going to be handicapped for the rest of his life, yet there is an enormous discrepancy between what they are supposed to live on as the basic lowest income we expect for each of those groups?

Why is the minister not going to move immediately to make sure they are at least brought to the basic senior citizens' level and perhaps a little higher because of the extra costs that handicapped people have to incur?

Hon. Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered that question in a general way in response to the previous question. But let me inform the House, and particularly the member for Scarborough West, that the government for some years has had the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped, of which the member is probably aware. This council has been very representative of the disabled people in the province and has given good advice to the province, some of which has been implemented and much of which is under active consideration at this time.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the provincial secretary that we are not talking about a handful of people here; we are talking about more than 68,000 individuals in this province. I want to remind him further that we did not have to wait until the budget to get the kind of action that was long overdue for the single elderly.

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mr. Wrye: When is the minister going to move to equalize the amount of money the provincial government pays out to those who are handicapped? When is he going to move, as my leader has suggested, to make the payments to those who are physically or developmentally handicapped when they reach 18 either immediate or, where his bureaucracy does not have the job done by the time their 18th birthdays arrive, retroactive?

Hon. Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member undoubtedly knows, the actual day-to-day operation of such programs and policies is not under my secretariat but rather under the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea). Our role is that of a policy co-ordinating and policy vetting agency, and I would suggest that perhaps the member might wish to ask this question some time of the other minister.

2:30 p.m.

LAYOFFS AT INCO LTD.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer.

Given the fact that the assets of the Inco pension fund have gone up by 32 per cent in the last two years from $606 million to $800 million, I would like to ask the Treasurer whether he would be prepared to be a little bit innovative in the face of this disastrous announcement for these 500 workers in Port Colborne and encourage the creation of an early retirement plan that would bring together a company that has a pension fund that is well funded and the workers who have been affected by this, which would mean the older workers would be able to take advantage of early retirement, rather than have the impact of this layoff forced solely on younger workers.

Is the Treasurer prepared to be innovative in this case and intervene directly to see that a fair deal takes place for both older and younger workers at Inco in Port Colborne?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, when I was Minister of Industry and Tourism there was an unfortunately large number of instances in which this kind of plant closure occurred. I recall that a number of the major employers did sit down with their employees and their unions and work out a variety of provisions, including some early retirement arrangements which worked out very well.

So long as this sort of thing is occurring, so long as the unions are at the table and able to discuss some of those options with the companies, it would seem to me we do have a circumstance where an equitable arrangement can be worked out without the kind of government intervention that, one way or another in the longer term, causes some dislocation and ultimately some hardship on those who are going to be caught by that sort of arrangement when perhaps they do not want to be. I believe the best circumstance for the present time is the kind of arrangement we currently have.

If the leader of the third party would ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) with regard to what is happening with Inco, I would hope and expect that some arrangements might be worked out in this sort of circumstance with Inco and its workers.

Mr. Rae: I take that answer to mean the Treasurer is not prepared to do anything.

The average age of the workers at the plant in Port Colborne is 53. There is a pension fund that is filled to overflowing with a substantial surplus. Surely it is the task of the Ontario government to intervene, to guarantee that workers over 55 will retire without any penalty --

The Deputy Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: -- and receive the same benefit they would receive at 65 and not suffer a financial penalty to allow younger workers to stay on.

I repeat the question to the Treasurer. Is he prepared to intervene on behalf of the younger and the older workers at Inco to see that the older workers do not suffer and to see that the younger workers do not bear the full brunt of the layoff proposal that is now on the table from the company?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Once again, as I outlined a moment ago, in the Inco situation we have seen a circumstance where the parties have got together and an early retirement has been worked out.

My colleague the Minister of Labour has given me the precise information. They have reached an agreement whereby early retirement will be offered and available to those who have 30 years of service regardless of age, and 20 years of service at, incidentally, age 55, the very age the honourable member is talking about. So those kinds of arrangements are being worked out.

Again, I repeat, if we begin to have government intervene with legislation of the kind the member is suggesting, if we begin to have government take over those decisions, we remove the options to unions, employees and employers to work out those arrangements which work in the long-term benefit of the employees and the companies. That seems to me to be the right way to go, and it is working, as he can see in the Inco situation.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the questions the leader of the third party has raised. I think the point he is trying to convey to the minister is that in the 1977 layoff of Inco -- and at that time there were a large number involved in Port Colborne and in the Sudbury area -- the company did come forward with some incentives to encourage those with more seniority to take their early retirement. But there were a number of them who did not meet the criteria, in particular that factor of age 55. Some of them may have had 28 years of employment in that industry but, because of their age, they did not satisfy the age factor of 55.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. Haggerty: Many of those persons are not employed today because of that grey line. All we are suggesting is that there should be some incentive in this area from the industry to let those persons enjoy that pension now, instead of locking it into the age of 65. Does the Treasurer agree with this?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, might I say that the honourable member has outlined particularly the problems involved with drawing any sort of line. If he will contemplate for a moment the proposal that has been put before me, it is simply to draw a new line. There would still be people caught under the kind of arbitrary line that has been proposed to us be drawn.

What the member has raised emphasizes very well the importance of having arrangements that are flexible so the company and its employees can work out a scheme that looks at the number of people, who they are, what their job profiles are, what their backgrounds are, what their ages are, and sees how they can shape a plan to provide early retirement for the particular work force, as opposed to saying: "Do not look to us. The province just put in a new rule and that is all we have to do."

The current circumstance seems to be working to the benefit of those involved. Mr. Speaker, you might want to redirect that question to the Minister of Labour who could provide the specific details with regard to the Inco situation in the member's own riding.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, Inco officials have indicated that those workers who are not affected by the termination but who would be interested in retiring and meet the criteria the Treasurer has outlined, such as 30 years of service or 20 years of service and age 55, would be given an extra incentive of 26 weeks of severance pay, which in most cases would amount to approximately $13,000, which they could have in one lump sum or draw out over various payments. That is an extra incentive the company has brought forward.

Mr. Rae: I want to go back to the Treasurer. Given the information that has now been put on the floor of the House by the Minister of Labour, it still amounts to a very substantial loss in comparison to what a worker would have received at 65. The point is that all the early retirement schemes being put forward by companies in these circumstances amount to less than the workers would have received if they had been able to work until they were 65. They are still being asked by the companies to take a loss at a time when pension funds are going up and up because of the high interest rates being paid by borrowers.

Will the Treasurer please intervene on behalf of workers who have no bargaining power in these circumstances, who have no leverage when the company has said: "This is the number that is going. You figure out who is going to go"? Will he intervene to see that we have a province-wide early retirement scheme that guarantees fairness between the generations in this province in terms of the layoffs that are taking place in industry today?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As the Minister of Labour has just pointed out, if the government had put in the scheme the member is recommending, the following things would have happened. First, sooner or later there would have been an increase in overall costs out of the system which would have encouraged companies that are now having a tough time competing to reduce the size of their potential liability, reduce the work force and therefore have more people never employed.

The second consequence of what the member is suggesting is that some of the workers involved would not have ended up with the special incentive the Minister of Labour has referred to. They would have ended up with the member's proposal and not the extra money, and therefore would have been less well off had there been intervention through a government mechanism, strapping every firm and every employee into these kinds of rules. They would have walked away without the benefit of having been able to strike the arrangements with the company that fitted their own firm better.

When one gets right down to the bottom line, surely it is the good sense of having the parties to each of these unfortunate circumstances sit down and work it out.

Mr. Rae: What choice did the parties have? What choice do the workers have?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With respect, had the company simply relied upon the absence of choice of the workers, none of these extra arrangements would have been worked out. It indicates the common sense of the current arrangement.

2:40 p.m.

CONTRACT WORKERS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my next question is to the Minister responsible for Women's Issues. It concerns an issue I have raised on a number of occasions and addressed to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) and the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton). I have had no satisfaction from them.

I would like to try asking this minister to take an interest in this problem, because it very much affects the women of this province. I am referring to the epidemic of contracting out in the health care field, and particularly in the nursing home field.

The minister will be aware that both Villa Columbo and the Heritage Nursing Home this past week have announced that they are going to be gutting their bargaining units, firing workers, more than 90 per cent of whom are women who are making between $7.50 and $8.50 an hour depending on their job, and replacing them with contracted out employees who are going to be making far less than that, somewhere between $4 and $5.

What is the Minister responsible for Women's Issues going to do in defence of working women in this province who are making between $7.50 and $8.50 an hour who have families to raise, children to feed, and mortgages or rents to pay? What is he going to do for those workers to protect their employment when private sector employers and some public sector employers are just waving their wands and saying, "Goodbye, so long, we do not need you any more"? What is he going to do to protect them?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding it has been pointed out to the honourable member in response to this type of question in the past that there are a number of cases covering this issue currently before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. It would seem wise to await the outcome of the consideration of that board before making any rash responses to a question like this.

Mr. Rae: Ballycliffe Lodge, Kennedy Lodge Nursing Home, Brantwood Manor, Thompson House, the Toronto East General and Orthopaedic Hospital and the Wellesley Hospital have now been joined by Villa Columbo and Heritage Nursing Home. Heritage Nursing Home and Villa Columbo were not deterred from firing their workers because of the actions before the labour board.

What is the minister going to do to protect women workers who are making $8 an hour and who need that money to be able to raise their families? What is he going to do in defence of those women?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I cannot add anything to the answer to the original question.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister understands his role as the Minister responsible for Women's Issues should be broad enough that he would be able to sit down with his colleagues and urge upon them initiatives to overcome various difficulties that occur in ministries for which they have line responsibilities.

Surely in this case, where it appears there is a pattern of contracting out in which the people affected are almost exclusively women, he should be willing to sit down with his colleagues and discuss some initiatives other than those which the Ontario Labour Relations Board may or may not take in the fullness of time. Surely the women of this province deserve something better than the kind of uncertainty so many of them are going through now.

Is he prepared to sit down with his colleague the Minister of Labour, with whom he is now chatting, and have a little more formal chat about the kinds of initiatives this government might take to stop this kind of action?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, perhaps one or two points should be made in response to the supplementary.

One, this does not impact only on women. We are also talking about men who work at minimum wage or a little more. We are thinking in terms of everybody, I am sure. The percentages are a matter of fact and could be established, but I think we should understand we take that into account.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You are doing nothing in terms of anybody.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am responding to the question. We know we have line ministers who are charged with these responsibilities. If the member wants to ask the question here, fine, I will respond as best I can.

Two, I would point out that a number of these matters are before the board and I would think that would be the place for their resolution.

Three, regardless of the facts, I would think these matters could be ascertained and that in future negotiations the whole question of contracting out might well be a subject for negotiations at those times as well.

Mr. Rae: The minister is a fine one to talk about negotiations. His government stopped the workers from being able to negotiate. It took away the right to negotiate and that is why the workers have no bargaining power. The government is responsible for what happened. The government put them up to it.

I would like to point out to the minister that each one of these organizations that has fired workers and is trying to replace them with workers at a minimum wage level, each one of these employers is in receipt of vast sums of public moneys on a regular basis. It is the taxpayer who is funding these organizations, whether it is a hospital, a nursing home or a charitable home for the aged.

As the minister who is supposed to be responsible for seeing that the women of this province get a fair deal, and since it was his government that took away the right to negotiate and affected the bargaining power of these women and thousands of other workers in the public sector, what is he planning to do on behalf of these women to see that they can keep their jobs at a decent wage and not have to give way to people who are having to work for $4 or $4.50 an hour? What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The leader of the third party has simply repeated his main question, to which he has had an answer.

FUNDING FOR ADULT LITERACY PROGRAMS

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education. The minister will know, since I sent her a memo on it last Thursday, the Prescott and Russell County Board of Education has developed a new educational policy -- is the minister listening? -- regarding alternative education funding.

As of January 31, 1984, there were 2,000 students enrolled in alternative education in Prescott-Russell. That is roughly 20 times the number in major cities such as Ottawa. I remind the minister of the functional illiteracy rate we have and other problems in my constituency.

Can she tell us why, through memo B-9, she has effectively cancelled such programs, reducing the grants by some $680,000 for half of one year alone? This will result in the firing of at least 15 teachers who teach those programs in a community such as Prescott-Russell, which so desperately needs that help.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has a peculiar definition of "memorandum." What he sent me was an open letter, which I gather he had already sent to the press before he sent it to me.

The ministry funding memorandum is a very straightforward memorandum which ensures there will be funding for adult basic literacy programs within the school system on the same basis as any other program, that is, without the charging of an additional fee. It does require of boards, however, that they have a reasonable arrangement related to the provision of the educational program, a little more than simply telephoning a teacher who may or may not be within a school on an irregular basis to assist that student in the completion of the program.

Discussions are going on at present with various boards about the ways in which greater flexibility could be built into that adult basic literacy program to ensure that it meets the needs of all the students who require the additional assistance the program can give to them.

Mr. Boudria: You cancelled it because it worked.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We did not cancel it.

Mr. Boudria: Yes, you did.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, we did not.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, the minister has in place in Prescott-Russell an extremely popular and successful program for meeting the objectives she says she has in the throne speech. Why does she want to cut off funds to the degree she has for this highly successful program, which deals with the problem of providing new skills for people in our province in a much more aggressive and meaningful way than she or her ministry has done?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is not entirely correct in suggesting the objectives are not going to be funded. They have very specifically been funded through the new arrangements for funding for adult basic literacy and for upgrading, which we have taken as seriously as any jurisdiction in North America.

I do believe there are ways in which greater flexibility can be built into the provision of those programs through the public school system, which is precisely what we are trying to do. Greater flexibility does not mean licence to utilize taxpayers' money in ways that may not achieve the goals of the program as they are delineated within the Education Act and the other documents provided.

2:50 p.m.

AMATEUR HOCKEY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Is the minister aware of a study by Dr. Charles H. Tator of the department of neurosurgery at Sunnybrook which indicates that from 1976 to 1983 there have been 42 spinal injuries -- median age 17, average age 20 -- and that Ontario has 26 of these injuries, more than the rest of Canada and the United States combined?

There are 34 injuries which occurred in organized games; 17 players had total paralysis below the level of injury and five more have lost the power of ambulation. Consequently, in a seven-year period, 22 of 42 players will be confined to wheelchairs for the rest of their lives.

Can the minister say what the government is prepared to do to reduce these serious accidents? Of 15 boys who were injured, 11 were pushed from behind when they could not defend themselves.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of Dr. Tator's study at Sunnybrook Medical Centre because we financed it. As the honourable member knows, we have also provided considerable financing to do research in sports medicine, particularly in relation to hockey. We have done this for the last three or four years, ever since we organized with the member's help the Hockey Ontario Development Committee. We are not going to discontinue our efforts in this. We will continue to help and support hockey and the sports medicine people to try to get to the bottom of what I, and I think all of us in this House, regard as a very disconcerting situation.

As the member knows and as he has said, because I listened to the conclusions reached by him on Let's Discuss It, his conclusions are very similar to those over here. It is not a sensible thing for the government simply to rush in and try to legislate or try to police the game to try to make it safer.

As the member has suggested, and I would agree, it is a matter of doing some basic research and it is a matter of attitudinal change. In the last three or four years, we have substantially stepped up our financing in the hockey world to carry on these exercises, but to say and conclude -- which obviously neither Dr. Tator nor Mr. Firth or any of the others who are doing research in this field have concluded -- that it is a result of goonery in hockey, or because of body contact below a certain age group, or because of charging behind or whatever, would be dangerous and premature. The experts tell us we first have to get to the bottom of it.

As the member also knows, and as was indicated in Dr. Tator's report, a study was done by the University of Waterloo to take a good, systematic, scientific look at the possibility some youngsters who wear protective helmets are more vulnerable to back injuries than if they have no protective equipment at all, because the equipment might be too heavy. Apparently the study has proved that is not the case.

