Journal des débats 1985-juin-14 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join me in recognizing a group of most distinguished guests in the west gallery. Our visitors are heads of diplomatic missions accredited to Canada, representing 30 countries, many of whom are on their first official visit to Ontario. Please join me in welcoming the heads of missions and their spouses.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I rise in my place in my capacity as Provincial Secretary for Resources Development to announce that the Lieutenant Governor in Council has approved the Niagara Escarpment plan, together with 26 modifications which were deemed to be desirable.

The Niagara Escarpment plan, which will be lodged with municipalities and land registry offices within the planning area, is the result of a 12-year planning effort by the Niagara Escarpment Commission in conjunction with the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development.

The chairman of the commission, Mr. Ivor McMullin, commission members and their senior staff are present in the visitors' gallery and in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, and I would certainly be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to recognize, on behalf of the Speaker and all members of this House, their efforts in planning for the preservation of the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

The Niagara Escarpment plan, released in July 1984, was considered to be "a commitment renewed" by the Ontario government. The Niagara Escarpment plan and modifications that I release today represent "a commitment assured."

The Niagara Escarpment plan addresses comprehensively the issues that were raised in more than 350 written submissions to cabinet and contains policies that, when implemented, will benefit the people of Ontario for generations to come. By opting for conservation, we have kept our natural heritage options open indefinitely.

Addressing each of the written submissions equitably was an ongoing project extending over a nine-month period from September 14, 1984. The results have been well worth the effort.

Copies of the Niagara Escarpment plan modifications will be available for sale to the public from the Ontario government bookstore and the three commission offices in Grimsby, Georgetown and Clarksburg. In addition, the Lieutenant Governor in Council has requested the production of a consolidated version of the Niagara Escarpment plan to be completed during the summer months.

In the next few moments, as a courtesy to those who have followed the escarpment story faithfully, I wish to convey the direction these modifications took. A little later in the statement I wish to highlight a few site-specific areas in and around the escarpment, namely, Fonthill in Niagara, Speyside in Halton, Regan-Graham in Peel and the Beaver Valley in Grey county.

In addition, I will highlight the recommended program for land acquisition and stewardship of escarpment heritage properties, a system of escarpment parks which will include newly designated provincial parks, and an implementation program for the development permit system that will give local municipalities an important role in escarpment preservation and mineral resource policies.

In regard to the mineral aggregate policy, special policies are included in the plan for aggregate extraction on the escarpment. While having due regard for the provincial policies relating to land use, municipal official plans must not be in conflict with the Niagara Escarpment plan.

Wayside permits will not be issued for provincial road construction projects in the escarpment natural and protection area designations.

All references to high-potential mineral aggregate resources, mapping and textual, have been removed from the plan.

New licensed pits and quarries producing more than 20,000 tonnes per annum will be permitted only in areas designated "escarpment rural" and only following an amendment to the plan.

Aggregate for municipal road construction may be obtained only from sites previously disturbed by extractive operations in the escarpment protection area.

On the question of land acquisition and stewardship, a Niagara Escarpment fund will be established by the Ontario Heritage Foundation to enable donations to be received for the acquisition of escarpment lands. The government's commitment to this fund will be $2.5 million a year for 10 years. To underline that commitment, it will be my pleasure later to transfer to the chairman of the Niagara Escarpment committee, Mr. Bayley, and to the vice-chairman, Mr. McMullin, a cheque in the amount of $1 million.

In addition, three members of the Niagara Escarpment Commission have been appointed to serve on that special committee of the Ontario Heritage Foundation. They are Ivor McMullin, to whom I have just referred, Leo Bruzzese and Robert McNairn.

To turn to escarpment parks, a Niagara Escarpment parks system encompassing 92,000 acres or 230,000 hectares has been created, consisting of 105 parks including 11 newly created provincial parks.

The Bruce Trail is recognized as an essential component of the parks system, and securing a continuous route for the Bruce Trail will be accorded the same priority as the establishment of the Niagara Escarpment parks system.

On the question of development-control delegation, the authority to issue development permits will be delegated expeditiously to upper-tier municipalities which express the desire to assume the responsibility and which meet the criteria. A condition of that delegation will be the requirement that development permits be issued in accordance with the Niagara Escarpment plan.

The Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act will be amended to permit local municipalities with conforming official plans to administer development control.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission will continue to administer the development permit system until its delegation. The commission, in conjunction with line ministries, will then assist in developing a system to monitor the process. I am directing the staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development and the Niagara Escarpment Commission to initiate discussions immediately with upper-tier municipalities regarding delegation and conformity.

As mentioned previously, the following are site-specific areas on the Niagara Escarpment where there has been consistent interest:

I. Fonthill, Niagara region, located on map I of the Niagara Escarpment plan: Cabinet endorses the recommendations of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development in 1984 that the designation "escarpment protection" remain in effect.

2. Caledon, Peel region, located on map 4 of the Niagara Escarpment plan: In regard to the Regan-Graham proposal to establish a licensed quarry, the area was retained as "escarpment rural." Licensed pits and quarries producing in excess of 20,000 tonnes in "escarpment rural" require an amendment to the plan.

3. Beaver Valley, Grey county, located on map 6 of the plan: Cabinet has decided the lands in question will remain designated "escarpment protection."

10:10 a.m.

INTEGRATED HOMEMAKER PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Eves: I would like to announce the implementation of the government's integrated homemaker program for Ontario's frail elderly and disabled adults. This is one more example of this government's unwavering and unparalleled commitment to our province's elderly people.

Among the most important members of family and community life are our senior citizens, who have made enormous contributions to the development of this province. Over the past 15 years, the government of Ontario has been laying the foundation for a comprehensive system of services for the elderly. That infrastructure, which includes $3.5 billion annually of services, including Ontario health insurance plan premium assistance, the guaranteed annual income system for the aged, Ontario tax credits, subsidized apartments, a comprehensive hospital system and a long-term-care system, is now in place.

In the words of the throne speech, we plan to build upon this foundation to "develop a far-reaching, community-based care system that will expand community programs and limit the growth of unnecessary institutional services so that our senior citizens can remain in their communities, in a manner that respects their dignity and their life-long contribution to society."

To bring about and maintain that community-based care system, my ministry has been given the responsibility of introducing this integrated homemaker program for Ontario's frail elderly. This program will form the nucleus of a total home support system for the elderly that will also include an expansion of our home support programs such as Meals on Wheels, day programs and the Ministry of Health's home care program. This program will be managed in conjunction with the home care program.

How will the program be introduced? The Ministry of Community and Social Services has a great deal of experience in working with agencies and the community through our decentralized structure of four regional offices, 13 area offices and about 70 local offices.

The integrated homemaker program will provide, for those frail seniors and disabled adults who need it, any or all of the following services: light housekeeping, some personal care, cooking and shopping to help them remain at home in their own homes in security and comfort.

I have asked my staff to initiate discussions with local communities and to choose six or seven areas that will start to put this program for seniors into place this fall.

I submit that we in the ministry and the ministries associated with us have an obligation to provide for our seniors, who have done so much to build and support this province in past years. This we have done, are doing and shall continue to do.

[Later]

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The Minister of Community and Social Services gave a statement today about the integrated homemaker program. I must have a page missing because there is no page with an indication of the legislation that will allow this to happen.

The past Minister of Health, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), assured my leader, Mr. Drea assured me and Mr. Norton assured the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) there would have to be legislation to make this possible and it is not included.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far from being a point of privilege. It is a point of order because they should be distributed. However, I am sure you can discuss that further with the minister.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WHEAT EXPORTS

Mr. Riddell: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I should say first that the minister was missed at a very important meeting in Earlton last night.

The minister should be aware that the United States is taking an increasingly protective stance regarding international trade for agricultural commodities in general. The minister may also be aware that in the specific area of grain exports, the United States is initiating a subsidy program that will force competitive discounting of our Canadian grain export prices.

The federal government provides subsidy assistance through the prairie provinces' Canadian Wheat Board to subsidize their international wheat sales, but Ontario's wheat exports are not similarly covered under this program. In any international competition, Ontario's wheat farmers will have to bear the cost themselves of competing against US wheat subsidies.

Given that the wheat industry has been urging the federal government to expand the export credit system necessary to maintain our wheat markets, what consultations has the minister had with his federal counterpart to ensure that Ontario's wheat farmers also receive this assistance?

Hon. Mr. Stevenson: In the period I have been in the ministry, probably the most time I have spent on any issue has been spent on the export issue facing Ontario farmers, the growing protectionism, the growing rate of challenges under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and some of the spinoffs relating to chloramphenycol and various other issues that have come up with which the honourable member will be quite familiar.

Right now we are spending a great deal of ministry time putting together background material on a number of commodities, and I have been talking to Mr. Wise on a number of occasions. In my presentation to the Commons committee in Ottawa on the tripartite stabilization situation, I also drew attention to the export situation and the potential trade problem we are facing.

Quite clearly, Canada is going to have to increase its efforts in international trade to remain competitive in a number of commodities. We have to become real experts very quickly in playing by the rules of international trade, because the other countries are certainly stepping up their efforts. Canada has to be good at it, because we just do not have the resources to compete in an international trade war with the European Community and the United States.

I hope in the long term the United States will come to agree more with the efforts that the provincial and Canadian governments are making in international trade, so that some of the conflicts going on right now will not occur in the long-distant future.

Mr. Riddell: The minister is aware, I am sure, that it is very difficult for Canada to compete with the export subsidies of the United States and the European Community. Has the minister's counterpart in Ottawa said he is going to do something about an export credit system for the farmers in Canada and, more particularly, the farmers in Ontario because we, as wheat producers in Ontario, are not covered under the wheat board? Has he said anything about an expert credit system for our products here in Canada and in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Stevenson: Export credits are just one of the issues on the table in dealing with competition in the export markets, but they are certainly mentioned every time discussions are held to consider exports. Export credits and export financing, not only in agriculture but also in the whole international marketplace in any type of exporting we do, are an issue that is front and centre. It is talked about not just in relation to wheat but also in relation to a number of other agricultural commodities with which the member will be quite familiar. Certainly it is talked about, as I say, along with a great many other issues that are quite critical right now on the whole export scene.

Mr Riddell: Officials in the US Department of Agriculture have admitted Canada is a nonoffending country in regard to subsidized wheat sales and have indicated their own subsidy program will be used with some flexibility in different markets. Since the United States has admitted Canadian sales are fair competition, has the minister received any indication from his federal counterparts that they will be in communication with US officials to limit American subsidy targeting in our own markets, by which I mean Ontario markets?

Hon. Mr. Stevenson: The discussions that have been going on regarding all sorts of export financing and export activities have included precisely what the member is talking about. We are looking at the readjustment of our policies and the delivery of policies into our agricultural community as they relate to exports.

10:20 a.m.

It was a great surprise to us that things such as the farm land tax return, or whatever the proper term for it -- the property tax rebate -- was included as a countervail situation on hogs. We have to look at each of these programs and try to come up with something that is helpful to our farmers, our wheat producers and others, that is not going to openly invite reprisals from our competitors. It is a matter of whether we automatically do what the other countries are doing, or try to come up with a more imaginative system to do essentially the same thing.

But it is quite obvious that if Ontario and Canada are going to be in the export game we have to look at matching, or in some other imaginative way come up with supports that will assist us in competing in that export market, regardless of what commodity we are talking about.

CREDIT RATING

Mr. Kwinter: This is a question for the Treasurer. Yesterday we had an opportunity to discuss the province's credit rating. We are all aware that last year the Conservative government had to go to New York not once but twice, one time with the then Premier in tow, to convince the rating house not to drop the provincial credit rating from triple A to double A.

In the light of the government's poor investment practices and massive election giveaway, how can the Treasurer think this government owns a triple-A credit rating today?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: First, may I clarify the misconception of the honourable member? It is my understanding that indeed last year, when there was an unusual activity taking place in New York at Standard and Poor's, there was a reassessment of every single provincial jurisdiction in Canada and each provincial jurisdiction was invited to come to New York. It is also my understanding that there was one visit during which the then Premier and the then Treasurer went to New York to discuss the plans of the government of Ontario.

I do not think the investment program of Ontario could be considered to be poor, and I think that is a somewhat malignant adjective to have been addressed to it. None the less, the plans for the introduction of throne speech initiatives have been looked at very carefully, and we believe that with similar careful management of the system, a similar exercise of restraint by the ministers of this government, we would be able to meet the plan we had established and which we are continuing to follow in Ontario to maintain and retain the triple-A credit rating.

Mr. Kwinter: How can this government lay claim to any kind of prudent financial management when it has lost $500 million on a $650-million investment in Suncor and has allowed Ontario Hydro to go on a borrowing and building binge that leaves Hydro $23 billion in the hole?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have a little difficulty with the mathematics of the member; obviously he needs a new computer or calculator. None the less, it is my understanding that although the value of his leader's 25 shares of Suncor may be down considerably from the price he paid for them when he bought them as a gimmick, as was noted in the newspaper, it was not a gimmick; it was indeed an investment considered by the leadership of this government to be appropriate.

We have not expended in interest payments the amount of money his leader suggested we had. Somewhat less than half that amount has been expended in interest payments. Indeed, I believe the other investments of this province have been excellent.

The Ontario Hydro investment is entirely capital and, as a matter of fact, if the member would care to look, he would find that Hydro's financial situation is probably one of the best in North America. It might be helpful if he were to examine Hydro's debt-equity ratio and its capability for meeting its obligations, which is better than that of most companies. He might reverse some of his positions.

As I told him yesterday morning, the actual activity of Hydro in borrowing does not have any direct effect on the designation of a rating by the rating agency in New York. That is a fact.