This is perhaps too detailed a response, but we are aware of the problem, we are standing behind the research people and the sports medicine people, we are helping to finance their studies, and when the time comes and the evidence is there we are also prepared to act along with them. They themselves have done this. They have made tentative recommendations to the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association.

Mr. Martel: I am pleased to hear the minister's answer because that is exactly what Dr. Tator is suggesting.

Is the minister aware that Dr. Tator in his report makes the following recommendations: "Enforcement of the current rules. Introduction of a new rule, particularly to protect one from being hit from the blind side or from the rear"?

I told the minister last week, as well as three years ago and four years ago, we know that hitting from the rear causes a lot of accidents and there is no protection, and we know there is a lot of intimidation in the use of the stick. This study recommends stricter enforcement of the existing rules. Whether I like the government to be involved or not, the statistics are mounting. I understand there is a further report that says those statistics might be somewhat higher since last year.

What is the minister prepared to do now to ensure the rules are applied uniformly across this province? What is he prepared to do to insist there will be a rule in force by next fall to prevent an attack from the rear, against which there is no defence by anyone?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The member knows full well if we wanted to enforce such a rule, as he has said, we would probably have to do it through legislation. I am not prepared to stand up here at this time and say that will happen.

I think the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association is now more fully aware of some of the difficulties and the reasons these injuries take place. It will be incumbent upon that organization to lower the boom, as it were, on its officials and its leagues throughout this country, to enforce some of these rules. We will do what we can here to help CAHA do exactly that.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, recognizing that it would indeed be a mistake for the government of Ontario to dictate specific policy on minor hockey, nevertheless, the figures that have been produced cause a lot of concern. Those of us who see a lot of minor hockey games are well aware of the violence that takes place.

With this in mind, would the minister be prepared to convene a conference of hockey officials -- I am talking about the management, the league conveners themselves, the heads of associations, coaches and even players -- to get together with officials of the ministry to discuss the problem and come forward with recommendations during the summer, because the season is almost at an end, that could be implemented in the fall under the auspices of the various associations that deal with minor hockey? Is the minister prepared to convene such a conference?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, that process has already been started. Certainly we will be working with the CAHA and we will be working with organized hockey in this province, the Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League, the Ontario Minor Hockey Association, all of them, to try to alter some of the rules and also to have some of the existing rules more strictly enforced.

To go back to the question of attitudinal change, we have to work our way to that. It does not happen overnight. It will certainly take some time for this to happen. As the member knows, some of the members at the head of the leagues may not be totally convinced immediate overnight action is necessary. We have to change those attitudes. This matter has been of serious concern to us for some time. I really do believe we are making strides, aided by some very good sports medicine research.

FUNDING FOR PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. My question concerns natural resources, but I note that minister is not in the House. It should also be of great importance to tourism in this province. It involves the provincial government's funding constraints on provincial parks and how this is affecting tourism in the area.

Is the minister aware the cutbacks in funding for a provincial park such as Turkey Point on the north shore of Lake Erie have so limited the maintenance and improvement of the park that the land is seriously eroding and the two-mile beach nearby, a major tourist attraction for the area, is losing 3.3 feet per year as a result?

With the pride we all share in our province in our bicentennial year, what steps will the minister take, in co-operation with his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), to improve the general area and, in particular, remedy the very serious lack of adequate washroom and other facilities in this park? These things make the difference between having an attractive area for our tourists and not. What action does the minister plan to take?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member has indicated, this is a matter for my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources. Expenditures on provincial parks are his responsibility.

3 p.m.

Obviously, as Minister of Tourism and Recreation, I have a very strong interest in seeing to it our provincial parks continue to be very attractive to tourists. I should, however, also say -- and I think the member would agree with this -- Ontario is fortunate in having probably the largest and the finest inventory of provincial or state parks anywhere in the world. I am sure the Minister of Natural Resources will also want us to help maintain this goal. We will continue to maintain these parks at a very high standard. I will be talking to him to make sure that many tourists will be able to enjoy our wonderful inventory of parks.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that Turkey Point has accommodated some 300,000 visitors per year and that the area has one of the largest marinas on Lake Erie's north shore in addition to a fine beach but that it is in danger of losing the millions of dollars of tourist revenue the area has received as the beach erodes more and more each year?

The Turkey Point Property Owners Association reported to the rural municipalities' task force in Simcoe last week that the change houses and comfort stations are filthy and are falling apart, with holes in the floors, etc. Visitors to the beach just cannot use them and must go to local business outlets to use these facilities. This group pointed out that there is certainly a lack of funding from the ministry.

As tourism plays a tremendous role in the overall economy of Ontario, does the minister not feel that more funding should be made available, particularly in this bicentennial year when we are trying to celebrate Ontario's birthday? I noticed that the Premier (Mr. Davis) opened the celebration this past weekend with a fine program from New York city.

The Deputy Speaker: May we have the question?

Mr. G. I. Miller: Can we not put some of that money to work in Ontario in order to upgrade our facilities?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I am, of course, totally aware and pleased that the honourable member opposite is fully aware of the tremendous tourist attraction Turkey Point has become. As I indicated in my earlier reply, I will be prepared to take it up with my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources to see what financial plans he has in mind for the Turkey Point park. I am sure they will be adequate so we can continue to maintain the very high and wonderful standards of that facility.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if there have been any discussions in cabinet about transferring the responsibility for the maintenance and operation of our provincial parks system from the Ministry of Natural Resources to his ministry so it can complement what is so important all over the province by way of tourism. Given the responsibility of the Minister of Natural Resources for all the other resources, does he not think the parks system gets lost in the overall scheme of things?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I think this honourable member above all knows it would be stretching the truth to call that a supplementary.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Oh, no.

Mr. Stokes: About the management of our parks?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, sir. These were specific parks.

Mr. Stokes: I do not need any lectures from you.

The Deputy Speaker: But if the minister would like to respond, please do so.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Without divulging cabinet secrets, I can only say we are constantly looking at who administers what and we are always looking at this. It is the subject of ongoing consideration and evaluation.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. He will be aware of the study that was conducted by the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council on bed utilization.

We in this party contacted many of the hospitals in the Toronto area to find out what their specific situations were. For example, at Wellesley Hospital we found that 40 to 50 people are waiting for chronic care; at Toronto Western Hospital 105 are waiting for long-term care; at Scarborough Centenary Hospital 30 to 35 per cent of the beds have inappropriately placed patients; at Queensway General Hospital, 87; and at Sunnybrook Medical Centre, 95. We also found that the waiting list for elective surgery to get into hospital is extremely long in this particular area, as it is across the province.

Are these symptoms of a health care system that is supposed to be working so smoothly, or are they not symptoms of a health care system that is falling apart partly because of underfunding and bad planning on the part of the Minister of Health?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the honourable member were to plumb the depths of his own integrity he would realize the questions he asked reflect a partisan comment on the system as opposed to a careful examination of the facts relating to the quality of health care in this province.

I am aware of the report to which he has referred; it is currently under review within the ministry. I am also aware that there are people in acute care facilities awaiting longer-term care beds. But the member also should be aware that very recently there have been some bed awards within the Metropolitan Toronto area, which will help to relieve some of that pressure.

They are not yet on stream and they are not yet constructed, but they will be; the approvals have certainly been given. In the course of allocating beds in this next year, presumably the document that has been forwarded to me by the district health council by way of advice will be carefully considered in establishing the allocation of those beds.

Waiting lists for elective procedures are a fact everywhere in the world. The situation in Ontario is probably better than that in 99.9 per cent of the other jurisdictions in the world.

Mr. Cooke: The fact of the matter is that, in addition to waiting for elective surgery, people of this province have to spend a great deal of their time when they need assistance in emergency rooms, hallways or special rooms that are now set up to hold patients because there are not enough beds in this province and there are a lot of people inappropriately placed.

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mr. Cooke: For example, at Humber Memorial Hospital it is not unusual to have 12 people waiting in the emergency room.

The Deputy Speaker: This is not statement time; it is question period.

Mr. Cooke: For example, at Sunnybrook one can wait four days to get into an acute care bed while waiting in emergency. There are some people in the hospitals in Toronto, one in particular, who have waited up to two years to get a long-term bed.

When is this province going to put in place a strategy that uses institutional care for those people who absolutely need it; and when are we going to get a comprehensive program of alternatives in the communities that include day care, day hospitals and care for the frail elderly while they are at home? When is the government going to put those alternatives in place, or does the minister plan on continuing to emphasize institutional care in this province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: How could anyone make a statement such as this gentleman just did in talking about emphasizing institutional care when we have just completed putting chronic and acute home care services in place across the province? These are now available in every jurisdiction except Metropolitan Toronto, although we are now in the first phase of introducing chronic home care here, which will be completed by September of this year.

Look across the province at the number of day hospitals that are now in operation. If the member shakes his head no, I will take him and show him some of them. They do exist -- not in every community, but the system is growing and developing.

It is not going to happen overnight, but the member should not sit there and suggest we are continuing to emphasize only institutional care when in this province we are spending almost $1 billion of our own money, at least exclusively provincial money, to put in place such community-based services as exist and to expand them without any assistance whatsoever from the federal government.

It is the initiative of this government that has made our health care system one of the leading systems in the whole world. Do not sit there and make those kinds of allegations.

3:10 p.m.

STUDY BY ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr. McLean: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. In the region of Orillia, Bracebridge, Huntsville, Parry Sound and Burk's Falls there is a proposal for a restructuring of Ontario Hydro facilities, which would relocate 54 employees from Orillia either to Bracebridge or Barrie, thereby taking away $2.5 million per year from the Orillia economy. Can the minister assure me this is only a study and that it will not necessarily become a fact?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, there are those cynics in this House who might suggest the member gave me notice of that question. I would not want to mislead the members but to assure them instead that he did. I will give him a very succinct answer as I am accustomed to doing.

I can assure the member that at the present time the study is only that. It is part of Ontario Hydro's assessment of its service areas. It is an ongoing assessment in an attempt to address some very severe constraints which are being placed on the operations section of Ontario Hydro by its board. They are indeed watching the bucks. I assure the member that, in addressing this issue, Hydro is looking at the Orillia area as well as other areas of the province. At the present time it is a study which is soliciting input from the municipal councils in the area in order that a fair and realistic assessment can be made of this situation.

Mr. McLean: Can the minister assure me that this study in its present proposed form will not take place?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I am not aware of the precise detail of the study in its present form. Therefore, I cannot give that kind of assurance. The member knows full well that these kinds of decisions will be made by the board of directors of Ontario Hydro in the fullness of time, bearing in mind the input of the municipalities and individuals and representations made by the people such as this member.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not really trying to save bucks at the expense of the rural communities of this province? Why is he taking these services away from rural people who will have farther to travel? Why does he not save his dollars on Darlington and other areas? It is a disadvantage for the rural people of this province; they will have to travel more miles and have less service in order that the government may save itself some dollars. Why does he not look after the rural people of this province?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the honourable member that these decisions rest with the board of Ontario Hydro. One year ago -- maybe more -- a decision was taken to amalgamate certain areas in southwestern Ontario, which necessitated the closing of the office in Hamilton. That is not a rural area. These restructurings are necessary and are under continual discussion. They will not mean any withdrawal or reduction of services, only a saving of dollars.

PETITION

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition signed by 78 petitioners from Metropolitan Toronto, which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition, which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

This petition bears 41 signatures from the great county of Haliburton.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Windsor identical to the two that were just presented and I endorse the petition. It reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. Swart, first reading of Bill 22, An Act to amend the Election Finances Reform Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: This bill is intended to clarify that municipal corporations are not entitled to make contributions under the act.

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. McClellan, first reading of Bill 23, An Act to amend the Condominium Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: This bill would provide for repeal of the unproclaimed provisions of the Condominium Act that relate to the condominium bureau and provide instead for a registrar of condominiums, who would give advisory services to the public, maintain a registrar of mailing addresses of condominiums and issue licences to condominium managers.

Condominium management would be restricted to licensees, except in the case of managers of single condominiums having no more than 100 units. The Lieutenant Governor in Council would be empowered to make regulations requiring the posting of bonds. The Association of Condominium Managers of Ontario may, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, set standards for the managers.

The bill also provides for a consensual procedure for the review and resolution of disputes within a condominium.

3:20 p.m.

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. McClellan, first reading of Bill 24, An Act to amend the Condominium Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, this bill would authorize condominium corporations to make bylaws providing for the collection of special levies from owners of residential units occupied by tenants.

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. Swart, first reading of Bill 25, An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, this bill restricts the use on land of leghold traps. It also provides for a trap exchange program and makes a number of changes which would make trapping more humane. It has been publicly endorsed by the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, every major humane society in Canada and numerous other groups concerned about humane issues.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STANDING COMMITTEES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Mr. Treleaven, resolution 2.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SCHEDULE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Mr. Treleaven, resolution 3.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House, I would like to move now a motion that sets up the committees but does not appear printed on the order paper.

Agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the membership on the standing committees for the fourth session be as follows:

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings].

Motion agreed to.

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. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take up where I left off on Friday. Before I recount what is continuing to happen, not only in Hamilton but also across the province, I think it would be useful to recapitulate the figures from the Consolidated-Bathurst plant with which I ended.

I remind the members of the figures I left with. Out of the 207 workers at the Consolidated-Bathurst plant who were let go as a result of the corporate rationalization, now, getting close to a year later, only 83 of them have found employment, 81 full-time and two part-time. As I said, 90 per cent of those are working for less money than when they were employed at Consolidated-Bathurst. One hundred and six of them are still unemployed.

Only 28 workers are on upgrading or retraining programs, and most of them are older workers. I can tell members it is tough. I did not talk to one who was very happy about it or who felt it was of much use to them in their situation.

So far, only three are on welfare, but in the third week in April most of the rest of them run out of the unemployment insurance benefits and most of them then, if they have not already used it, will have to rely on spending the money they had saved for pensions because of the fact the pensions were not the best in the world in that plant. Before they will qualify for welfare, they will have to use up the savings they had saved in their 20 to 30 years in that plant and had intended to use for their retirement.

This is the kind of situation we have and we have got some people who are pretty despondent. Consolidated-Bathurst only mirrors what is happening in plant after plant.

I hope to have the figures for this House shortly on what has happened to almost 700 workers at International Harvester Canada Ltd. They are gathering that information in the local union now, but I can tell the House the same pattern and the same story are emerging about people who have not been able to find jobs, who have a long service with the company and who do not expect ever to be back.

Once again, I ask the members on the other side of the House: what has this government done to deal with this problem? What is in the throne speech? Absolutely nothing.

I made reference to the sizeable growth in the number of employables who are going on to the welfare case loads across Ontario. In my own town, the numbers of employable people on the welfare rolls have been as follows: 2,064 in August 1981, 5,353 in January 1984 and 5,388 in February 1984. Another group will jump on within the next month from the Consolidated-Bathurst plant. They are coming on almost daily from the International Harvester plant in our town.

Allen Industries Canada had a brief respite, but some 200 workers there, most of whom have long-term service, will be added to that list a short way down the road. I hate to predict, but I am afraid we are going to see an increase in the general welfare case load and an increase in the employables on that list. This is a category of people who just have not been on general welfare in our communities before. Once again, what do we see being done about it?

The weekend paper in my town had at least three more incidences, at least one of which has been raised in this House. The smaller ones include a couple of restaurants, one of which is Malarky's. There were 50 employees who were given very sudden notice that they were terminated. The workers are very angry about it. I will not go into the details, but just over the weekend, another 50 were terminated.

We have the Port Colborne situation where 490 workers got the axe permanently. The comment my leader made in the question period today is very interesting. He pointed out that the president of the local, Mr. Moreau, went in and asked the management of the company: "There are rumours around the plant that there may be fairly heavy layoffs. Is there any truth to them?" The answer he was given, of course, was, "No, there will be nothing more than the usual summer layoffs." The next day we learned from the paper that 490 Inco employees were permanently out.

3:30 p.m.

In Fort Erie, Hart and Cooley just last week notified the 38 remaining workers in that plant that they were finished. As I think I mentioned on Friday, the piece in the paper says, "Fifteen qualified workers may be offered a transfer to one of the other Hart and Cooley plants, but it will be based on" -- and they made it very clear -- "their work record and their expertise."

Members know what that means. If those workers happen to have had a Workers' Compensation Board case or any kind of mark against them during their previous years of employment with that company, they will not be transferred. I do not know how long this is going to continue going on in Ontario, but it is something that certainly should be worrying this government and something this government should be taking a look at. I find it impossible to understand why there is absolutely nothing in the throne speech to deal with this problem.

Apart from the continuing saga of layoffs, we have the growing experience in this province of part-time workers. I do not know when we are going to come to grips with the situation when a worker loses his job. In many cases he has had a great deal of service and he has had some reason up until now to believe that was his security and how he was going to feed his family and keep the kids going to school for the next period of time. He suddenly finds himself out of work.

The interesting phenomenon going around the province is that we are picking up twice as many part-time jobs as we are new jobs. Workers who have lost full-time jobs are getting part-time jobs. Where are the benefits? What is going to happen? How are these people going to continue to pay mortgages and bills? Is this the kind of future employment picture the Conservative government in Ontario is looking at? I do not hear it being discussed. I do not see anything in the throne speech about the changing patterns of employment, but that certainly is what is happening out there in the community.

In the throne speech the government announced its intention to improve benefits for certain government employees. "To provide wider access to improved rights and benefits, the civil service will include employees who work on a regular part-time basis." We are talking about some of the benefits now.

It does not matter how many times one recycles such a promise. When the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program was announced in 1981 in this House, the government said, "The province intends to discuss with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union a number of staffing initiatives which will create the flexibility to accommodate changing employee needs. Among the ideas being explored are the inclusion of unclassified employees into permanent part-time positions and the conversion of full-time positions into part-time positions."

The backgrounder to the throne speech goes on to say there may be some 7,000 part-time workers involved. As we have seen, even the ministry has had to do a little bit of dancing on that one, and the actual figure is about 3,000. We are dealing with about one in four of the unclassified employees in the provincial civil service. There is nothing I have heard said or have seen in the throne speech that says we are going to start dealing with the kind of benefits or wage levels that are there in terms of the part-time employees in the private sector.

The part-time employee growth in the private sector is substantial and significant. The statistics for last January show that of 712,000 part-time workers, 503,000 or 71 per cent are women and 209,000 are men. I mentioned the growth earlier in part-time employees. In one month part-time employment increased by 16,000. A figure I think is scary and staggering in Ontario now is that 17 per cent of all jobs in Ontario are now part-time jobs. That figure has been increasing yearly in this province.

Once again, what kind of protection is there for these workers? What does it mean in terms of their ability to purchase and keep their homes going, keep their families in school and keep paying the bills? What is there in the throne speech to deal with this problem and this group of people? We do not see anything.

I said on Friday that the demand of many companies in negotiations today for a dual wage scale in the plants is one of the most dangerous developments we have seen in Ontario in terms of undermining workers' wages and the rights of workers to the same pay for the same job. We are seeing the same thing happen now in contracting out.

The attack has been led in the nursing home field. There is not a week here that we do not see another nursing home contracting out. We had two more cases raised in this House today where the wages of workers, anywhere from 30 to 40 to as many as more than 100 in some cases, have been cut back. Their wages are not high. The highest I have seen yet in any that have contracted out is close to the $10 range. Most of them make from $7 to $8.50 in wages.

The workers are notified at the minimum requirement and are told they are finished. Then they contract out to an outfit for somewhere between $4 and $6. And, let me tell the members, $6 is high in the ones we have talked to. In most cases, it is in the $4.50 to $5 range. If people are desperate, some of them may be coming back at that lower rate because there is no job for them out there in the community. But an awful lot are not going to be anywhere near as well qualified.

The classes, the training and retraining programs that many of these health care workers have taken in an effort to upgrade their skills and give us quality care in nursing homes and extended care facilities are really wasted; they are thrown away. It is either that or we have really insulted them by putting them through the courses. How many of them are going to use their skills at $4.50, $4.75 or $5 an hour?

What we are doing to workers in this province is a crime. Once again, I see absolutely nothing in terms of any action by this government. As a matter of fact, if there is an indictment of the Minister responsible for Women's Issues (Mr. Welch), it is his lack of action and his callousness -- I do not care how good a front he puts on, that is all one can call it -- in response to the questions that are asked about this situation which almost entirely involves female employees.

In the throne speech there was a lot of rhetoric about better communications and less confrontation. What is going on today in Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union and the desperate effort to protect the jobs of Gray Coach drivers? A lot of the work has been contracted out to GO Transit to serve the various towns and communities around this part of the province.

GO Transit decided it was going to hire its own drivers in spite of years and years of a background of working and contracting with the Gray Coach service and its drivers. The union tried to meet with management. It appealed to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) for some assistance. What happened?

I was talking to Mr. Johnston today, and he said that GO Transit management has refused to meet with the union on the grounds that it would be contrary to the Ontario Labour Relations Act since GO Transit has contracts with another union. I do not hear the other union complaining. It is absolutely ridiculous to use that kind of argument. When the government is going to do something that could mean the jobs of a good number of workers, the least it owes them is to sit down with them and their unions and discuss what is happening, how many can be used or whether all of them can be used.

We understand, although this may be a point of argument, there is probably going to be very little difference in the costs that are involved.

Why do we take the attitude that the government has the right to do this, that it does not need to talk to those workers? They are only going to lose their jobs and a good many years of service with Gray Coach. Is that what we mean when we talk about less confrontation and more discussion with workers and their organizations in Ontario? If so, it is a pretty sad state of affairs.

The government talks, but in every action we have going on, right up until today, whether it is in closures or in contracting-out situations like this, there is absolutely nothing being done by this government and no response to legitimate questions being raised, such as the safety and health questions and some of the other questions I raised on Friday. Nothing is happening.

Where is this new co-operation, this new way of dealing with workers in Ontario? Where is it?

Another situation bothers me. There is a lack of any planning that we can see or get our teeth into in what is happening in the changing pattern of employment in Ontario and what we do when a firm is in trouble. I am not a great one for dishing out public funds to the private sector, at least not the way we have done it up until now, but if we are going to do that then I want to know clearly what kind of an agreement there is and what kinds of guarantees we receive for public funds in terms of jobs, protection and planning for the future for the workers in Ontario.

3:40 p.m.

We have a very interesting situation. There have been meetings with government ministers who were called in the other day or were requested to meet with some of the management and ownership of the Royal Connaught Hotel in downtown Hamilton. I refer the members to an article in Saturday's Hamilton Spectator which I think lays out the story pretty well. It is about the same thing we got when we met with the owners of that hotel.

What was the position they put to us? They put to us that in the last two or three years they have been losing about $800,000 a year. They cannot continue that way. One of the reasons was they did not have the recreation facilities, the pool and many of the things they needed, particularly in order to compete with the two new hotels -- although I think we have been taken to the cleaners on one of them -- that we hope are going up in Hamilton.

They pointed out those two new hotels in Hamilton have qualified for and were getting, in some of the frantic negotiations that have been going on between the federal and provincial governments, about $12 million in assistance. They also pointed out to us that they themselves have spent about $10 million over the last three or four years on renovations in the Royal Connaught Hotel. They need to spend an additional $5 million, roughly, to bring it up to par. They expect to be able to raise some of that themselves.

Because they have not had one cent of assistance -- they stress that and I am taking it at face value; I have no way of checking -- from either level of government and will be faced with competition from two brand-new hotels that have received about $12 million of the taxpayers' money, they are asking for $3.1 million to expand and to finish the renovation they started about three years ago and to keep them in business.

This raises some serious questions; it raises some serious questions with me as well. But I have difficulty in arguing against their logic, given what we have done with the other two hotels. I am really not sure we should be in this private enterprise funding at all, but the fact is we are. There has been almost a race to see how much more money the two new hotels could get in Hamilton.

Here we have the most established hotel to date. It has been there a long time. It is not venerable; it is not that old yet, but it is an institution that is part of the city of Hamilton and that anchors the east end of downtown Hamilton. They go so far as to tell us that they either need to know they have this kind of money -- they say they do not even need all the cash but some guarantees that they have got most of it, or certainly very low-interest loans to cover most of it -- or they will be shut down by December.

On top of everything else -- and they may be using a little muscle there, too; I do not know -- what would happen in downtown Hamilton and elsewhere in Hamilton if a hotel like the Royal Connaught were forced to shut down, if the several hundred workers there went as well; if the anchor at the east-end of the downtown development we have been trying to get in Hamilton really were undercut tremendously with that one move?

Where is the pattern? What is it? Is it how loudly they yell and whether or not they can get to enough cabinet ministers that will determine whether the Royal Connaught will get some help from the provincial and federal governments? Or are they going to be out of luck? And how do they rationalize this as against the two new units that are going up in downtown Hamilton?

Without passing judgement, I am saying if there is any rational planning and any rational pattern in the plans to develop cities, to protect jobs or to decide who, when and how somebody gets access to the public treasury, I do not know what it is; and I certainly do not get any clear outline in the throne speech we had here in the House the other day.

We have a real dispute going on in our city over the government of Ontario advanced light rail transit. The minister responsible can dance all he wants on the issue. I can tell him that the perception right across town -- and I have not jumped on a particular route on this issue myself as yet -- is that the city of Hamilton wants the elevated York Street route to show off its new cars, and we either go that way, which is certainly the route the province is pushing, or we do not get the darn thing; they will stop it in Burlington. This makes no sense whatsoever, but it is the kind of blackmail, if you like, that the city is getting.

I simply have to ask, is this what we are talking about in the words that are in the throne speech about co-operation and working together, whether it is with workers or whether it is with communities across the province?

There is another interesting thing. When the city is using this kind of clout, what are its commitments? There has been some real misunderstanding as to how much the provincial government is going to be responsible for in the development of this expressway into downtown Hamilton.

It has been estimated to cost about $140 million. We understand, although now I have people questioning it, Hamilton-Wentworth would be taking responsibility for 25 per cent of the cost and the ministry would assume 75 per cent of the funding for the project. Some people were a little bit shocked when I put that proposition to them. Is it accurate?

When will the minister clearly outline to the region exactly what share in the cost the ministry is going to cover, if indeed they do proceed with the GO-ALRT route into the city of Hamilton?

We in this party have argued, and argued very hard, for the expenditure of some funds to bring in one of the plants that was supposed to be a state of the art piece when it was developed a good many years ago, the solid waste reduction unit plant for garbage burning in the east end of Hamilton. To date there is a desperate need for changes that allow them to burn at a higher temperature so we do not have heavy emissions, the dioxins that are coming out now and that are scaring people.

Although we are told it is probably on the list, we have real difficulties finding out when, and indeed if, the Ministry of the Environment is prepared to move. That is a possible job creation program. In the meantime, the public is more and more upset by continuing controversy over just how effective are the ministry tests. There is serious question as to the adequacy of the ministry tests.

They are testing at low burns, they are testing with only one boiler on and in circumstances that do not allow one to have a true reading of the dioxins that are escaping from that plant, instead of getting under way with what we know has to be done if this operation is to continue in place -- and I think it would be a crime to have to shut it down. We have to have some pretty fast action by the ministry in renewing and redoing the Swaru facility.

I see nothing about something as important as that and it is one of the burning operations that can be used as an example, as a pilot project in Ontario. It should be a priority item, but we do not see anything happening.

In this House I have heard the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), and I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), say, when we raised questions and concerns on unemployment: "We have had a meeting with the Ontario Federation of Labour, or we have one planned. Why do you people not give us some ideas or suggestions?"

The government might have someone in there to hear what we are saying just so it can try to counter it, but obviously it does not pay much attention to the suggestions we have been making on a regular basis. I think some of them are sound. We have made suggestions on the bridging provisions, to get some of the older workers out of heavy jobs in the labour force and open up some jobs for younger people. We have suggested programs that mean something for young people in Ontario. We have suggested programs that advocate more self-sufficiency so we do less importing than we now do in Ontario. We do not see any action.

I looked with interest at the OFL's brief when it met with the government; in it there were a number of suggestions. Some of them are tried and true; the charges that they were not giving any specific proposals do not hold water, because in their brief they talk about labour-intensive projects such as construction of highways and public housing. I dealt at some length with public housing; certainly there is employment as well as a social need to be served if we get on with that and we are not doing it.

There have been suggestions concerning the jobs that are needed in services; the housing incentives; the commitment to reforestation, particularly in northern Ontario, with communities solely dependent on the pulp and paper industry; the construction of chronic care facilities; accelerated plans for new transit systems -- Oshawa-Hamilton is an example, but it is not much good if the route the government wants to go for its purposes is one that nobody else in the city wants; and the protection of jobs in the auto industry, which is crucial to the manufacturing industry and Ontario itself.

3:50 p.m.

This party has raised, time and time again, the need for Canadian content legislation in the automotive industry. For those who accuse us of being simply protectionists or being away off base, we keep trying to tell them that some of their own friends, certainly in the auto parts industry, have come out very strongly in support of content legislation. The government has not heard any arguments from the basic steel industry on it; it certainly has the union and the workers on side.

This in itself can be one of the key answers to keeping the industrial and manufacturing base in the province going until we can take a serious look at what we are facing with respect to the change in work in this province; and there are going to be some drastic changes. It is one of the things that will give us some time, some bridging in current jobs in Ontario.

An excellent little booklet was put out that I would recommend to all members on the Tory side of the House. Undoubtedly it will not change them if this is not the direction their government wants to go, but at least they might have to take a look at some of the facts and figures and some of the arguments that are in this booklet put out by the United Auto Workers.

They point out that directly related employment in this sector is about 220,000 jobs, and that a number of the companies have only a small portion of their jobs in the auto sector but depend on their automotive base for their strength and, in many cases, for their survival in industry.

"The major auto makers buy parts and services from more than 13,000 companies in Canada. Almost 10,000 of these businesses are smaller companies which employ fewer than 100 employees." So we are not talking just about the giants here; we are talking about the base and small industries that reach into many of the small towns around Ontario, as well as the many plants we have in the automotive parts industry in the Toronto and Hamilton areas.

"The Canadian auto industry accounts for half of Canada's trade in manufactured goods and about 60 per cent of our exports." It is an interesting sidelight, one of the things we found out in the plant shutdown committee, that some of the branch plants and some of the small automotive suppliers were set up to supply only the Canadian market and were forbidden under the licensing arrangements or the agreements they had with their head office companies to do any exporting; that was forbidden. It was not that they could not necessarily compete, but they were not allowed to do it. If we could free it up a bit, we would probably have the ability to do an awful lot more exporting in that field.

"We have the world's seventh largest market for vehicles. We have an abundance of raw materials essential to the industry. We have efficient feeder industries in materials processing and semi-finished goods such as steel, petrochemical and metal rolling.

"Canada's transportation infrastructure and service system is well equipped to handle the requirements of automotive manufacturing. Most important of all" -- and these are the people I am concerned about -- "we have a skilled labour force and labour costs" -- this sometimes is hard for other members in this House to realize -- "that are really competitive with most industrialized nations in the world."

We have been relatively competitive in the auto industry and we have significant potential advantages. Why can we not get our fair share of jobs by just leaving development to the free market? Two or three of the key paragraphs in this document come up next.

"First, the reality is that markets are not really free. Most industrialized countries and many developing countries consider the automotive industry to be a central part of their economies." They are now realizing what we are letting slip and should have been realizing a long time ago, so they have developed a range of policies to maintain and strengthen their own industries; policies such as government ownership, grants and subsidies and trade restrictions. If other countries have a policy to guarantee themselves jobs but we do not, it is clear we will not get our share of jobs in the province.

It would be interesting when we are thinking about the future of work, when we are thinking about whether or not there is a case to be made for content legislation in the automotive industry, to take a look at five or six other countries in the world.