Mr. Rae: There are things about this government we are going to miss, in a certain kind of way. Since we are not going to get a real, live budget from the Treasurer, only the ersatz document that she produced earlier in the week, I wonder if she would be so kind as to tell us what the revised figures are now from the Treasury with respect to the cost of the tax holiday for small business corporations for this year.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It always was our intention to look at what would happen with regard to the provision of support for small business, whatever might or might not have developed in the federal budget. Because there have been several significant provisions, a number of options are being considered at present. Therefore, I cannot give the member a firm figure, but on June 25 I most certainly could.

Mr. Kwinter: Ontario Hydro is part and parcel of rating houses' consideration of Ontario's debt. It is not separate, as the minister keeps insisting and as she said on radio yesterday. She actually misled the public. I would ask that she read --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understood the member to use the word "misled." I would ask him to withdraw.

Mr. Kwinter: I withdraw the remark. Could I insert the word "inadvertently"?

Mr. Speaker: I accept the withdrawal. Please continue with your supplementary question.

Mr. Kwinter: Would the Treasurer read Marie Cavanaugh's report in Standard and Poor's International Creditweek report, third quarter 1984, wherein she will find direct reference to Ontario Hydro? Does not Ontario borrow for Hydro on New York bond markets? Does not Ontario guarantee Hydro's whole debt? Clearly, Hydro's borrowing does directly affect our credit rating. Its massive borrowing has also restricted the province's ability to borrow for more important social and medical programs. Would the minister not agree?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would disagree with the misinterpretation the member is providing because I have before me a statement made yesterday on this subject by one of the senior officials of Standard and Poor's. The official position of Standard and Poor's is that the debt of Canadian provincially owned electric utilities is a contingent liability of the province only, and will affect the province's rating only if the utility cannot support its operations from its own resources. That is precisely what Ontario Hydro does; therefore, it does not have a direct effect upon the rating that is provided for Ontario.

10:30 a.m.

Mr. Rae: It is a good thing we are not driving our cars at this time of the day when the Treasurer is speaking. That is all I can say.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Why does the member not go out and try it?

Mr. Rae: It is different from what the minister said yesterday morning.

HEPATITIS VACCINE

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I see him trying to go away. I would like to ask the minister a question on a very different subject. It has to do with the question of the availability and cost of the vaccine for hepatitis-B.

Can he explain the ministry's policy and the policy of the government of Ontario about the vaccine for hepatitis-B? Why are they not making this vaccine freely available to those who are at risk? I stress those words, "to those who are at risk." The cost of the vaccine, according to the officials in his ministry to whom I spoke this morning and who were most forthcoming, is $150 -- $50 a shot for the three shots.

Does he not feel it would be in the public interest and appropriate, given the concern with respect to the increase in the incidence of hepatitis-B in the last 10 years in this province, for the government to change its policy with regard to the availability of the vaccine?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I certainly would be the last one in the world to play down the seriousness of this disease, but I think we should keep the issue in some perspective. The issue raised in a recent article in the Toronto Sun perhaps bears some correction. The article suggests the students in east-end schools are at a high risk because there are carriers of this disease among students.

It is important that we realize as much as one per cent of the people in North America are known to be carriers of hepatitis-B virus, but the American immunization practices advisory committee issued a statement as recently as June 7, 1985, saying that persons in casual contact with carriers are at a minimal risk and vaccine is not routinely recommended for them.

The leader of the third party will know we do supply, at no cost, the first immunization treatment to newborns. Subsequent treatments are provided through the health units at a cost for the vaccine and not the injection. We are considering extending that program for the series of three immunization treatments.

Mr. Rae: I want the minister to know I think the government should go beyond considering it, since it was on record as considering it at the time of the death of Dr. Colapinto. Now is the time to move. I would like to indicate to the minister that it is our understanding that Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan have all identified certain high-risk groups to whom they provide the vaccine for free. When we know that Ontario has a higher incidence of hepatitis-B than those provinces, surely it would be in the interest of the public for this province to be leading the way rather than following those other provinces.

I want to stress to the minister that I accept the idea that for those in casual contact there is not a general risk to the population, but surely there should not be any way the cost of the vaccine should be stopping or preventing people who need it and who are at some risk from having access to it.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Rae: Given the record of the other provinces, does the minister not think Ontario should be providing the vaccination for free for those groups that are determined by local medical officers of health and boards of health to be at some risk?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The member is correct in saying other provinces have a program similar to the one he is asking Ontario to put in place. I have not seen any data myself, so I am not sure he is correct in assuming that Ontario has a higher incidence of hepatitis than these other jurisdictions. If he has that information, I would be delighted if he would share it with me.

I think his point is well taken. I have indicated we are considering expanding the program for newborns, and I will take under consideration his position with respect to other high-risk groups.

Mr. Nixon: Now that the schools in the metropolitan area have been publicly identified where there are young people who are carriers, does the minister not think the concern felt by the staff and the parents of the other children in those schools would warrant something more than further consideration and that there ought to be action without delay?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I want to go back to my original statement to point out that there are indeed known hepatitis carriers right across the population base. To define certain racial groups or sectors of the population as being high-risk groups, yes, the member is correct, and I think in the light of the two questions I have had from the member for York South we do need to examine whether a program of immunization should be implemented within the parameters of those high-risk groups.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I wonder whether the minister is aware of a statement that Douglas Kincaid, executive director of the Canadian Liver Foundation, made earlier this year. He said: "Ontario is leading the pack. Compare provincial rates of infection and you will see that Ontario is so high it runs right off the bloody chart."

I would also like to make the minister aware of a case in my area in Windsor. I received a call from an employee who works three hours a day at Metropolitan General Hospital and who comes in contact with a chronic patient who is currently carrying hepatitis-B. The position of the board of that hospital is that full-time employees will have the vaccination paid for but part-time employees will not have it paid for.

Does the minister not understand --

Mr. Speaker: I believe the question was, "Are you aware?"

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The final question is, does the minister not understand there has to be a province-wide policy so that all individuals who are going to come in contact with this disease are properly protected for public health reasons?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: We have indicated to hospitals and to other health agencies that those coming into contact with hepatitis victims or hepatitis carriers should have the protection of the immunization. The hospitals can, within their own operation, offer to exercise some discretion in how they implement those programs.

With respect to the honourable member's first question -- am I aware of Mr. Kincaid's statement? -- I think it is important that he share it with me, that we share any other information with respect to this disease and that we come to grips with the whole question of how extensive the immunization program should be.

10:40 a.m.

HAZARDOUS CONTAMINANTS AND STANDARDS BRANCH

Mr. Rae: I have another question of the Minister of the Environment. I was hoping she would be making a statement today announcing the savaging in her department of the branch that was supposed to be responsible for setting standards for hazardous substances. I am surprised she did not make the statement today; perhaps she will make it on Monday.

I would like to ask the minister whether she can confirm that in February her deputy minister issued a verbal directive -- I guess that means he talked -- saying that public involvement in the setting of standards was not to go ahead. Can she confirm that no individuals from the public have been appointed to the Environmental Standards Advisory Committee, which was to counsel the ministry in its standards-setting deliberations?