If we take a look at Italy, imports are kept to 2,000 units, about 0.2 per cent of the market; in France, Japanese imports are kept to three per cent of the market; in the United Kingdom, Japanese imports are kept to 10 per cent or 11 per cent of the market; in West Germany, Japanese imports are kept to 10 per cent of the market; and in Spain, tariffs are 50 per cent and there are content laws and limits on imports.

If we take a look at Mexico -- and incidentally, as I tried to point out in this House, our lack of policies is the major reason we are losing Allen Industries in another couple of months; it has already bought the entire plant at Chihuahua, Mexico, to transfer that operation -- Mexico has tariffs of 100 per cent, content laws and a limit on imports.

Australia has tariffs of more than 50 per cent, imports are limited to 20 per cent and there is content legislation. That should clearly tell us that all of these countries have decided the auto sector is pretty doggone key to their economies. It used to be very key to our economy and we used to have a pretty good run at it, but we are losing it more rapidly than many sectors.

We are going to have to take a look at what we do in this sector. Canada has the potential to have a strong industry but we remain vulnerable, given our branch plant type of economy and the worldwide restructuring that has taken place. If we do not introduce policies such as Canadian content, we are going to be in serious trouble.

What is content and what does it do? I want to finish with a few final comments on this because I think it is food for some thought and discussion among members of this House. Content basically means corporations must make a commitment to jobs in Canada. This commitment depends on how much they sell in Canada. In an uncertain world, content is a way of guaranteeing jobs for Canadian workers and markets for their commodities. Content is a way to guarantee such jobs but also for trade to continue.

Corporations meeting the content provisions by sourcing in Canada or exporting from Canada can freely import into Canada, so it can work both ways, but we have at least a guarantee that some of the jobs are going to stay here. If corporations are free to move jobs unilaterally wherever they please, the pressure is increased on workers, communities and governments to compete for jobs, to make concessions in living standards, to lower corporate taxes while increasing personal taxes and to increase corporate subsidies while decreasing community services.

Does that not sound familiar to members as being exactly what has been going on across this country, whether it is in industry in the jobs, in the tax structures or in the services to people? Content is an alternative to such inequities. It puts the focus on corporate commitments to Canada, rather than our commitments to the corporations. What is wrong with a bit of commitment to Canada for a change?

We simply have to take a serious look at a major answer to part of our problems, as well as the other things I have raised and we have raised; and that is content legislation here in Canada. It is not just the auto workers or those in allied industries crying out for the jobs, it is many of the manufacturers themselves. It is the steel industry now. It is a number of responsible citizens in this province. I see nothing whatsoever in the throne speech that deals with the question of whether we should even be paying any attention to it, let alone taking any action on the issue.

The lack of any real action on pensions and older and younger workers probably were the two things that provoked me as much as anything. I want to point out we had a committee that looked at pensions. We have had private members' bills in this House. I introduced one three or four years ago that went through this House as a private member's bill. We had a debate on it. It called for vesting when transferring pensions and some kind of a central agency to handle it.

There seemed to be a commitment from members on all sides of the House to at least some of those points. We have seen absolutely nothing happen on it. We have had no action on it. One of the tragedies is the situation we are in with regard to the inadequacy of private pensions, but we are not even doing the few things in terms of transfer rights there, early vesting and so on, that would improve what there is in private industry. We are also taking a dog-in-the-manger attitude that says we cannot afford to take a look at the answer, and that is improvements in the public pension in this province and in this country of ours.

There is a lack of any government initiative -- mostly federal but the provincial government could sure act as the catalyst to move the feds if it decided for once to come on side in that issue -- to do something for the people in the province.

4 p.m.

I want to point out people do start to react. I have been amazed at the number of people who have been phoning in and attending meetings at the Eaton Co. For example, including right here in downtown Toronto, I am told it is not hundreds but now thousands who are phoning. It is not just because they finally broke the dam in Brampton and not because they finally started moving in the St. Catharines operation. What has been happening there is the Eaton Co., like so many of the big ones, had been putting more and more of its workers, some of them long-time, long-service workers, on part-time and short-time jobs.

They began to lose many of the benefits they had in the operation. It has involved a vast number of the workers. All of a sudden, loyal workers who would never take a look at a union -- and it is unfortunate to have to say that, but previously they would not have -- are saying: "This company is taking us to the cleaners. Its interests are not our interests. They are not protecting our security, our jobs and our hours. We have to get by on less." They do not see anybody worrying about it in the Tory government across the way.

What is the obvious result? They are saying in desperation, "What can we do? Is there an avenue?" Something most people a matter of months ago thought could not happen is in the process of happening today.

With all these issues, as the older people, the poor people, the young people and the pensioners begin to realize that as long as the Tories are riding high in the polls they do not have to do anything about them and are not doing anything about them, I suspect these people are going to start getting angry when those issues start getting out. If anything is wrong in Ontario in what is happening with people, it is they have not yet decided to get angry, and I mean really angry.

Heaven help us when they do. I think it is going to come. I am sorry to have to say it, but I think it is probably what has to happen in Ontario. There has to be an understanding that any recovery, if indeed there is any recovery in the economy, is not benefiting ordinary people in Ontario.

I want to bring to a close the few comments I have by mentioning briefly the task force on work, people and technological change I had the privilege to serve on in my own caucus. We have called our report The Future of Work. Rather than go through the many fine points of that task force report -- and I point out it is not even party policy, although I hope a lot of it will become resolutions at our coming convention -- I would say it is one of the first serious efforts to lay out the size of the problem, some of the potential problems, some of the possible solutions and to start in a hurry -- I stress in a hurry -- a real debate on what is happening to the future of work in this province. It is a serious and honest effort to do exactly that.

When one gets some of the evidence given to us as we travelled across the province, one realizes how ridiculous was the response of the Treasurer when the press asked him about it in the scrum. He said: "I really reject the New Democratic Party. All they are looking at is a downturn in employment. They are not being realistic. We are looking at the fantastic and potential benefits of the spinoff industries." I would really like to have the Treasurer of this province tell us what he is thinking of in terms of the spinoff industries.

It reminds me of the old comment: how many different kinds of underarm deodorant can one make and sell? What is happening is we are facing a change that is probably more dramatic than any lifestyle or work force change we have ever seen before in the history of the province.

Maybe I can illustrate it best with one small case that really gripped all of us on the committee, and there were a number of cases. I want to use a few of the figures given to us, not by New Democrats but by some of the experts we talked to about this issue, some of the professional people and the university people we talked to on this issue. I also want to use as the most effective argument I can what has happened at Glendale Spinning Mills in Hamilton.

It is a mill that employed almost 300 workers three short years ago, an old mill that went into receivership, that could not compete. It had been there a long time and had a good reputation, but it was an old mill. It was a mill the fire department in Hamilton probably would have shut down many times because there were fires almost every week in the cotton dust and because of the bad conditions in that mill. It was a mill where the work was heavy for the women and heavy for the men. But it was a mill that had been part of Hamilton and the textile industry for many years.

After it went into receivership, some efforts were made. There was some federal funding. The new manager is a chap from the Philippines. They decided to make it a state-of-the-art mill in Ontario. If one goes into that mill today -- and it might help to drive the message home to some of the Tories if they would do what we did and go through the mill -- one will find three sets of machinery in operation.

The old machinery, which is still what exists in many plants in Canada, is sitting in basements. It is a bit ironic and sad to have the management say, "We have sold all this old equipment to Guatemala, but it is really costing us more to pack and ship it than we are getting for it." Poor Guatemala is one of the things I have to say about that operation.

When one goes into that mill, what does one find? One will find one line of machinery with about 240 spindles on it producing at about 5,000 revolutions per minute with manual load and unload of the spindles of thread when they are finished. One will find side by side a second line of machinery with about 80 spindles running at almost 19,000 rpms with automatic load and unload. In a separate room in the plant is a third line of machinery that is different entirely, where they have eliminated the entire second operation.

One goes from the raw cotton to cotton thread about the size of what one would knit with. Then one goes through the second operation, and it is down to the size of thread. The third operation in that plant takes the raw cotton from the large size and eliminates the middle operation entirely. It travels as fast or faster than the 19,000 rpm, 800-spindle machine. It takes the cotton balls off the end and packages them. Two people run it.

When we were there management told us proudly they were operating that plant with 108 workers as against almost 300 and they were producing a lot more. They also told us they were now competitive, and I can only take their word for it. But even in Hong Kong and Taiwan, in third world countries, they are now charging about $7 or $7.40 for a big spindle of cotton thread. They also told us that when they finished the total operation, it would be operating with 54 employees with even better production.

Here we have fantastically increased production. We have a much better mill. It is cleaner and easier to operate. The employees love the working conditions. There are no more fires and there are big vacuums on every machine. It is a lovely operation. It is a situation in which we should be happy to have workers working. It is not the most dramatic example by any means, but it is a clear example of where there are now 108 and very shortly there will be 54 workers achieving fantastically increased production compared to what 300 did.

The serious question I have is backed up by a little piece I saw in Microbits. This publication may be assisted by the technology industry or by government financing, I am not sure. The last edition had three little paragraphs at the beginning which pointed out there was a survey going on, to be completed very shortly by this government, which would point out some of the results of microtechnology beginning to move into the industrial sector.

They went on to say that the initial survey showed that a large percentage of the firms had increased production and lowered costs. It was fantastic. I think 83 per cent showed a smaller labour force and labour costs and all showed increased production. Obviously, that is exactly what has happened in the Glendale Spinning Mills situation.

The question I am posing to this House and to the government members in particular is, what in blazes are we going to do when this kind of change in manufacturing is rushing at us like an express train, let alone what may happen in the service or office industries? What are going to do with the 250 people who are no longer able to work in that mill?

The company has increased production, increased profit and has a better and cleaner operation. It is probably less costly in everything, right down to Workers' Compensation Board claims in that plant. The workers who are left are certainly happier. But what are we going to do with the 250 who are no longer there? That is a pattern that will be repeated. It begs a question I know a Tory does not like to think about. Who controls this kind of technology and how do we do the job of distribution in terms of the benefits that accrue as a result of this kind of change?

4:10 p.m.

When we talked to 13 professionals at a roundtable session in Waterloo University, what was one of the things they told us? They told us that the percentage of our labour force in manufacturing -- and I have had two or three different sets of figures, but it is now in the range of 24 to 25 per cent -- could be as low as eight to 10 per cent by as early as 1992. As I say, there were a number of people there and they were not necessarily ours.

I shot those figures at Dr. A. C. Frost, head of the microtechnology centre at McMaster University, when we were talking to the people there just to ask, "Do they shock you?" I said: "Some of the people we have talked to around Ontario have told us we could be looking at as low as eight or 10 per cent of our work force involved in manufacturing in this province in as short a time as eight years down the road. Is there any truth to it? Do you accept those figures?"

His answer to me was pretty straightforward. He said: "Nobody can tell you for sure. We do not know what is going to happen in terms of service industries."

We know that is one of the things that has saved us until now, but we also know it is one of the areas this government is certainly not letting expand, if it is not actually cutting back. I do not know how many more people we can put into McDonald's hamburger jobs in Ontario."

He also said that while they could not tell us exactly what was going to happen, there would likely be a reduction. He had heard the figure put as low as four to five per cent, never mind eight to 10 per cent. Nobody knows, but almost everybody agrees we are facing a rather dramatic change in what we know as work in this province and in this country.

I ask the Tories once again, what in the throne speech says anything about this problem? Do they not want to face it? I understand from my sources they are now talking about setting up their own task force on microtechnology or on what may happen. It had better be done damned quickly. There had better be an honest commitment to look at how much of a problem we are facing and how we are going to deal with it.

Is the answer some new jobs we do not know of today? Is the answer a shorter work week? That is probably part of it. I do not think there is any single answer. A whole package of answers is going to be needed.

Is it in doing away with little steps such as planned overtime? I get into arguments with some of my friends in the automotive field, but one would be surprised at the amount of planned overtime that still goes on in some of the automobile plants. Do we make a serious commitment and say, "We know we cannot stop emergency overtime in crisis situations, but we had better start taking a look at whether we will allow planned overtime"?

Do we take a look at a reduction? Not tomorrow. We cannot do it that fast. But if there is the growth in productivity shown in the first bit of the report in the last issue of Microbits, a combination of productivity growth and a cut in hours over the next four, five, six or seven years could well bring us down to a 32-hour week.

I do not know how much of the answer that is. I personally happen to think it is a good chunk of it. Those are some of the things we have to take a look at.

I think there is real merit in taking a look at workers. I mentioned two or three times how desperate the situation was for the Consolidated-Bathurst workers. We are finding out that at 55 years of age, when they have been 25 years in a mill, it is too late to send them to try to get upgrading or new skills. It is not working. Even the 18 or 28 who are involved in it at this moment in Hamilton are not happy with it. My figures are from last Thursday. They do not believe it is helping them. Some of them are staying in the upgrading program because it is the only way they can still continue to collect unemployment insurance. It is not an answer at 55 or 60 years of age.

Is the answer that we have to work out a sabbatical such as some professors have? Should they be banking credits where they work so that every fourth or fifth year they can, if they want, spend a year in a retraining program and receive their pay for it? We are going to have to develop something that says workers are able to retrain several times in their lifetimes. We must not get shot down because of potential costs. We will have to take a look at what we can do to build up and put in place a program that allows this kind of change.

We have to do all these things. We are obviously also going to have to involve the workers themselves one hell of a lot more in decision-making. The answer today was totally inadequate. The president of a big local such as the one at Inco in Port Colborne went in to ask management, the guy they deal with: "These are the rumours going around the plant. Is there any truth to them?"

One can think what his respect for them will be from this day on. He was told: "Absolutely not. We will have nothing but the normal summer layoffs." The next day he was called in and the announcement was made that 500 workers were out permanently.

We will have to involve the workers more quickly and much more in the decisions that are made. We will have to challenge seriously what have become entrenched as management rights in contracts. That does not mean we want the right to involve and change anything and everything that happens in a plant. It means when a major technological change is going to affect the workers, their livelihood and the community they work in, they are going to have to have some say, rather than just being told, even if it is a Saturday or several weeks in advance, exactly what is going to happen.

We are going to have to look at interim measures. I think the content legislation is only an interim measure. I suspect that is the way a number of countries will handle it. I was talking the other day to one of the journalists who covered our task force report. He told me about one of the things that really fascinated him -- he had been over in Japan a few months ago and had been following up some of his investigations. From what he was picking up, the Japanese were on the verge, within the next three or four years, of moving the entire assembly of automobiles out of Japan. They were looking at Pakistan in particular, but at one or two other locations as well. They are obviously going to have that in place, if they are thinking that far down the road and are able to do it, because of the mechanics of scale, cost and the new technology.

Has any of this crossed the minds of government members? Are they taking a look at what the heck they have to do in terms of the future of work and workers in this province? I do not see it in the throne speech. As I said when I started, I am hoping we may get a better picture when we see the budget presentation. There is certainly nothing in the throne speech to give any hope at all to workers, poor people, older people, pensioners and young unemployed workers in this province.

The government is going to be held responsible for the reaction to that. I think it is going to come sooner rather than later, and the government has one hell of a lot to be held responsible for. The throne speech is totally inadequate.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank you and all honourable members of the House for selecting me for the fourth consecutive year to be the deputy chairman of the committees of the whole House. I have found it a great honour to be of service to the House and to have had the opportunity of working with the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz).

It is a tremendous way to learn the workings of the Legislature, to sit in that chair and be as nonpartisan as possible, to look at both sides of the House and try to maintain a sense of equity and fairness, a sense of humour and all those things one learns by doing the job. Again, I thank all honourable members who elected me to this great office for one more year, or at least for this session.

Interjections.

Mr. Cousens: I am fully forgiving towards those who did not vote for me. I will try to be totally nonpartisan. I had more trouble from the fellows on this side of the House than I did from the others.

An hon. member: So it should be.

Mr. Cousens: I also want to congratulate the Deputy Speaker on the way he is fulfilling his job. I wish him continued great success as he sits in the chair. I know he takes his work very seriously.

The other day, as I was sitting in the chair, I had the pleasure of listening to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon). I was very impressed by the comments he had to make on an issue that crosses the boundaries of all parliamentarians, federally and provincially. That has to do with the whole situation of human rights in the Soviet Union and the need to support the refuseniks, those people in Russia who would like to have visas to emigrate to another land. What the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk had to say was a testimony to what we as parliamentarians and legislators should be doing all the time.

We are so fortunate to live in this land with such freedoms and the luxury of being able to vote and select those who are going to represent us, to move from province to province and land to land and to be able to make a living. We have so many freedoms, such as the freedom to have a job and to have an education. When I think of Shcharansky and some others in the Soviet Union whose rights have been abrogated, who have no sense of freedom, I am indeed proud to know there are members from our Legislature who are taking this very seriously.

4:20 p.m.

When I think of the small committee we have, with the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) and the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) as the three chairpeople who are responsible for this all-party committee on Soviet Jewry, I am pleased to be part of that. If there is anything we should be doing now, it is to continue to promote the needs of those people in the Soviet Union who would like to have something of the freedom we enjoy.

Just today, I received in the mail something from the leader of the third party. He too was sharing some information he had received. There are two things we have to do. We have to put pressure on the Soviets. I think the kind of thing the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk did is a symbol of that, by going there and taking the time, as a non-Jew and as one who has a deep concern. But also we must share our concern with the refuseniks so that we, on the outside, are able to let them know we care.

I do not think we should let up on that vigil. In many lands throughout the world there are people who do not have anything close to what we have. We should never say our responsibility is only for Ontario or for our ridings. Our responsibility crosses the boundaries of all colours, races, religions and lands. When we are talking about these needs, we should do so in a genuine way.

I commend very genuinely the remarks that were given to us the other day by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. I personally appreciated the fact that he could be there, as my representative as well, in going to the Soviet Union to make the kind of commitment and representation he would have made for us.

I also have one other little sidelight that ties into the whole throne speech. It has to do with an association of high-technology companies situated in the northeast part of Metro Toronto and south York region. They have formed an association known as the York Technology Association. It is an association of 100 or so companies and has senior executives represented in it. The president of MDS Canada and I, as co-chairmen of this association, listen to what governments are trying to do, how governments are trying to serve the business community and how they are trying to serve the people of this province.

As an association, we have been impressed at the willingness of this province's government to work with the association. Typical of the interchange and dialogue that take place, for instance, is the way in which the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) will be meeting with the association prior to his budget to discuss some of the facets that would pertain to high technology.

The dialogue that has to go on among business, labour and government has to be accelerated. When the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) was talking --

Mr. Mackenzie: Not one-sided.

Mr. Cousens: It cannot be one-sided, for sure. I ended up agreeing with him more today than I had thought I would, because when one starts hearing about people losing their jobs, not being informed and not having a sharing of information, having the kind of surprise the member for Hamilton East was talking about, it is the kind of thing we should all be working on together to try to build bridges rather than fences. We should be working to have a better understanding of the needs of all people in this province. Again, that is incumbent on each one of us so that we are not just two groups of an élite and the poor.

Unfortunately, if we allow it to continue, we are going to have the very rich and the very poor, and nothing in between. We can help to be brokers to build a stronger Canada if we can get rid of some of the labour disputes, the labour uncertainty and allow people to have more trust and honesty in working together.

Mr. Grande: Let us see some action.

Mr. Cousens: The member is seeing action. There are the kinds of dialogue our ministers are having with business and the way in which our government is trying to set an example by running this government with fairness to its people; affirmative action programs are one example. There are many ways in which this government is trying to set a good example. Its own efforts at fiscal restraint are also an example to other people. In the last few years, our restraint program has given people in the outside world a sense of knowing that this government is caring.

As I see the Ontario government's position now, we are moving into a very good age, but it has not been easy. In the three years I have been sitting in seat 55 at Queen's Park and looking out at the world from this perspective, I have seen much improvement. I see the way in which we are gaining optimism again as employment improves, as opportunities improve and as the government is able to give new proactive initiatives to help make this land of ours prosper even more.

As a government, we have a great deal to be proud of, and I just wish the people with the gloom and doom could put that away and start looking at the good things that are going on. Things are not all black.

Mr. Gillies: Start with the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), for instance.

Mr. Cousens: We could start with anyone, because the fact is that there is much that is happening to be pleased with; however, we have to be careful and not become too simplistic in our thinking and say: "Hey, there is going to be an easy answer. There is going to be an easy road out." There is not. Nothing is going to be easy when one is talking about an economy as fragile and as dependent upon international forces and federal forces as ours. Therefore, we can only do so much. But as long as we are doing as much as we can, then we as a government can say to the people who elected us, "We have done our best."

I am pleased to see the kind of things our government is trying to do. We are not taking this responsibility lightly. We are taking a very serious look at ways in which we can address the problems that face the future.

Some people would say, as we move into the post-industrial age, there will be less opportunity for the working class. I am afraid that will be the case unless we make every effort as a government to provide opportunities for these people to learn new trades, learn new businesses, move to new jobs, find new opportunities and get into the advanced technology of things.

We are not going to be in a world where we are just trying to serve hamburgers to people. We want to serve them with products and services that can make for a better lifestyle and a better way of living. Certainly, that is the kind of thing our government is trying to do.

Mr. Martel: That is why we need more robots in the plants.

Mr. Swart: That is why there are more and more on the poverty line.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: Ontario is really part of the world picture where we are seeing raw materials rising in cost. Raw materials can be dug out of the ground, served up and taken to refineries in Third World countries much cheaper than they can be processed in our own land. We are finding some of our own opportunities being taken away because of competition around the world. We are seeing our own opportunities eroded as other countries are automating. They are moving to new, sophisticated equipment to solve their problems, to do things more efficiently and more effectively, while many of our own business people are waiting and perhaps waiting too long.

We are seeing what Japan has done with the automotive industry. Somewhat late, General Motors of Canada Ltd., Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd., American Motors (Canada) Inc. and other North American companies began to see there were other ways of doing the same kind of thing. For example, a car could still be made but could be made a better-quality product; it could be made more quickly, more cheaply and new things could be put into it.

As well, we are seeing changes taking place within the business community which we, as politicians, should recognize. We are seeing the emergence of new small- and medium-sized firms, the kind of outgrowth that has come from Northern Telecom Canada Ltd. through the spinoff of many small companies because of the ideas of people who wanted to go out and start up their own businesses. In doing so, they have been able to establish a whole new series of small high-technology firms. We could be seeing this kind of spinoff from all the large corporations in Canada, especially if we provided the incentive and opportunity for them to do so.

With all these changes, we are seeing the opportunity for our government to give leadership and to generate new employment. This is a major thrust of our throne speech which I was delighted to see for young people and for retraining so people can move into opportunities where they can find some fulfilment for their own lives.

Mr. Grande: Is the government providing the substance for those needs? If so, show us.

Mr. Cousens: There is substance behind the speech, and the honourable member is going to see substance in the future as this speech comes into action, as he sees the budget and other things we are doing.

Mr. Gillies: He will not recognize it when he sees it. He has made a career out of talking. That is all the members do over there.

Mr. Foulds: Where are the jobs after the counselling and training? Come on, get serious.

Mr. Cousens: I do not think anyone on this side of the House is not serious, and I do not think anyone on this side of the House does not take his responsibilities seriously because the matter we are talking about has to do with the future of our province and of our country. What we want to do is see that it is not only strong but also stronger, that we are not only rich but richer as well, that those who have, can have more, that there are no have-nots -- no have-not companies, no have-not people -- and that everybody in this province can share in the opportunity that is there for them.

4:30 p.m.

It is not easy, however. When we start seeing the way this province and this country are doing in comparison to the world picture, we had better realize that we are living with a very high standard but we are not necessarily producing and generating the kinds of wealth and resources that we can.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Cousens: There are many examples of it. If we look at the last 20 years, there was a survey of the 500 most important innovations that were introduced in six countries between 1953 and 1973; it indicated that, of the 500 innovations developed during that time frame, only eight --

Mr. Gillies: Not one was from the New Democrats.

Mr. Cousens: I would not say that; I am saying that only eight of them came from Canada, and that shows there is a problem.

We have to do everything we can to promote the development of new products, new thinking and new ways of doing business. Unfortunately, many people think it can be done in just a short time; they think you can quickly invest some money and quickly get the output. You cannot do that; it takes years to develop new products, new designs and new adaptations.

The problem with investors is that they say they want to invest money, but they want their money out next year, when in fact we are talking about seven or nine years before one starts reaping the harvest from the investment one makes today.

Mr. Stokes: You are saying we lack a favourable economic climate.

Mr. Cousens: What we are saying here is that in Canada we have not been developing, innovating and doing the kinds of things we can and should be doing.

I point to the example of Japan, and this was something that had to shock a lot of people when a jurisdiction is as far behind as we are in our use of robots. We are not going to try to have robots do everything, but it is a factor. When you start realizing that when you have something like 23.2 robots for every 10,000 manufacturing employees, as they do in Japan, whereas in Canada we have 1.4 robots for the same number of employees, you realize we are not using this kind of technology as much as we could. Certainly the Japanese are using it; we too should be looking at the ways in which this high-technology approach to doing business can be used and considered.

Mr. McClellan: How many cars is a robot going to buy?

Mr. Cousens: Yes. But we are not going to be able to buy the cars unless we are in a position to be able to afford them, unless we have people who can develop them, work on them and make a quality product. On the world market, we are not just talking about building for Canada any more.

Mr. McClellan: This should go over well in Brantford.

Mr. Cousens: The honourable member should not forget that we in Ontario have to take advantage of all the technological innovations we can to help promote the business opportunities this province can have, not only here but also throughout the world; and we as a province should be doing everything we can to establish the environment for that kind of approach.

Mr. McClellan: If you can ever get the robots to vote for you, you will do fine.

Mr. Cousens: Maybe the member does not have any comprehension of the power these machines can have, in the same way as the steam engine had for pulling the railways. There are so many things that can be done if we take advantage of them.

One can put the curtains on, hide under a bushel and not try to do anything. Our province happens to be looking at ways in which we can go into the 21st century and be successful and more successful. We have a success record; we are not just going to let it sit. We are going to take every chance we can with the investment so these firms can expand and grow. It is not taking a chance to say, "Let us not be the last to join the lineup."

Interjections.

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

Mr. Cousens: There is a tremendous need for the government, the entrepreneurs and the business people of our province to look at ways of facing the challenges that the 1980s really have.

We are seeing it in our trade ratio. When we look at the way trade in Ontario has gone down, we see we have kept our percentage but our world share of trade has not increased; in fact, it has gone down, it has declined. We in this province should not allow that. We should be finding ways of enhancing that opportunity and building it into the way we are doing business to promote more trade.

These are challenges we have. We have to look at the way other countries have lower wage rates. They have higher productivity. What can we do to increase our productivity? We have to look at this and we have to build a climate such that the workers, the business people, the government and all levels of our society will work together to achieve greater successes.

This is our challenge for the 1980s. It is a challenge to use our people and our resources to identify the opportunity and to do everything we can to make it happen. This is where government has an important role to play, to help establish an environment for business to succeed and to prosper.

Mr. McClellan: And for robots. Do not forget the robots. It is a good environment for robots.

Mr. Cousens: We might get a robot. It probably could do a better job than the member in some of the things he does. That would be going too far; I do not know what he does and no one else does.

What we really want to do is to see whether we can do something for the economy and for the world we are living in and not pass judgement on everything all the time without at least looking at what it can do for us. Maybe part of the prejudgement that some people have is the kind of thing that makes it difficult for other people to give it a try.

Our government should be in a position to establish a climate and a good environment for business. The opposition thinks money is going to come from the people all the time, but the business community can provide opportunities for employees, for trade, for so many things. We should be helping to provide that environment. We are competing on a world market for our share of steel, autos, textiles, rubber and petrochemicals -- industries that have traditionally been the backbone of this province. What can we do?

An hon. member: Farm machinery.

Mr. Cousens: And farm machinery. There are so many others.

An hon. member: Welfare.

Mr. Cousens: Welfare is not an industry we really want to start promoting, although we will support welfare.

Mr. Gillies: It is over there.

Mr. Cousens: I see it as more than that. The government has to understand we have a major role to play in bringing our industries up to the level established by our competitors in other parts of the world. Our government realizes this can be best achieved by playing a supportive role rather than becoming a direct interventionist. Government cannot run everything. It cannot run all that much all that well.

Mr. Foulds: This government cannot run anything.

Mr. Cousens: Fine, but if members opposite had their way, they would have government running the whole world. The reason there happens to be a Tory party is that we also believe in the free enterprise system; there should be an opportunity and a climate for someone to make an honest dollar outside government, and government should be doing what it can to allow people to make that dollar --

Mr. Foulds: There are only two things wrong with the free enterprise system: it ain't free and there is no enterprise, especially when you are an example.

Mr. Cousens: Not that there is a dishonest dollar, associated with what the honourable member is talking about.

We should be in a position as a government to continue to do the kinds of things that are referred to in the throne speech, to help promote more research and development, to help promote more technological innovation and to help have more diffusion of this innovation across the marketplace.

Mr. Foulds: Who is going to pay for it?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: We should be promoting research and development and technological innovation, having more diffusion of these services and allowing the human resources that can make it happen to have an active part in it. I am impressed with what our government has already done and the commitment our government already has to the support of these fundamental objectives of having a climate and an environment conducive to successful business.

Mr. Martel: You have had 40 years. Where is the environment?

Mr. Cousens: It is a 40-year environment that has been built up on the trust that now exists between the business people and the government and the sense of knowing the government is there supporting the fundamental right to make an honest dollar.

As we look at the whole need for research and development, I am impressed at what our government is trying to do for small companies and large companies. We have the Ontario Research Foundation, which specializes in industrial problem-solving through the provision of technical services, including research and development to small firms. We have the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, which has done a great deal in support of our universities. Eleven universities have received matching grants totalling $4.3 million for contracts received from the private sector.

The government says: "We know there is a resource there. We have the University of Toronto. We have Waterloo. We have significant educational institutions. Let us use those institutions to develop more. Let us use the resources, the minds and the people who are there to turn out more advanced products."

On Friday of last week, I met with a constituent whose company is involved in a high-technology product developed in the University of Toronto laboratories. He is now in the process of marketing it worldwide. There is no one else who can do the kind of process they have. It is patented, it is exclusive and it is something they are doing very successfully. That had its origins in our educational institutions.

4:40 p.m.

In the 1981-82 fiscal year the Ontario government spent more than $79 million in natural science and engineering research and development, more than double that spent in 1974-75.

As a province, our whole approach to capital funding has been very much in support of companies that want to get out and try something new. The small business development corporation program has been a tremendously popular tax measure that has allowed people to get involved.

I do not know how many members opposite would refer businesses in their communities to the Ontario Development Corp. It has been able to back up a great number of companies in the province that could not have found their funding from banks or through private enterprise, and yet the government of Ontario has been willing to give them the kind of support they needed.

I am pleased as well when I look at what has been happening with the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp. The IDEA Corp. represents a real and substantial commitment by the Ontario government, and it exemplifies how the public and private sectors can work together.

Established in 1981 by the provincial government, the IDEA Corp. is responsible for encouraging and financing technological innovation and its commercial development in Ontario. To this extent, the corporation seeks to bring together the research capabilities and capacities of the public sector with those of the commercial and industrial sectors.

The corporation is the central element in the government's plan to enhance long-term economic growth and employment. The IDEA Corp. was originally provided with funds totalling $107 million over a period of five years and has been given a mandate to become self-financing by its sixth year of operation.