Hon. Ms. Fish: I can confirm that the report in this morning's Globe and Mail is full of unwarranted nonsense and is exceedingly incorrect. Specifically, there has been no directive whatsoever that the public not be involved in standards setting -- quite the contrary.

Far from being disbanded, the branch itself has been enhanced by enlarging it as part of an intergovernmental relations and hazardous contaminants co-ordination branch. Additional staff has been placed, and the branch has been brought forward in a fashion that, in my view and in the view of the government, responds to our real need, which is to ensure we have the highest possible environmental standards, particularly with respect to hazardous contaminants, and moreover that those standards are properly co-ordinated with the standards of our sister provinces and the federal government.

One of the most serious problems the people of Ontario have been confronted with in incident after incident has been the travelling of hazardous contaminants from other jurisdictions with different and much lower standards. That has been the principal threat to our people. Ensuring that we have high standards right across the board in this country has been the main goal in reorganizing and strengthening the role of the hazardous contaminants co-ordination branch.

Mr. Rae: Apart from the savage attack on a defenceless newspaper that has no means to protect itself, I do not think I heard an answer to my question.

My question to the minister did not refer to any particular newspaper. It is a simple question. Did Dr. Dyer, as deputy minister, say in February that the process of consultation with the public in the setting of standards was not to go ahead? Several meetings had been set up with the Canadian Environmental Law Association and a number of other groups. May I have an answer to that question?

Second, and directly following from that, can she tell us why apparently no one has been appointed to the Environmental Standards Advisory Committee? Has that committee been disbanded? People have been appointed to housing authorities across the province, so why not to that group?

Hon. Ms. Fish: From the uncertain harangue coming from the leader of the third party, let me return to the point of the reorganization, which was to strengthen the controls. The public process involved in standards setting, rather than not proceeding, is now being directed to proceed and is under way right now with a view to a much higher standard of protection with hazardous contaminants than had been possible with the previous level of organization.

I note as well that the work on the coming together of standards on an intergovernmental basis, so that we have the highest possible standards across this country, is work that involves not only the branch itself, federal toxicity studies and branches, but also interested members of the public, especially environmental groups with particular expertise. That involvement will now proceed within the context of a much stronger and much better enhanced hazardous contaminants co-ordination branch.

It seems to me that action is clearly in the best interests of protecting the people of Ontario.

Mr. McGuigan: In setting standards to agree with other jurisdictions, is the minister really saying that if it is good enough for Reagan and Mulroney, it is good enough for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Ms. Fish: What unmitigated rubbish! The entire point of what we are doing is to ensure that Ontario will remain the leader it is in standards for hazardous contaminants. We have the highest standards in dealing with hazardous contaminants in North America and are among the leaders in the industrialized world. Contrary to the suggestion that we should have a weak branch that should be open to the possible pressures of other jurisdictions, this reorganization and this government have moved to ensure that other jurisdictions rise to our standards. This is not the time for the lowest common denominator; this is a time for strong protection.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: The minister is performing what I would have thought was almost impossible in this House. She is making most of us here nostalgic for Morley Kells. I want to congratulate her on having done that. I did not think that was possible, but she has pulled it off.

Mr. Speaker: Is that the supplementary?

Mr. Rae: There is some disagreement on this side on that. The minister has two days to go. Could the minister please answer my question? I do not think she has answered it. The question I asked her was quite clear. Meetings with the public dealing with the question of the setting of standards for water were cancelled in February and March. That took place. I hope she is not denying it took place as a result of a directive coming from the deputy minister.

Why has no one been appointed to the Environmental Standards Advisory Committee? Why have there been no appointments made to that particular group? If the minister is taking public involvement seriously, if she is beefing it up, why has that not happened? Surely that would be a tangible, physical side of this spiritual well, which she says now exists in the Ministry of the Environment.

Hon. Ms. Fish: I have tried to answer what I believe is an improper implication, or at least I infer from the leader of the third party's question an improper implication, that there has been some attempt to lessen the importance of setting hazardous-contaminant standards and somehow to move away from public participation, particularly that of the informed public.

I tried very clearly to indicate that the obvious steps to be followed and the steps that a responsible government wishes to follow are to enhance the position of the hazardous contaminants branch, to establish its strengthening through a reorganization and then to move as we are now moving to ensure proper public participation in the course of working with that enhanced and strengthened branch. That is the action of this government.

10:50 a.m.

BAIL SUPERVISION

Mr. McKessock: I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services. Last year the former Minister of Correctional Services reluctantly reversed his decision to close 12 bail supervision programs across Ontario. These programs offer alternatives to jail for those accused who cannot afford to put up bail. The minister reluctantly extended funding while he ordered yet another study into whether the programs were effective or not.

According to a ministry spokesman, the study was supposed to ensure that the government was getting the best bang for the buck. I understand the report is now complete. Will the minister tell us what specific recommendations he will implement as a result of this study and will he also table the report?

Hon. Mr. Cousens: I thank the honourable member for asking me a question. I have not yet had a chance to read the report. When I do I will be pleased to share certain parts of that with him and, if possible, all parts.

Mr. McKessock: The interim budgets of the bail program are due to expire next month. Can the minister confirm to this House that the budgets will be renewed, or is it the minister's policy to continue to fund these programs on an ad hoc basis?

Hon. Mr. Cousens: I can assure the member I will be pleased to look into that.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question: This is the first time I have had a chance to participate in question period in almost a year. I would like to take the opportunity to thank members of the House from all sides who provided me with a great deal of support after my heart attack in the fall. It was very nice to receive letters from people who have had the same kind of difficulties and from others who wished me well.

I would especially like to thank my colleagues for their support during the time I was away, among them the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), who was delighted to jump back into the role of critic for Community and Social Services again for a brief period. In fact, he still will not give me back most of my files.

DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is of the Minister of Community and Social Services, with whom I hope to have the same kind of cordial relationship I had with Mr. Drea.

Mr. Foulds: It will only be two days.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister is lucky. Two days may not result in my having a heart attack and his leaving politics.

My question has to do with the deinstitutionalization of the mentally retarded. Is the minister aware that within his ministry at the moment there is a document entitled Homes for Special Care, a presentation dated May 7, which is being circulated through his ministry and is being discussed in the various regional offices? It outlines a program for deinstitutionalizing retarded children, many of them multiply handicapped, who are in nursing homes and homes for special care in this province.

Is he aware that this is on track? If he is aware, why has there been no public announcement of this? What is the status of this deinstitutionalization and does the minister support the recommendations in the report?

Hon. Mr. Eves: I promise never to call the honourable member a wacko or refer to him in any such way, shape or form. I am sure we will have a much more cordial relationship.

No, I am not specifically aware of the document to which the member refers. With respect to children's mental health, however, in Ontario the numbers show that many more people are not in institutions than are. In March 1984 slightly more than 800 children were in institutions and some 21,000 were in some sort of day counselling or day treatment program. That has been the case and those have been the proportions, in my understanding, for a good number of years.