Its funds are channelled into a number of different technological funds as well as two wholly owned funds: the research investment fund and the IDEA innovation fund. These funds are used to finance joint ventures in the five broad technological areas of biological and medical, chemical and process, information systems, machine automation and microelectronics.

These funds, operated by independent managers from the private sector, are open to investors and are expected to attract funds of four to six times their original value. The research investment fund channels money into projects during the early stages of commercial development. The innovation fund is used for investment in a broad range of projects and ventures. Up to December 1983, the IDEA Corp. had invested $7.5 million in high-tech development.

The overriding principle is that we will continue to work with projects that need help, and this province is going to be prepared on an ongoing basis to help innovation happen. Research and development is a starting point, and we as a province realize that; it does not just happen without having some good planning and thinking going into it.

A part of that environment that our province believes in is the whole business of innovation. Through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program there is a great deal of assistance that can be given to those projects that have already been developed but need to be expanded, tried and experimented with.

Our province has been active in support of Telidon; Teleguide; the Institute for Hydrogen Systems -- we all talk about finding new forms of energy; we are doing that through helping support the hydrogen systems project -- the Ontario Centre for Remote Sensing; transit information, communication and control systems; the Canadian education microcomputer, the Icon; the exploration technology development fund. These are projects that are off the ground, they have been developed and proved; now, to get them out into the world, we have this kind of support coming from Ontario.

What we are seeing is that the province, through its Ministry of Industry and Trade, is not living in a vacuum and is not living separate from the real world. We in this province are genuine in our commitment to support business and the use of new technology and new opportunities.

How do we get the business people to use it? That has to be a continuing challenge for any government. As a result of its contacts abroad through its large, expansive force, the government is able to know what is going on in other parts of the world. We are saying, "How can we bring some of those techniques and services into this province so that we too can benefit?"

This is where we have a success story that all parties should be pleased with. That has to do with the six high-tech centres that were established by our government two or three years ago.

As a member ex officio of the board of directors for the Ontario centre for advanced manufacturing, I know we in Ontario are doing something that is the envy of all the other jurisdictions in this country. In this centre, we are doing something to accelerate the use of high technology in robot computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing.

This is a way in which we as a government are able to set up these centres, not in competition with the rest of the free market but to give business people a chance to come in and see how they can make use of them. We can show them how to use them and help them to start up using them. Then we can have a better chance to compete in the world market. I am impressed at the way our government has done this. What we are able now to do --

Mr. McClellan: What about all the displaced workers? The member does not even want to talk about them.

Mr. Cousens: I will talk about them. If members look at the board of directors for OCAM, they will see there is a member from the union. He, as well as anybody else, is aware of the expected impact that these are to have. When I was talking to him last week I said, "What do you think of what we are doing in the centres?" He said: "I think it is one of those things that is necessary, we are having to go ahead with it. I think you are being careful and prudent."

Mr. Foulds: Nobody denies that.

Mr. Cousens: Okay, but the member is just saying, "Do not do it." If the member had his way, he would not do anything. Our government is prepared to do something that counts.

Mr. Foulds: You have not even mentioned the human beings who are affected.

Mr. Cousens: Implicit to the whole process are the people who run it, and the government.

Mr. Foulds: Never mind the process, talk about the people.

Mr. Cousens: That is the member's problem. He says, "Never mind the process." I think our government is trying to set up an environment that will lead to a process leading to even greater successes. Our province has enjoyed great success in the past and we are going to maintain the kind of environment for which we will need to have more success in the future. That is going to involve free enterprise, machines, money and people. The whole thing comes together. If it is run by the government, it is not going to succeed, but if we lay down an environment for it so it can run and be successful, then it will be good.

Mr. T. P. Reid: What do these people do in the meantime?

Mr. Cousens: May I suggest to the member that an awful lot is being done in the whole business of sharing the high-technology projects and the development that is taking place in industry with business. I am impressed with what we are doing in the microelectronic centre, in resource machinery, with farm machinery and food processing and in automotive parts.

These are critical examples of where our government is trying to make a significant contribution to the business world in our province. People are coming from other parts of the world to see the kind of leadership we are giving to the business community in this province. It does not just happen. It happens because we make it happen and because we believe in it.

When I talk about our government establishing an environment, I am pleased to see the way in which we are helping finance more research and development. We want to see more innovation come from this province. We want to see the thinkers think, the believers believe, the producers produce; we want to see it happen so that we can become even more successful. We want to see more innovation and we as a government are obviously committed to seeing innovation take place when it is for the good of the province and the good of the people.

As well, we as a province have genuine support for the diffusion and sharing of this technology across the province. It is there to help those companies and the people who need it. The whole thing comes together when one sees the glue and the human resources, and that the government, through our Ministry of Labour and through the kind of commitment we have, is giving leadership to improve relations among all levels of management and workers and government, because by working together we can be even more successful.

I see our province having a significant commitment to human resources because we know it is not going to be done without the people. The richness of Canada is no longer in its natural resources. We may have found Hemlo, we may have some gold deposits, we may have some nickel deposits, we may have some other great riches in the land and on the land, but the richest resource we have in this country is the people who make it up.

Mr. Stokes: Only if they are productive; only if they are working.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Cousens: Only if they are productive and only if they are working. We have to realize that we must educate them, help them to be educated, prepare them for the opportunities that can come up. Our province is helping to fund those programs and to make post-secondary institutions more helpful in providing that service to those people who are going to participate in the new advances that will take place in the province.

In 1983-84 alone, a total of $2.5 billion was spent on post-secondary institutions. The Ontario training incentive program has provided $60 million in incentives for on-the-job training. A total of $3.4 million is being spent on employer-sponsored training programs to assist the government, employers and educators in identifying skill requirements at the local level.

What we are really talking about is a government that is committed to helping business and people achieve an even better standard of living. It does not happen by thinking about it; it happens because we are doing something about it. The throne speech points to a government that is behind the society in establishing a climate and an environment that can lead to greater successes.

I am surprised such agony comes from members of the opposition. They should realize that when this government tries to do its job, it is facing up to the facts in an honest way. Possibly all members have reviewed the booklet of the Minister of Treasury and Economics on economic transformation. He is pointing to some of the ways it can be done. Have the members read it, seen the way Canada really is and seen the way we are trying to proceed? If they have not, they should. All members should be looking at the things that are coming from our government. At least they are seeing an honest approach as to how we can face up to the opportunities of the 1980s.

This is the age of the microcomputer, the age of change, the age of opportunity and if we as a government are willing to contribute to that and take part in it, we can participate in a real and full way. I hope we will. I hope we will have a chance to do so for much longer to come, because we are taking it seriously.

As high-technology industry develops in this country and as we establish an even stronger business plan, I hope a climate will develop even more to allow this government to give continued leadership over the long term for the business people, the working class and all the people of the province.

When we have a successful business climate, when businesses are making money, the government makes more money and we can afford the services we all want to be able to offer more of. It is through this success that we will generate the revenue to do even more with it.

I thank the members for their attention and for the opportunity to participate in the throne speech debate. I look forward to listening to the remarks of all the other members.

Mr. Grande: Can the Speaker find the riding?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Hodgson): I could not find you on the chart; I am sorry.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think that means I have been recognized. Thank you for the introduction.

I would like to begin my remarks by thanking the good people of Prescott-Russell, as I do every year when I make my opening remarks in this debate, for having afforded me the opportunity, the privilege and the honour to represent them.

I would like to welcome to the Legislature the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve). He represents a constituency close to the one where I live. I know that because I happened to go into his riding on occasion during the election campaign. He was here a moment ago. He must have stepped out for a while. I want to convey my congratulations and wish him the best of luck. I hope he will be serving the good people of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry at least until the next election. I cannot go any further than that.

There are two main topics I want to talk about today. The first is a subject which is certainly very important to me and that is the Conservative government attack on Prescott-Russell. The second is the linguistic rights of the population of Ontario.

Before doing that, I want to bring to the attention of members a letter that was written to the editor of the Orléans Express the other day. I am sure Mr. Speaker, knowing Ontario as well as he does, knows Orléans is a community that is shared between the member for Carleton East (Mr. MacQuarrie) and me.

The member for Carleton East and the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) have taken it upon themselves to be missionaries of the Tory government in Prescott-Russell. They have decided they are going to get me. They are both after my hide. Mind you, both have a majority which is less than mine and maybe they should spend a little bit more time in their own ridings and a little less in mine.

In any case, the member for Carleton East, with his majority of 1,600 votes, spends a whole bunch of time, days and days, in Prescott-Russell, courting the electors there. The member for Ottawa South usually comes and makes lengthy, long-winded speeches in English to my francophone constituents telling them how they should get rid of me.

I will make my remarks about the member for Carleton East very briefly. He woke up one day, I guess it was on February 23, and picked up the Orléans Express. He looked at the paper very carefully from one end to the other, counted the number of times his name was in the paper and how many times his picture appeared. He took out his calculator and came to the brilliant conclusion his picture was not in the newspaper often enough. Would you believe that, Mr. Speaker? So the member took out his pencil and paper and decided he would write a letter to the editor complaining about this. I think I should read the letter to members.

"Dear Sir:

"Several weeks ago, I indicated that I would write a column for your paper on a fortnightly basis. As a government member for Carleton East and a parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, I felt I would not have the time to write more frequently. Unlike others, I like to handle my own copy.

"I also indicated to you that my connection with, and interest in, the Orléans area went back many years" -- I believe that. It goes back to the years when he used to be a Liberal. That is a long time ago -- "and that the constituency of Carleton East took in much of the greater Orléans community. I was, therefore, quite surprised that I had not been contacted earlier. Indeed, it was only after your paper was advised that a government member represented much of Orléans community that I was contacted regarding a column."

You see, I had been writing a column in the newspaper for a while and he noticed that mine was there and his was not. That was mainly because he had not telephoned them to tell them he would be willing to write. That is neither here nor there, I suppose. He was offended because he did not have a column in that newspaper, notwithstanding the fact he did not write one.

I continue: "I have heard that you printed (and still do) lengthy missives from a member of one of the opposition parties" -- that is a shorthand way of meaning me, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Stokes: Lengthy missives.

Mr. Boudria: "Lengthy missives" is how he described my weekly column -- "replete with errors and overstatements, but complete with photograph." How dare the newspaper, the Orléans Express, print a picture of an opposition member and not print a picture of the member for Carleton East? Is it not shameful they would actually do this?

The member never did send in a picture. He had not even sent them a column at that time. I will continue.

"As you know, it is easier to carp and criticize than it is to put forward constructive suggestions. An opposition party, after all, is not charged with the responsibility of governing a large and progressive province.

"Printing a lengthy letter from the member in question," again that is me, "to the Minister of Education relating largely to peripheral issues at the Dunning-Foubert School at about the time (and possibly before) it was received and considered by the minister was, in my opinion, irresponsible and did little to win support at the ministry."

5 p.m.

This is interesting. The member is complaining about me writing a letter concerning a school in my riding and he figures that he should have been the one writing about this first. This is the way of thinking of the member for Carleton East and probably the rest of them across the way.

He went on to say: "It did the community no good and was no way to advance the cause of obtaining a much-needed addition to the school. At the request of representatives of the board of education, the mayor of Cumberland and myself had been working quietly for some time to obtain a capital allocation for the addition out of the limited funds available" -- No wonder the funds are limited. The way they squander funds on such a variety of things, bicentennials and all, it is small wonder they do not have any money for the schools in my riding. They waste it.

To continue: -- "before the member in question became involved and the letter appeared. Although our efforts might have been somewhat hampered, I still have every hope that we'll succeed in having funds allocated - - despite strong competition for funding assistance from other centres." So the member for Carleton East is glad to report to the newspaper that he is finally going to succeed in getting my riding the school it wants after I wrote a letter to the minister. That is very good of the member for Carleton East, and I thank him for doing it.

To continue: "All of this leads me to point out that I have, as promised, delivered columns to your heading 'Carleton East Notes.'" This is the title of this weekly report. "Unfortunately, due to what I trust was inadvertence or an oversight, I note that the one which appeared most recently gave no indication of authorship or even a byline."

They forgot to write his name down. Imagine the poor member for Carleton East writing that article every second week. He is too busy for one every week. Unfortunately, it does not have a picture on it because he did not send them one. Now they even forgot to print his name. Is this not sad?

Let me continue to show how sad the story is. You will cry by the time it is over, Mr. Speaker, if you can believe a member writing to a newspaper complaining he cannot get his picture in it often enough. "From all appearances, it could have been anonymously written." It probably was. "I have not seen the first column so I do not know if it was similarly treated.

"When I first agreed to write a fortnightly column, I expressed the hope that your paper would not be politically biased and that I could expect fair and equal treatment" -- This is interesting; he writes a column every two weeks, but he wants this column printed as many times as the column I send to them every week. Presumably, the newspaper should write every second week, "This is a repeat of Bob MacQuarrie's last week's column in case you missed it." I guess this is what he wants the Orléans Express to do. He said: -- "in the hope that we could all work together for the betterment of the whole community. I have been doing my part, and a considerable amount has been accomplished."

"Yours very truly, Robert W. MacQuarrie, QC, MPP, Carleton East."

That is the letter the member for Carleton East sent to the Orléans Express, stating that in his view the newspaper is biased because it does not print his picture often enough. I do not think the honourable member thought this would happen, but the newspaper actually printed that darned thing, which is embarrassing for the member. The news editor also responded to it. It is a very short response, which I will take a minute to read.

"As the title we put to your letter says, nobody's perfect...and we are no exception. Like you said, we are not politically biased. We believe we have to offer equal opportunity of expression to all politicians representing Orléans, be they government or opposition. If Orléans was represented by four politicians in Queen's Park, we would try to get four columns similar to yours. This is where a frequent problem arises. Some elected members do not have the time to write columns." Presumably, that is the problem of the member for Carleton East.

"As a matter of fact, those who do write are a minority in densely populated areas. We knew you represented Carleton East, but we did not know you were willing to write a column until you mentioned it to me during a telephone interview a while back." The newspaper could not print a column the member for Carleton East was not sending to it. That is very logical. "The opposition member you are referring to" -- that means me -- "came forward and offered to write a column for us on a weekly basis, and we accepted, of course; columns are interesting, they are read. We will try to settle that problem."

"As for the missing byline, my error. I admit I forgot to circle your name on your copy, which would ensure your name was composed along with the rest of the text. Now that we have your photo" -- he sent them his picture; is that not nice to know? -- "and your byline is typed on to the text, the error will not be repeated.

"Finally, the letter to Education Minister Bette Stephenson was printed eight days after it was sent. We presumed the letter would have reached Dr. Stephenson by then. We are sorry if we were ahead of Canada Post!

"Yves Quinty, News Editor."

That is to describe to members some of the goings-on in eastern Ontario and how some of the government members spend their time. Half of it is spent attacking opposition members in their own constituency, telling them how great it would be if they had a Tory member in the area. Mr. Speaker, look how great the place is, having had Tory representation for the last 31 years in Prescott-Russell, with 20 per cent unemployment and all the other problems we have. That is where electing a Tory member in Prescott-Russell got us.

I do not think the people of Prescott-Russell have to apologize to the member for Carleton East, and certainly not to the member for Ottawa South, for having elected a member who happens to sit in opposition, until the next election, after which we will cross over and those folks over there will cross over here.

I want to spend some time today talking about an issue that is very important to my constituents and, I believe, to the unity of this country. Of course I am going to talk about some of the linguistic problems that are facing Canada today.

I believe a lot of the problems we have arise through a lack of understanding of each other. It has been said in the past that a problem with this country is that the English-speaking people refuse to remember history and the francophones refuse to forget it. Perhaps that summarizes in a way many of the linguistic happenings and arguments we have today.

If we can go back for a minute to Manitoba, one of the two officially bilingual provinces in this country, that province was made bilingual at the time it joined Confederation. At that time nearly 50 per cent of the population of the province were francophones, and one of their leaders participated in a very deep and bitter struggle, which eventually ended in his execution -- a struggle for many things, some of which were the linguistic rights of the population of that province.

Not long after Manitoba joined our country through an act of the legislature of that province, the rights of the francophone minority were dismantled; we all know that. This happened in a province that at the time of Confederation had a population that was almost 50 per cent French-speaking, but their rights, by an act of the legislature, were removed. The legislature did not even have the authority to remove them in the first place, but it did so anyway. Unfortunately, nobody ever attempted in a sufficient way, in my view, to correct the problem at the time it originated; it was left there for many years. Seemingly, it was a small group of people, and they tried to forget about the problem, hoping some day it would go away.

Some 80 or 90 years later a similar problem occurred in another province. I am speaking about Quebec and the problems we have seen there in another so-called bilingual province, which in turn attempted to curtail the rights and services offered to its English-speaking minority. Things went a little bit more quickly in that respect. Only a few years after that happened, some of the Quebec laws were challenged in the courts and invalidated. Then, all of a sudden, remedial action had to be taken.

5:10 p.m.

Of course, in deciding that the Quebec laws in question were not valid, a similar decision had to be taken about the Manitoba laws. They were both about the same issue; they were different linguistic groups, but both were bilingual provinces and so forth.

As we know, the outcome of all of this was that Quebec did take remedial steps in correcting its legislation, which was printed in French only but is no longer. It is printed in both languages now, as most of us who have been for a visit to the Quebec National Assembly know. The case of Manitoba, though, has certainly not been corrected yet, and we know the problems there today. It does not appear as if they are going to be corrected very quickly.

We are anxiously awaiting the decision of the federal government to see whether the whole matter will be brought before the Supreme Court. It is my hope they will make an announcement to that effect as soon as possible, and it will not be one day too soon in my view.

I do think what happened in both cases, in Quebec and Manitoba, was very sad for all Canadians. We are all really losing by what we have seen happen. We see many countries in this world, some of which have four official languages. I am thinking of Switzerland. Probably the most fabled democracy on the face of the earth, it has four official languages.

Speaking French is certainly not going to lead this country to gloom and doom and all the rest of those things Mr. Lyon and others in Manitoba have told us. It just does not do that. To enrich ourselves with another culture does not make us poorer; it makes us richer. I am sure if all of us sat down and thought about it seriously for a few minutes, we would come to that conclusion.

We are living at a very historical time here in Ontario with a golden opportunity offered to us. As a legislature, we could seize this historic moment, have the Premier (Mr. Davis) meet with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and the leader of the third party, if he wishes to attend, and come to a consensus on offering linguistic rights to the francophone minority of this province.

They could then come to this Legislature with a resolution to outline what exactly they intend to do, moved by the Premier and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, or vice versa, whichever way they like; seconded or however by the leader of the third party as well, if he wants to become involved in it. We could come to a unanimous resolution in this Legislature, supported by all political parties, to amend our Constitution to guarantee the linguistic rights of francophones.

By doing this, we would put our province at the forefront of all other provinces in this country. Many times in the past in Ontario we have produced very positive and innovative legislation. Such legislation was then used as a model by other provinces. Whether we know it or not, we are the belly button of this country. We are at the centre and we are the people on whom everyone and everything converges. We know that. We are the largest province and we have the largest city and everything else where we are right now. As I say, other provinces have often taken examples of our legislation and improved upon it on their own.

We could now pass a resolution in this Legislature, take that resolution, show it to Manitoba, Quebec and any other province and ask them to do the same. We could say, "Quebec, this is how you should treat your minority. Look at how we treat ours." We could say, "Manitoba, here is how to treat your francophone minority. This is how we treat ours." Instead, unfortunately, we have the attitude that we must offer services to the francophone community and not admit it except to the francophones. Why can we not be proud of the way we treat our minority? It has been said that a society is measured by how well it treats its minorities.

Things must not only be done, they must appear to be done. That is 50 per cent of the importance, if not more. The government of this province tells us we cannot improve the rights of francophones officially because if we do there may be a backlash.

Where is the Sterling Lyon in this Legislature? Do you see him, Mr. Speaker? I do not. There is no leader of a political party in this province who would start some of the things we saw out there. Where is there such a radical member in this Legislature? I do not think we have such a member, front-bencher or back-bencher. In no place in this House do we have that attitude displayed. I give much more credit than that to the members of this Legislature.

I think that if the Premier seized this opportunity and acted in such a way as I suggest, we would not see the sky fall down. Nothing would be tremendously different the day after, except that we would have achieved the symbolic status that is necessary for us. We would have injected an amount of credibility into this issue that we could then give to other provinces and ask them to do the same.

I would like to read to the members an editorial from the Ottawa Citizen of March 8.

"Premier Davis, who has just rejected Prime Minister Trudeau's call to entrench language rights for Franco-Ontarians, can point to recent events in Manitoba to show the wisdom of his gradualist approach to French language rights.

"Wasn't the Manitoba government strategy divisive and ultimately futile? Hasn't its failure harmed national unity? Why then should Davis, who has managed to expand French-language services without provoking a backlash, accept Trudeau's advice?

"It's a seductive argument, but one that ignores the differences in political context between Manitoba and Ontario.

"In Manitoba, the NDP government's attempt to entrench limited minority language guarantees was consumed by a fierce political conflagration fed and led by the opposition Conservatives.

"In Ontario, both opposition parties support constitutional recognition for the French language, although the Liberals have been" -- I am only reading what it says here -- "waffling a bit of late. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that both would support a move by the Ontario government to recognize the duality of the province's heritage.

"That would eliminate or at least minimize the polarized atmosphere that poisoned the debate in Manitoba. While there would be some public resistance, it would soon wither without political conflict to keep it alive.

"It is naive to believe the step could be taken without political risk, though. Some Tory voters might feel betrayed and punish the government by switching allegiance or staying home on election day. And Davis's biggest problem could be his own caucus, much of which opposes constitutional guarantees for the French language.

"So there is a gamble involved, and the Premier has never been much of a gambler. But the potential payoff in terms of undoing the harm to national unity done in Manitoba is great enough that a real national statesman -- which Davis likes to think he is -- would surely undertake the risk. The failure in Manitoba has given Quebec's PQ government fresh ammunition. Davis can prove the PQ propagandists wrong with one grand gesture. It's up to him."

That summarizes some of my views on the subject.

Let me talk for a moment about what all this would entail. When I asked the Premier only a few short weeks ago in this Legislature if he would convene a meeting with a view to improving the constitutional guarantee, I did not ask him to amend every part of the Constitution. I did not even refer to it. I asked him to meet on an open agenda to talk about it.

But let us say for a minute that section 17(2) of the Constitution were amended. Let me read what section 17(2) says. "Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of the Legislature of New Brunswick."

5:20 p.m.

Let us say we added Ontario after New Brunswick. What would that cause? Let us look at this. Let me read from the standing orders of this Legislature, "Rules of Debate," section 19(a), "Every member desiring to speak must rise in his place and address himself to the Speaker, in either English or French."

What on earth would changing that clause of the Constitution cost the taxpayers of this province? Absolutely nothing. We are already doing it. That clause would not cost a cent. Why the reticence in changing it? What possible excuse could there be for the Premier and the government of this province not attempting to do something with that clause? There is no logical reason for that not being done.

I know some members have expressed their concern in this Legislature in the past. They have said to me: "There are a lot of things wrong in this province. The economy is bad and there are all kinds of other problems. Why is this a priority"? I know many people think that way, but much of the confidence people have in this country revolves around the national unity we have. How can we have anything else if we are divided as a country? We must be united as a country. That is where the economic stability of our country comes from, our strength and our unity; from those evolves everything else. It is important for all of us, as I am sure members will agree, to be united as a country and to move in such a way that we can show an example to our sister provinces.

Some people have said: "Look at what the people in Quebec are doing. Is that not unfair? They have done wrong, so maybe we should do wrong as well." That kind of logic escapes me. But let us talk about Quebec for a minute and about some of the services it offers even now to its anglophone minority, while recognizing it is not right and is insufficient. What does it do? I want to read to the members a very brief text from Alain Dexter, who writes for Le Droit, the largest French-speaking newspaper in this country outside Quebec.

Alain Dexter writes the following:

"The government of Ontario claims that the educational needs of its official language minority are met to the same extent, if not more so, than those of Quebec's. To this the president of l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, Mr. André Cloutier, replies that the point of view expressed by Queen's Park is nothing but propaganda. The president of ACFO is obviously keeping his eyes and his ears open.

"The fact of the matter is that Ontario's stance in this debate evidently stems from a desire to sow confusion in the minds of the Québécois. The declaration of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Thomas Wells, was aimed at Quebec.

"On the heels of the new Lévesque government policy in the matter of reciprocity with respect to educational services, Mr. Wells was attempting to imply that the educational opportunities his government is providing the Franco-Ontarians compares favourably with those enjoyed by Anglo-Quebeckers. As this view comes from a man who was Minister of Education for more than seven years, and as his current responsibilities of Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs make him one of the best informed people in cabinet, he cannot reasonably plead ignorance of the facts. Mr. Wells knows perfectly well that the educational opportunities provided the two official language minorities by the governments of their respective provinces have nothing in common.

"There is no denying that Ontario has made some progress, but that's a far cry from reciprocity. The government is calling for amendments to the Education Act, introduced last spring, to justify its posturing of self-satisfaction. What does this mean? Chapter XI of the act is amended in such a way as to guarantee francophones a right to education in their own language, but such instruction will not necessarily be available in a French school.

"In short, what the government is saying is that it agrees to provide francophones a French-language education if they so request, but they will have to accept French-language classes in an English school. We are therefore still thinking in terms of the bilingual school -- assimilation process par excellence. It's the whole concept of educational 'institution' referred to in the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms which is at stake. As requests to have this point cleared up have already been referred to the courts, we will not pursue the matter further, except to say that the Quebec anglophones don't have to resort to such measures to have their right to their own schools recognized. They are moreover empowered by law to run them.

"You have to fight to get a French-language school in Ontario... You also have to fight to keep your acquired rights in the matter of educational institutions...

"There is no francophone community college in Ontario. There are many facilities here and there but no francophone community institution per se. The anglophones in Quebec have four public community colleges (four CEGEPs), i.e., Dawson, Vanier, Champlain and John Abbott. Quebec, moreover, has one private CEGEP -- Marianopolis -- where 78 per cent of the educational costs are covered by taxpayers. Conversely, private institutions in Ontario receive nothing from the government of Ontario.

"There is no French-language university in Ontario (the University of Ottawa is a bilingual university). Quebec has three English-language universities: McGill, Concordia and Bishop's. In short, there is no need to thumb one's way through a stack of files to realize we are a long way from reciprocity. You do not even have to be all that bright to figure out the subtleties. All you need is the good sense to recognize things as they are. This would seem to have escaped the comprehension of the minister, Mr. Thomas Wells, in this debate. It's embarrassing!"

That, of course, is a translation of the original text, but it is, I think, an accurate one. It was done by the government translation bureau, and I think it reflects what was said in the French text.

I will not take much time to talk about issues such as we have seen in the past, issues such as the Carleton by-election and others. But I think we all remember that they did happen in this province; so we are not, collectively as a society, unblemished; we do have our own sins here in Ontario.

We cannot speak of francophone issues without speaking of the school problem. I referred only moments ago to the article by M. Dexter on the post-secondary institutions, but I think it is at the elementary and high school levels that many of the quarrels have taken place in this province.

We will all remember reading in our history books that there were French schools in this province as early as 1678. By the way, this is not the bicentennial; there were people here in 1678. I will get into the bicentennial issue in a minute, but before that let us continue with what I am talking about now.

Fort Frontenac -- Kingston today -- had a francophone school then. Twenty years later another one was established in l'Assomption -- I think we call it Sandwich today; it is the same place. So we had French schools in those days in this province.

It is interesting to know that after the Act of Union of 1841 there were French schools, English schools and German schools in this province, run in most cases by their own school boards. We do not even have that today as a homogeneous school board in 1984, but we had it at that time in our history.

There have been school issues in this province, such as the regulation 17 controversy. There was a resolution in this Legislature, the thrust of which was subsequently adopted by the government through regulation 17 of the Ministry of Education. In any case, that regulation, which was in effect between 1912 and 1927, forbade the teaching of French in schools in Ontario.

In communities such as the one I represent there was a bitter struggle to that effect. In some schools in Ottawa, ladies would stand by the schools with hatpins to prick the inspectors if they ever attempted to enter the schools to verify whether French was being taught. Of course, even if they tried to prevent it, French was still taught in the schools in my area.

5:30 p.m.

In other areas, perhaps in northern Ontario, the people were spread out over a larger area and they were not able to mount as strong a struggle as we did in eastern Ontario. People like Senator Napoléon Bellecourt went to court and defended the Franco-Ontarians on this issue. Another who participated in that was Senator Philippe Landry and there were many others.

I am told that for a period of time the chairman of the Ottawa Roman Catholic Separate School Board was charged with unlawfully paying school teachers. He was paying them for teaching French. That was illegal; so he was paying them unlawfully and was thrown in jail for paying school teachers to teach in his school in this province. This did not happen in the 1600s. This happened this century in Ontario, in Ottawa, right near where I live.

At one point, some school boards were disbanded because they refused to adopt regulation 17. The whole matter was brought to the Supreme Court and then to the Privy Council of Britain, which had jurisdiction over our Supreme Court at that time. The Privy Council decided the government of Ontario had no authority to disband the school boards over this issue and they were subsequently reinstated. I believe that issue was fought by Senator Napoléon Bellecourt as well.

We have seen all those things in our history. We are now in 1984 and the francophones still want their schools. After this period of time, from 1678 until 1984, they are still trying to get a school. That is an awfully long time to wait.

Now, where are we with francophone education? Let us look at this a little bit. Some time in 1981 the government appointed a committee known as the Joint Committee on the Governance of French Language Elementary and Secondary Schools. This committee reported in March 1982 to the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) and handed her its report. The report was tabled in May in this Legislature.

This report recommended some changes to the educational system. In my view it did not recommend enough changes. The report should have talked more about the establishment of French-language homogeneous school boards and this type of thing. However, the government had specifically told them not to talk about that, so they did not. Anyway, they did make some recommendations about improving this.

In March 1983 the government established a response to the report. It is called A Proposal in Response to the Report of the Joint Committee on the Governance of French Language Elementary and Secondary Schools. This response did not suit the people who had originally written the report and, of course, it did not suit the francophones either. Now, what do we have? A response to the response.

This comedy of responses goes on. We are now to February 1984 and we have the Sullivan report, which is a response to the response to the Report of the Joint Committee on the Governance of French Language Elementary and Secondary Schools.

This is since 1678 and here we are in 1984 moving right along. Sometimes in the deliberations in this Legislature, when we return from the committee of the whole House to sittings in the House, the Chairman reports progress. This is similar progress. It is very lengthy. It takes an awful long time before we get anywhere.

We now have this response to the response and still we had discussions last weekend at the annual conference of l'Association française des conseils scolaires de l'Ontario about these reports. We are not moving very fast again, after all this time.

Why does the government refuse today to give the region of Ottawa-Carleton a French-language school board? I know some of the members at the back are saying: "Voila, you want three school systems. Is it not bad enough that we have two?"

In Ottawa-Carleton there are four school boards. What do the school boards want in Ottawa-Carleton? All four school boards of Ottawa-Carleton have agreed with a resolution to take their four boards and make three out of them. That is not one more school board; that is one less. The government is against that. They are against having one less school board in Ottawa-Carleton, not one more.

Would it not be again a great opportunity to pass enabling legislation to have a French homogeneous school board in Ottawa-Carleton and use it as a prototype if the government wished. If this works well, then start one elsewhere; if it does not, we will do something else. Why not do it? It is not going to ruffle the feathers of the school boards in that area. They have already said publicly they support this kind of venture for Ottawa-Carleton, and for everywhere else for that matter, but let us try it there to start with.