I will certainly look into the matter to which the member refers and get back to him on it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister should know that these children are like the children who were in Ark Eden Nursing Home and who were recently deinstitutionalized at a cost of $115 a day for the homes in North York and about $100 a day for the home in Barrie. They need very expensive care because they often have major medical problems as well as their retardation difficulties.

This report includes sending 120 people back to the big institutions for the retarded. It includes having for-profit centres for these people to go to after deinstitutionalization.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I want the minister to be aware of these facts before I ask the question. It is dumping people into the community at rates of support and per diems that are $40 and $50 lower than those kids are getting who have been deinstitutionalized from Ark Eden. I want the minister to give us his assurance that this will not proceed over the summer, as his deputy minister seems to want it to do, and it will not proceed as that five-year plan did without a full discussion in the standing committee on social development of this Legislature, in recognition of the minority power in this province.

Hon. Mr. Eves: I have given the commitment to the member that I will look into it. I will get back to him on it and then we can discuss it further.

EASTERN ONTARIO SUBSIDIARY AGREEMENT

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Treasurer. The throne speech referred to the eastern Ontario subsidiary agreement. Could the minister expand on the kind of program that will include to assist the areas of eastern Ontario, particularly outside the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: As I am sure the honourable member knows, the eastern Ontario subsidiary agreement, or EOSA as it is called, actually expires this September. It has been an extremely successful regional development agreement. To this time, it has delivered about $42 million to eastern Ontario over a five-year period for the purposes of industrial and business development, primarily in the areas of agriculture, small business, tourism, infrastructure and forestry.

Because of its imminent expiration, I have already communicated by telex with the Honourable Sinclair Stevens, who is the federal minister responsible, asking that negotiations begin now and be concluded during the summer for the successor of EOSA. It appears that small business, tourism, and agriculture still will require the additional kind of support this kind of agreement can provide under the federal-provincial umbrella. We are most anxious to ensure it does continue.

Mr. Sargent: I would like to ask the minister whether she would mind if the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) and the member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey) would run for our party next time.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Was that a supplementary question or just one of the honourable member's usual aberrations?

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Offer: My question is to the Minister of Industry and Trade. In 1981 the government formed a crown corporation named the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement or IDEA Corp. Apparently, its purpose was to bang Ontario technologically into the 21st century before the 21st century gets here. In the light of the fact that since this corporation's inception only 20 projects have been funded, could the minister tell us how close this corporation is getting us to the year 2000 now?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The IDEA Corp. is going over a new business plan which is currently being reviewed by me and my ministry officials. I am not totally satisfied with the development of the corporation as it was originally intended. However, a total of $25 million has been invested in innovative technology and industrial development through the programs that are brought through the IDEA Corp.

As a result of some of the changes that I anticipate will occur with respect to the upper level management of IDEA Corp., we feel it is very possible for it to continue to move towards meeting the objectives that were originally set out for that corporation. However, after thorough, complete, total review of the situation, if we are not satisfied with the business plan or the way we feel that corporation is focusing its objectives, then we may have to take other action, which may result in something else happening with the corporation.

Mr. Offer: One of those initial objectives was that this corporation would fund itself and not be a burden on the taxpayer. As it is four years since its inception, can the minister indicate whether this corporation has been meeting this initial goal, that since its formation in 1981 it has been paying its own way'?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: No, it has not met its total requirement in being self-sufficient from revenues. That is not unexpected. There are very few government agencies in the business of attempting to help other corporations and introducing new, innovative technology, which the member referred to as the 21st century kind of thing, that do not have a cost associated with them. That is not unexpected or particularly disappointing from my perspective. What we want to see, however, is that we move towards that concept of self-sufficiency and that the corporation carries out its original mandate. I assure the member that is going to happen.

11 a. m.

Mr. Foulds: As the IDEA Corp. was the flagship of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development on which the Conservatives won the election in 1981, why have they let this corporation be such an unmitigated failure for four years? Why did the government not take action with its management years ago to either wind it up or get it on the right track?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I disagree completely with the rhetoric that it is an "unmitigated failure." It has not been as successful as we may have liked; that is true. It has not been described at any point in time as the flagship of the BILD program. I do not mind verbal exaggeration from that side of the House on occasion, but obviously the member for Port Arthur is taking verbal licence of an extreme degree over there.

All I am suggesting to the honourable member is that he would want a minister in charge and responsible for that corporation to review the mandate to make absolutely certain that the taxpayers are getting a return on their investment and that the corporation is operating in a responsible manner. I assure the member I am going to make sure it happens.

Mr. Foulds: Do it today.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I may do it later this afternoon. Why does he not come with me?

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Last Friday I questioned the Minister of Energy (Mr. Harris) about high prices charged for gasoline and home heating oil in northern Ontario, a serious problem that also applies to many rural areas in southern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: To which minister are you addressing this question?

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am addressing this question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The Minister of Energy at that point was rather confused about whether gasoline prices were regulated by the Ontario Energy Board. Perhaps the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is more concerned about the interests of the consumers and commercial establishments in the north.

Why do northerners have to pay eight, 10 or even 15 cents a litre more for gasoline than those who live in metropolitan areas of the south? Can this minister explain why it is we can have one price for beer in Ontario but we cannot have fair prices for gasoline in this province?

Hon. Mr. Runciman: It is not an issue I have had an opportunity to review, but I assume we have to look at the transportation costs involved.

One of the areas we are looking at -- and we met with a group just last week -- is a methanol-ethanol fuel blend we can market in northern and northwestern Ontario areas. We are attempting to work out some areas in terms of regulation change whereby we can allow that firm to come in on an experimental basis and provide those kinds of fuels to northern Ontarians at a much lower cost than they are currently paying for fuel.

Mr. Morin-Strom: The question pertains to gasoline prices and the prices of home heating oil, both of which are used in vast quantities by northerners. Northerners have to pay more because of longer distances. They have a colder climate, so they have to use more home heating oil in the winter. The fact is that those are the major uses of fuel in northern Ontario.

Why does this government continue to load further competitive disadvantages and penalties on to the people of northern Ontario, compounding the disadvantages they already face, by allowing the oil companies to charge unjustified prices that cannot be explained by the high transportation costs?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Does the minister agree that during the past 42 years this government should have taken action?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe the question has been asked thoroughly.

Hon. Mr. Runciman: I think they should get together with their friends concerning competitive disadvantage and the free market system. There seems to be a difference of opinion when one is talking about beer in one instance, as an example.

Some of the reasons that have been provided to me regarding gasoline prices are simply that you have less competition, higher transfer costs, higher transportation costs and higher operating costs. Gasoline prices are set by competitive prices in the marketplace. Obviously, those guys over there do not believe in the free marketplace. Government intervention is their answer to everything; Big Brother has to be involved in every facet of our lives.

Mr. O'Neil: Does the minister believe all he is being told on this subject? Has he been talking with his counterpart in Ottawa to find out just when the combines investigation will be reporting on this subject? The people in the combines division feel the gas companies in this province have bilked the people of Ontario of billions of dollars.

Hon. Mr. Runciman: No, I have not had an opportunity to consult with my colleague at the federal level, but I have difficulty in accepting the charges the honourable member has just made.

WATER QUALITY

Hon. Ms. Fish: I have the answer to a question asked previously by the leader of the third party, the member for York South (Mr. Rae). I was asked to reply on the matter of reports that were allegedly not available, and I wish to advise the following.

A report on acid sensitivity of lakes in Ontario is now being printed and will be available in the beginning of July.

Currently available by ringing through to the ministry are the following reports:

Emission Inventory of Ontario and Eastern North America During 1980-1983 With Emphasis on the Sudbury Shutdown Period; Meteorological Studies to Quantify the Effects of Sudbury Emissions on Precipitation Quality and Air Quality During 1980-1983 With Emphasis on the Shutdown Period; An Analysis of the Effects of the Sudbury Emissions Sources on Wet and Dry Deposition in Ontario;

Examination of Monthly Wet Sulphate Deposition by a Lagrangian Model and Its Application to Study the Effects of Source Control on Receptors; Summary: Source Apportionment Analysis of Air and Precipitation Data to Determine the Contribution of the Sudbury Smelters to Atmospheric Deposition in Ontario; and Acidic Precipitation in Ontario Study -- Water Quality Changes in Sudbury Area Lakes, 19741976 to 1981-1983.

The following are reports currently available that were prepared as data for the International Joint Commission studies:

Municipal and Municipally Operated Wastewater Treatment Facilities in the Great Lakes Basin; and 1983 Inventory of Industrial Point Source Discharges in the Great Lakes Basin.

A Survey and Evaluation of Organic Compounds in Nine Sewage Treatment Plant Effluents in Southern Ontario is available on request, with a caveat from the director of the water resources branch, who felt the data were flawed and scientifically dubious. With that caveat, the report has been and is now available.

A Review of the Municipal Abatement Programs in the Great Lakes Basin is also available. Released yesterday were the Effects of Dredging and Lakefilling at the Toronto Harbour and East Headland in 1982 and 1983; and Historical Development and Quality of the Toronto Waterfront Sediments -- Part I.

To be available shortly from the Canada-Ontario review board is Trace Organics in Ontario Drinking Water Along the Niagara River. To be available later this year are four reports, as yet unnamed, on Lake Superior intensive studies at Thunder Bay, Nipigon and Jackfish Bay in 1983.

11:10 a.m.

PESTICIDES

Mr. McGuigan: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. We have information that did not come from the newspaper reports this morning.

Mr. McClellan: In the Star?

Mr. McGuigan: No; the one in that great Liberal paper, the Globe and Mail.

Our report came directly from the ministry, and it is that pesticide officers are being reduced in number from an overworked six to four, whereas there probably should be 10.

Is the minister aware that the states of Florida and New Mexico -- I think New Mexico has been added to that list -- are passing their own laws in regard to pesticides because they no longer trust the federal Environmental Protection Agency laws? That has been brought about by the fact that they are finding all sorts of pesticides in their drinking water.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the member has already asked the question.

Mr. McGuigan: Does the minister think that is fair to the farmers of Ontario who want to be on the safe side? They do not want to contaminate the water, but they want to be able to continue using those pesticides. Is it safe to the farmers and the people of Ontario to reduce the number of those pesticide officers?

Hon. Ms. Fish: Some of the officers have been reassigned in two areas. We have looked for reassignments to assist in beefing up our water resources branch and to assist in beefing up hazardous contaminants handling in the waste management branch.

In the case of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides, I have specifically requested that the entire matter of reviewing those products for use in this province be undertaken with a view to strengthening it, including licensing, inspection and enforcement, all with a view to protecting not only the farmers who may use such products but also the public.

My officials and I are extremely concerned about the recent practice on the part of the federal government in suggesting licensing for certain products over the specific objections of the Department of National Health and Welfare, which is charged under our system with assessing toxicity and safety. It is my view that process must be substantially reviewed and strengthened. We would prefer that the responsible federal level undertake its responsibilities and discharge them correctly, because at present we have a very uncertain patchwork of approvals across the country.

Mr. McGuigan: I appreciate the minister's concern, but I cannot relate her concern to the fact that she has reduced the number of people. Will she answer my question as to how she can carry this out with a reduced number of people?

Hon. Ms. Fish: Perhaps the honourable member does not realize the process and the number of parties involved. The Pesticides Advisory Committee provides input on the appropriate licensing. The inspection and enforcement branch reviews the products and ensures they are utilized safely and that there is no inadvertent travelling of the products into our water systems. There are also the ongoing testing branches, for air and water in particular. All have collectively been strengthened.

For example, the 85-member enforcement branch newly announced as coming on board a complete review of the procedures involved in the authorization of any pesticides, herbicides or fungicides, appropriate training and information for our farming community and local medical officers of health, and licensing.

As I indicated before, the total package is a strengthened one; notwithstanding, I am asking that people with particular skills and backgrounds be assigned to waste management and water resources so we can monitor, track, control and protect in the critical follow-up areas against potential environmental hazard in the use of such pesticides, herbicides and fungicides.

VISITOR

Mr. Sargent: I would like to point out that Ron Oswald, the president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, is in the Speaker's gallery with his wife.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Ward: I have three petitions, all of which are addressed 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 any action to extend public funding to separate Roman Catholic secondary schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas it is uncertain whether extension would contravene the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and

"Whereas in democratic societies there is a recognized convention which respects the rule of law that before fundamental changes in public policy are implemented such matters are debated in the Legislative Assembly, with an opportunity for the public to appear and be heard before an appropriate committee of the Legislature;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government:

"(1) to seek a constitutional referral prior to any implementation to determine whether extension would conflict with the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and

"(2) to debate fully the issue of extension prior to any implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for the people to appear and be heard."

The three petitions bear 114 signatures. They are from Parkside High School, Ancaster High and Vocational School and Highland Secondary School.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McCague moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Mitchell, first reading of Bill 16, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McCague: This bill would allow the minister to issue rewritten licences. The rewrites are now out to the industry.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McCague moved, seconded by Hon. Ms. Fish, first reading of Bill 17, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The most significant feature of this bill is to increase driver licence suspension periods for those convicted of drinking and driving offences. The suspension period for first offenders will be increased to six months from three months and the suspension for a second offence will be raised to one year from the previous six months. Convictions for a third or subsequent impaired driving offence will continue to cost drivers their licences for a period of three years.

These changes will fulfil our commitment to the Canadian Conference of Motor Transport Administrators and will bring the suspension periods in line with those in other provinces. We are also introducing some minor changes in wording to concur with the amendments that have just been made to the Criminal Code of Canada regarding drinking and driving.

Another amendment requires all motorcycles manufactured since 1971 to be equipped with rear-view mirrors.

11:20 a.m.