Why are we so afraid to put one foot ahead of the other when it comes to linguistic rights? I say that in a context in which we should remember some members of the government have gone ahead and done at least something to officially recognize our linguistic minority. I speak to the very historic day in October 1983, when the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) introduced Bill 100 in the Legislature. We could talk about the introduction as being a rather rocky one; nevertheless I will not talk about that; I will talk about the content of the bill.

Section 135 of that bill says, "The official languages of the courts of Ontario are English and French." That is the first time I can think of that any piece of legislation, any bill or act of the Ontario Legislature, has ever called the French language official. I really admire the decision taken on that day to introduce that bill in that form. Maybe I do not agree with the method that was used to introduce it; nevertheless I want to offer my support, as I did then, to the Attorney General for his courage in having at least included that in legislation.

I hope it has created a precedent and will be used in other legislation in this province.

I want to read a little tongue-in-cheek article. Perhaps we have been serious for too long. It is written by Gary Lautens, who writes for the Toronto Star, and is headed "Speaking French Won't Rot Your Teeth."

"English-speaking Canada is in a panic over the French language and all sorts of ugly rumours have sprung up.

"In the public interest and to restore order in the streets, it should be pointed out that certain stories making the rounds are not true.

"It is not true, for example, that French is more fattening than English, Chinese or Ukrainian.

"It is not true that if you say 'Comment ça va?' you will get warts on your tongue.

"It is not true that Air France has a 100 per cent crash rate because its pilots speak French.

"It is not true that if you speak French you immediately feel an irresistible urge to rush out and eat three plates of snails, toss back a magnum of champagne, and then do a torrid dance in a tiny bistro with a girl in a tight skirt and striped shirt who insists on throwing your beret into the corner.

"It is not true that French contains more dirty words than any other language.

"It is not true that the Queen won't let Prince Philip speak French in front of the children.

"It is not true that a woman who buys a French dictionary will grow a moustache and sideburns within 24 hours.

"It is not true that God punishes anyone He catches writing French words in a notebook.

"It is not true that French-speaking people are the first hit during lightning storms.

"It is not true that Louis Pasteur, Monet, Napoléon, Madame Curie, Toulouse-Lautrec, Victor Hugo, Baudelaire, Débussy, Balzac, Proust, Renoir, Degas, Saint-Saëns, the Rothschilds, and Ravel were really English and faked their French.

"It is not true that declining a French verb is the first step to personal hygiene problems.

"It is not true that wheat will not grow where French people spit.

"It is not true that just one word of French whispered into a young boy's ear will cause him to rush off to some foreign place and become a couturier, or hairdresser.

"It is not true that anyone who eats cornflakes with French on the box will die before the sun sets.

"It is not true that Britain is in its current economic slump because it has shown Brigitte Bardot movies without French subtitles."

5:40 p.m.

The article goes on with other issues equally as important. Perhaps many of the concerns we have, as members of this Legislature and as a society, over what effect bilingualism would have are best summarized by that tongue-in-cheek article. Many of the fears we have are very serious and they are deeply felt, but these probably would not have much more of an impact on them than what the author of this document writes:

M. le Président, j'aimerais vous parler brièvement du bicentenaire de la province de l'Ontario, l'événement très historique dans notre province. Comme nous le savons, et je suis sûr que tous les députés le savent, Samuel de Champlain est arrivé dans Prescott-Russell en 1613, il y a déjà un peu plus de trois cents ans, comme vous l'avez sans doute constaté en employant votre calculatrice et des mathématiques assez faciles.

Mr. Stokes: That is the name of a lake in New York state, is it not?

Mr. Boudria: That is correct. That is the name of a lake in New York state, and Champlain was in my constituency in 1613, a trifle more than 300 years ago.

Si nous continuous avec l'historique de la province de l'Ontario, on se souviendra sans doute, comme Madame le député de Scarborough-est (Mme Birch) nous démontrait, que oui, c'est peut-être vrai, mais la première communauté établie en Ontario date de 1784. Bon, encore une fois mon histoire est incorrecte, l'auteur de ce livre, McGuinness, est sans doute incorrect, tous les autres historiens ou la plupart des autres historiens sont incorrects, puisque nous étions tous d'avis que la première communauté établie en Ontario était Sainte-Marie des Hurons en 1639. Peut-être que nous sommes incorrects encore, peut-être qu'il n'y avait pas réellement de la vie avant 1784 dans cette province.

Souvenons-nous, M. le Président, que cette province et le Québec d'aujourd'hui étions la même province avant la Loi constitutionnelle de 1791. Alors, de la bataille des Plaines d'Abraham, de la loi qui a suivi en 1763 jusqu'à la Loi constitutionnelle de 1791, nous, où nous sommes aujourd'hui, c'était le Québec à ce moment-là. Alors en 1784, où étions-nous si on était à Toronto? On était au Québec. Comment pouvonsnous célébrer le bicentenaire de l'Ontario en 1784 quand la province n'existait même pas à ce moment-là?

It is important to realize that in 1784, prior to the Constitution Act of 1791, where we are standing today was part of Quebec. There was no division of the provinces. There was only one colony here. So if we are celebrating the bicentennial of 1784, we should be celebrating the bicentennial of Quebec, not Ontario. That is where this was in 1784. Most of southwestern Ontario, eastern Ontario -- not the north, which was part of another jurisdiction -- but all we know here in southern and eastern Ontario was at that time the province of Quebec.

In 1791 a longitudinal line was drawn at the western extremity between la seigneurie de Vaudreuil and la seigneurie de Longueuil. At that point we separated Quebec into two provinces, to make Upper Canada and Lower Canada. It stayed that way until after Lord Durham's report in 1839. In 1841, we decided to unite the two provinces and form the united Province of Canada, and it stayed that way until 1867.

Mr. Stokes: Where did Joseph Brant fit into all of this?

Mr. Boudria: Of course, important historic events occurred in 1784. I am not going to deny that. As the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) states, there were important people, and an important event occurred then. In so far as constitutional documents recognizing the existence of provinces are concerned, there was none signed that year. There was one signed in 1783, the Boundary Act between this country and the United States.

In 1841 we had the Act of Union, in 1867 the British North America Act, then the Statute of Westminster of 1931, then our constitutional document of 1982 that I have right here in front of me.

We can use all those years, and go back to even older ones -- for instance, the Quebec Act of 1774 -- that established the democratic institutions of this country. Many of our laws come from the Quebec Act of 1774. If we use the Treaty of Paris of 1763, at that time, after serious negotiations, the government of England, which tried desperately to trade its new colony for Guadeloupe and failed, subsequently had to accept it. These are the dates we have in front of us.

The members have probably noticed I have enumerated all kinds of years and none of them ends with a four. How can we celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitutional Act of 1791 in 1984? I know we have modern mathematics, and it has done wonders for us, but 1791 plus 193 still makes 1984, not 1784 plus 200.

Mr. Gillies: What about the fact the centennial was celebrated in 1884?

Mr. Boudria: That is a very interesting point. I am glad the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) brings up that point. The centennial that was celebrated in 1884 was not the centennial of Ontario and he knows that. It was the centennial of the United Empire Loyalists. That is fine.

Mr. Gillies: It was a centennial.

Mr. Boudria: Yes, it was a centennial. It would be the same as if the member for Brantford told me I should celebrate my birthday January 1 this year because he did last year. That has about the same relevance.

Mr. Gillies: It has no relevance.

Mr. Boudria: That is the point he is making. If it is his birthday, that is fine; just do not tell me it is mine because it is inaccurate and he knows it. They are now bombarding this whole province with oodles of money, their travelling road show for $1 million, while some of the people of Prescott-Russell on social assistance are wondering whether they will be able to buy dinner at 5:50 p.m. tonight, which is the time now. Some of them will go hungry in this province in 1984.

Mr. Haggerty: Not only there but all over Ontario.

Mr. Boudria: I am sure that happens elsewhere, as the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) says.

What priorities do we have? If it is our birthday let us celebrate it, but if it is not let us not.

There was an interesting article in the Globe and Mail recently in regard to what the year meant, and the conclusion was it meant the year prior to an election versus any other.

5:50 p.m.

M. le Président, il y a déjà un bon bout de temps que je prends de l'Assemblée legislative pour prononcer mon allocution. Je ne voudrais pas prendre beaucoup plus de temps, mais je voudrais quand même peut-être prendre les prochaines cinq ou six minutes pour nous rafraichir la mémoire sur un aspect particulier du problème de la gestion scolaire en Ontario.

J'ai affirmé tantôt dans mes remarques que nous avons des problèmes sérieux dans la gestion scolaire et il y a un endroit où ce problème-là semble s'accentuer et c'est le Nord de la province. Je suis sûr que tous les députés de l'Assemblée législative reconnaissent les problèmes sérieux qu'ont les régions du Nord de l'Ontario. Je prends par exemple la dispute scolaire de Cochrane-Iroquois Falls, celle de Dubreuilville semble s'être résolue, tant mieux. Je sais aussi que nous avons un problème semblable à Mattawa et dans d'autres régions le problème est en train de mijoter et va s'accentuer dans les mois et les années qui viendront.

En janvier 1983 j'ai fait le tour de la province et j'ai publié un rapport qui s'intitule "Droits et privilèges", un rapport qui avait pour but de tenter d'apporter des solutions à ce problème-là dans le Nord de l'Ontario. Vous savez sans doute que les députés du parti ministériel se plaisent toujours à nous renouveler la mémoire que nous, de l'Opposition, sommes toujours là pour prêcher la terreur, toujours critiquer et ne jamais rien offrir de constructif. C'est souvent ce qu'on nous dit. J'ai publié ce rapport-ci, je ne crois pas que le rapport était amer envers personne, je crois sincèrement qu'il était constructif. Dans mon rapport j'ai publié plusieurs recommandations. Recommandations vis-à-vis l'amélioration des services et comment faire fonctionner les entités scolaires de langue française dans le Nord de l'Ontario.

Le document n'adressait pas le problème des conseils homogènes et tout ça. Le document en question adressait seulement comment faire fonctionner les entités de langue française que nous avons dans cette province qui sont pour la plupart dans le Nord de la province.

Tant que nous aurons une structure en Ontario (par structure je parle de la Commission des langues d'enseignement, en anglais the Language of Instruction Commission), une structure qui n'est dotée d'aucun pouvoir nous ne verrons jamais aucune solution à ces problèmes d'entités scolaires. La seule façon de corriger ce problème est de les enlever de la scène politique. On a vu au Manitoba ce qu'une scène politique peut faire pour provoquer les gens, alors il faut enlever justement cette situation de la scène politique et la donner à un corps quasi judiciaire.

Alors moi j'ai propose dans le rapport qu'on établisse en Ontario une Commission des langues d'enseignement qui serait semblable à la Commission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario, dans le sens que la Commission aurait un pouvoir quasi judiciaire qui pourrait trancher les disputes sans menace d'aucune influence politique et que lorsque la Commission aura tranché cette dispute-là, que la personne qui se sent insatisfaite pourra toujours se procurer ou se doter d'un appel au sein du Conseil des ministres, mais l'initiative sera toujours de la part de celui qui est insatisfait d'aller voir le Conseil des ministres.

La situation que nous avons actuellement est une situation où il semble n'y avoir personne qui soit chargée de trancher la question. Pour corriger ce qui manque au système actuel, le ministre de l'Education se propose, dans sa réponse au rapport sur la gestion scolaire, d'établir une structure par laquelle lui-même sera appelé à trancher la question.

À mon avis, M. le Président, cette solution est totalement inacceptable. Si on prend par exemple que le ministre ou le député représentant une circonscription dans laquelle ii y a un problème, dans laquelle il y a un conflit scolaire, je prends par exemple le cas d'Iroquois Falls avec le député de Cochrane-sud, si on prend que ce député-là peut être un collegue au sein du Conseil des ministres avec le ministre de l'Education, peut-être dans une structure ministérielle future, le même député pourrait lui-même être ministre de l'Éducation.

De toute façon, si on prend le contexte actuel, prenant en ligne de compte qu'un conflit scolaire, c'est dangereux politiquement, ayant une minorité et une majorité qui se font face, si on prend tout ça en ligne de compte, avec un ministre qui est appelé à trancher la question, il n'y a pas de doute, M. le Président, qu'il y aura des pressions internes qui se feront auprès de ce ministre-là, par un de ses collègues, lui disant "ne touche pas à ça Betty, c'est une patate chaude."

Alors je suis d'avis que tant et aussi longtemps que le pouvoir politique sera celui qui tranchera les disputes dans les questions d'entités de langue française, il n'y aura jamais une solution. Il faut se rappeler que le 5 octobre 1979, ce ne sont pas les gens d'Iroquois Falls qui ont décidé d'adopter la politique d'établir des entités scolaires, ce ne sont pas ces gens-là. C'est le ministre de l'Éducation dans un discours en cette date qui a établi que dorénavant on encouragerait l'établissement de ces entités.

Alors, les personnes d'Iroquois Falls, de ces CLF, des conseils d'éducation de cette région et plusieurs autres en Ontario ont tenté de mettre en vigueur la décision du ministre et lorsqu'ils ont tenté de faire ce que le ministre leur avait demandé, ils se sont vus dans l'impossibilité de le faire puisque les Conseils d'Éducation se refusaient à l'établissement d'entités de langue française. Alors, avec ce problème-là qui leur faisait face, les gens ont décidé d'aller voir la Commission des langues d'enseignement qui a partagé l'avis avec eux, oui messieurs-dames, on devait avoir une entité de langue française dans votre région.

Et tout ça n'a rien accompli, parce que les Conseils d'Éducation ont toujours refusé d'agir même avec cette recommandation de la Commission des langues d'enseignement. Naturellement la Commission des langues d'enseignement comme je disais tantôt, dans le moment n'a aucun pouvoir, alors la population a fait appel au ministre de trancher la question. Le ministre n'a rien fait. Des années plus tard le problème s'enflamme, les gens sont frustrés, fâchés, en colère les uns contre les autres, et c'est malheureux, dans ces communautés-là.

C'est maiheureux parce que ce n'est pas nécessaire. Toute l'affaire aurait pu être résolue d'une façon beaucoup plus pratique s'il y avait eu un corps qui aurait tranché la question avant qu'elle ne s'enflamme. Ça va être difficile de corriger, même avec une nouvelle structure, les disputes actuelles parce que la population est déjà enflammée. Mais quand même on pourrait s'assurer que cette situation-là n'arrivera pas ailleurs.

I have gone on for a rather long time. Maybe the government members would agree with that. Perhaps it was too long, but I thought it was important today to describe the linguistic situation as I see it in this province. It is my own humble opinion on how it could be resolved.

I am asking all party leaders of this Legislature again to have such a meeting as I recently asked the Premier for. I know the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), who is present in the House now, would want to attend such a meeting of all three party leaders. Such a meeting, I hope, would result in a resolution that the minister or the Premier could then bring back to this Legislature, a resolution we could then pass to amend the Constitution and that we could then wave at other provinces of our country to demonstrate to them how we in Ontario, being the compassionate people we think we are and have always believed we were, treat a minority linguistic group.

I am not talking of treatment in so far as services are concerned; there are problems there, but that is not the main thrust of it all. Services can be improved, and slowly some things are being improved; it is being done to a certain degree, anyway. The thrust of it would be to restore our credibility vis-a-vis the other provinces.

What other opportunity is there for this Premier to leave his mark before he moves on to other things? What other opportunity would the Premier of this province have to have his name recorded in history?

If this Premier were to resign today, historians would not treat the man kindly; we all know that. Members on all sides of the House would know that and would recognize that. I say this in an attempt not to be too partisan on the issue. I think it is a fact that there is an opportunity, perhaps the only one left for this Premier and this government, to leave a mark on the history of this country as a force that will have tried to unite the people not only of Ontario but of all of Canada. I ask them again, let us do it. Allons-y.

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

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

2 avril 1984