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McCague moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Eves, first reading of Bill 18, An Act to amend the Off-Road Vehicles Act, 1983.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. McCague: The purpose of the bill is to extend to licensed trappers the same right to operate three-wheeled, all-terrain vehicles on the highway as is already enjoyed by farmers. In addition, at the request of the Solicitor General (Mr. Gregory) this bill contains an amendment that revokes the authority of municipal bylaw enforcement officers to carry out the provisions of the Off-Road Vehicles Act, 1983. The powers of arrest contained in the act are felt to be inappropriate to this category of officer.

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved, seconded by Mr. Newman, first reading of Bill 19, An Act to relieve persons from liability in respect of Voluntary Emergency Medical and First Aid Services.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: The purpose of this bill is to relieve persons from liability in respect of voluntary emergency first aid assistance or medical services rendered at or near the scene of an accident or other sudden emergency.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Hon. Ms. Fish: I am pleased to join this debate today and address an area that has long been a concern of this government and the people of Ontario. That area is the matter of environmental issues.

I might add that during the recent election I had the opportunity to discuss a number of environmental issues with residents of the great riding of St. George, which I am proud to represent. It has been my pleasure in the last few weeks to have the opportunity of reflecting many of their concerns by serving as Minister of the Environment.

Since Ontario became the first jurisdiction in North America to establish an agency responsible for the environment, our province has truly been a world leader in protecting and preserving our valuable natural environment. Very simply, we on this side believe that a clean, safe and healthy environment is fundamental to everything else we do. It is fundamental to our jobs, our neighbourhoods, our recreation and health, all of which are dependent upon a clean environment.

That is why my government put forward in the throne speech more than a dozen initiatives to protect our environment with utmost vigilance. These initiatives are designed to build upon the strong foundation we have already achieved for Ontario. They will enable us to strengthen our protection and to implement the significant advances that are now possible in environmental management.

We are strongly committed to identifying priorities and solutions for our environmental problems in an atmosphere of full co-operation with both environmentalists and the general public. We believe we will be most successful in achieving our goals if our resources are pooled, our knowledge is shared and our strategies coordinated.

That is why I contacted representatives of major environmental groups in Ontario during my first day as Minister of the Environment and invited them to present me with their priorities for action. Those briefings are now complete and I am pleased that many of the initiatives cited by the groups have been taken advantage of by the government and are included in the speech from the throne.

The groups I met with included such important organizations as Pollution Probe, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Conservation Council of Ontario. I have emphasized to these groups my openness in sharing the ministry's resources with them and I am pleased to report that a valuable and productive relationship is developing.

Let me deal for a moment or two with some of the initiatives announced in the speech from the throne. The first I will touch on is the Niagara River.

The Niagara River Toxics Report, based on 1981 data released in Canada and the United States last year, identified 61 problem industrial waste sites in the US and only five in Ontario. If the US criteria for selecting sites had been applied to both sides of the border, only one Ontario site would have qualified for listing. The report pinpointed 10 facilities that were responsible for some 90 per cent of the Niagara River pollution that could be traced to specific industrial or municipal sources. Nine of these major polluters are on the US side of the river.

By 1982, my ministry had already ordered the one Ontario polluter to clean up its act, and that plant has now cut its discharge of heavy metals by 85 per cent. We have also taken cleanup action on all other Ontario polluters named in the report. Now we must continue to impress upon American polluters and the various US government agencies that they must take full responsibility for their remaining share of this very serious problem.

The Niagara River improvement team was created in January 1982 to focus on pollution from industries, sewage plants and old chemical dumps, particularly those across the river. This team reviews and comments on all discharge permits to be issued to industries and plants in New York state, and it is conducting its own studies on the US chemical dumps so that Ontario can offer advice to the US on cleanup methods.

But we are not content to sit back and advise. If we do not see tangible results that indicate the US is cleaning up pollution sources on its side of the river, my ministry is committed to pursue this matter aggressively before the courts.

The second initiative deals with polychlorinated biphenyls. Turning to waste management, recent events in Kenora have focused public attention on one waste management area more than ever before. That area, of course, is PCBs.

Since government staff stopped a truck carrying a leaking PCB transformer and began mopping up the spill, the media and the average person on the street have been confronted with some of the basic issues in PCB management.

A few weeks ago, for example, I met with fellow Environment ministers from the federal government and other provinces across Canada. The subject was PCBs, and I took with me an agenda for action. This included a firm Ontario action plan and some specific commitments that I was seeking from other provinces and, most especially, from the federal government. What I was seeking, simply stated, was the adoption of a breakthrough for the management, control and eventual elimination of this contaminant from our environment.

The response was positive, and I believe we will achieve all these objectives. In fact, I am confident there is now a national will to provide the people of Canada with prompt and resolute action to deal with PCBs and to eliminate them as a hazard to public health and environmental integrity.

We turn, then, to the protection fund. On the provincial scene, my ministry has a trail-blazing agenda for dealing with a broad range of hazardous and liquid industrial wastes, an agenda that I am sure is shared by the majority of Ontario residents. We want to be sure our wastes are controlled from their point of origin to their final safe disposition. We want protection to ensure that these wastes do not come back to haunt us either through spills on a highway or through seepage from a landfill. We want assurance that our waste management systems are monitored thoroughly and consistently, that any problems are identified and corrected promptly, and that anyone who puts us at risk will bear the full penalty for his or her negligence or lawless intent.

In the speech from the throne, the government announced a $100-million environmental protection fund to provide the assurance and protection that we want and need. This is a comprehensive program that deals with all aspects of waste management and related environmental protection. It stems directly from the Blueprint for Waste Management in Ontario, which was tabled in 1982 by the Ministry of the Environment to launch a full public review of these issues and the options available to us.

Environmental groups, concerned citizens, industry, business and municipalities have all worked together with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and other government agencies to refine this blueprint, and full-fledged action plans are now under way to implement the changes required.

11:30 a.m.

The new environmental protection fund provides for full waste site security, inspection to ensure that no landfill is leaking liquid contaminants or gases to threaten our homes or water supplies. It ensures proper landfill cleanup and restoration and provides funding for the emergency measures required to deal with any hazardous waste crisis that may arise.

Unlike the US Superfund, which deals only with hazardous industrial waste sites, Ontario's fund will be used to provide cleanup and security measures at any problem site -- industrial, private or municipal -- on a priority basis.

The Ministry of the Environment is compiling an inventory of all active and closed sites, of which we believe there are some 3,500 in Ontario. Data on these sites are being computerized and priorities will be set for further testing and screening for problem sites.

The new protection fund will be used to clean up problem sites whether they contain municipal or industrial waste, providing gas control, leachate collection and treatment and the other necessary measures up to and including the removal of waste to a safe disposal area. Where home wells are affected, for example, the fund will also provide a quick, alternative supply of safe drinking water.

Priority will be given to known problem sites which contain hazardous wastes or sites where a hazard to human health or the environment is identified. As problem sites are identified, the best in cleanup and environmental protection measures will be taken to solve the problems and ensure continuing future security to neighbours of the sites.

In the area of industrial waste control, new waste management regulations will establish clearly the proper handling, treatment and disposition for each and every type of hazardous and liquid industrial waste in a manner compatible with the regulations under the federal Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act which come into force on July I of this year.

The new Ontario regulations will set out the responsibilities of the industries that create wastes, the haulers who carry them and the site operators who treat and dispose of them. Industrial waste generators will be required to register their operations and waste with the Ministry of the Environment, to fill out a waybill for each shipment of waste and to ensure those wastes are properly disposed of. The generator will be held accountable for the waste from start to finish.

On the enforcement side, the first priority of the ministry's special investigations and enforcement branch is industrial waste violation. This branch has been strengthened to 64 investigators backed by aerial surveillance capabilities and a team of environmental forensic scientists.

Amendments to environmental legislation will provide increased deterrents in the form of stiffer fines. A new fine structure, providing penalties of up to $50,000 for a single offence, will ensure that pollution simply does not pay.

The expanded enforcement branch will also apply the best investigative technology to guard against illegal dumping and to detect any improper operation at waste sites.

On acid rain, Operation Shield, which I announced last week, is a three-way attack on the problem. First, it is a firm commitment to ensure modernization and cleanup of Ontario's major sources -- our smelters and coal-fired electrical generating plants.

Second, it incorporates an all-out effort to persuade US authorities to reduce their emissions which threaten our waters and forests.

Finally, it launches a program of effective restoration activities to revitalize acid-damaged lakes and to protect sensitive, threatened waters.

The federal government has committed some $150 million to the modernization of Canada's smelters. While we have not negotiated specific amounts, I estimate that about $100 million of that money will be applied to Ontario sources. This would assist these sources to meet our abatement target.

As honourable members are aware, Inco pledged at its recent annual meeting that by 1994 it would reduce its sulphur emissions by 50 per cent from the 1984 levels. That is on top of a 25 per cent reduction from the 1980 base to 1984. The regulations I announced last week are designed to make certain that Inco will meet these targets.

We have been pressing Ontario Hydro to develop sulphur dioxide limestone scrubber technology which could be applied to the coal-fired generating plants to achieve further cutbacks in emissions at these plants.

We have been working with the federal government and other provinces to ensure the feasibility of increasing our use of low-sulphur coal at Hydro generating plants. As their developments become operational, we will be preparing regulatory amendments incorporating these improvements as further SO₂ emission control measures.

We also have been working closely with the federal government to develop constructive and positive initiatives against acid rain. Under a new agreement, the federal government has offered to play a lead role in modernizing and cleaning up smelters, while other industries and utilities have been identified as provincial initiatives.

Federal-provincial studies, in co-operation with industry, show that technology is available which will cleanse substantially the sulphur oxides emitted from smelter stacks and, at the same time, modernize the smelting process. Economic aspects aside, there are direct environmental benefits, a reduction of emission of sulphur dioxides which result in environmental acid rain.

The significance of these benefits is worth emphasizing. Sudbury smelters cut their emissions in half between 1970 and 1980 and have reduced them by a further 25 per cent since that time. They are now committed to another major reduction by 1994.

The substantial effort on the part of Ontario industry in response to government requirements will drive down the impact of Ontario-based SO₂ to negligible levels in Ontario's environment. The direct environmental benefits of cleaning up Ontario smelters also go to other provinces, to the northeastern United States and, finally, to the total global loading of sulphur dioxide.

More significant to Ontario, of course, are the indirect environmental benefits I hope to encourage. I believe the efforts we have made in achieving and making commitments to substantial reductions to our emissions will set an unprecedented example and provide Ontario and Canada with a strong part to play in our efforts to achieve further United States reductions in emissions.

There is absolutely no room for doubt that sources in the United States midwest are continuing to punish Ontario's lakes and forests with wave after wave of acid rain. There is also no doubt that the resistance of our sensitive environment is weakening under this onslaught. Many lakes have been driven to the point of no return unless direct revitalizing measures are undertaken now.

The second thrust of Operation Shield is a program of preventive medicine and restoration for those lakes which cannot wait for the long-term effect of emission controls. We are launching a program to neutralize acid waters and restore the vitality of sensitive and valued lakes. The lakes to be treated will be chosen on a priority basis from about 200 lakes that have lost almost all their native sport fish and which would otherwise never recover, even with reduced acid rain loading.

This is not just a matter of dumping in limestone and walking away. We are looking at a thorough evaluation to determine and prescribe the specific treatment needed to revitalize each lake. We will reduce acidity and restore resistance. With reduced acidity, toxic metals dissolved in the water will settle out. In turn, this should lead to lower levels of mercury, for example, in fish from treated lakes.

Our liming and lake restoration program is based on sound research and proven in a full-scale experimental program. Research is the foundation of all Ontario's efforts to combat acid rain, including the initiatives in Operation Shield. In our dealings with Ontario sources, we have been able to prove the benefits of pollution reduction.

When we talk about the problem with the United States authorities, we can establish scientifically every claim we make in support of our case. Our research laboratory at Dorset in the heart of the Muskoka and Haliburton resort areas is the only one in the world to develop and use a fully integrated system of studying acid fallout from the air to forests, through soil to the lakes.

The scientific results we produce are respected around the world and challenged only by those whose vision is clouded by self-interest and lack of sincere commitment to pollution control. We are sharing our resources and working jointly on specific studies with several US states, West Germany, Norway and Sweden as part of our continuing international effort.

This brings me to the third major thrust of Operation Shield, our continuing efforts to address acid rain as a continental and worldwide issue. On the global scale, Ontario was a prime mover in the unprecedented East-West Accord signed in Munich, West Germany, in 1984. Canada and 12 other western nations pledged to cut their emissions by 30 per cent by 1993. Several eastern bloc countries, including the Soviet Union, made less specific commitments to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions which affect other countries. Notable holdouts were the United Kingdom and the United States.

Ontario and the other eastern provinces have agreed with the federal government to an overall cutback to 50 per cent of existing levels of sulphur dioxide from our major sources, taking a giant step beyond this international accord. We are continuing our effective working relationship with what we describe as the downwind states in the US, those that, along with Ontario, are feeling the impact of the long-range transport of acid rain on their environment.

11:40 a.m.

We are also making efforts to convert other states not immediately affected to the cause of acid rain reduction, as they come to appreciate that they too are suffering damage. We have intervened to press our case in court proceedings and consistently pressed our most die-hard opponents on the subject.

In Operation Shield we are marshalling our resources, gathering new evidence and setting an example in control of our own sources. The momentum from all this will redouble our efforts to get action from our neighbours to the south and to meet the challenge of acid rain control.

My ministry is also making a major investment in the water quality of beaches serving communities across Ontario. A $9.7-million commitment was announced one month ago to improve Metropolitan Toronto beaches. I have pledged a further $3.6 million in upfront grants for Ontario municipalities to use in upgrading sewage and storm water treatment systems. About nine Ontario communities outside Metro will benefit. I will be announcing further initiatives which will bring our total investment in Ontario beaches to about $20 million.

In all these communities bathing beaches are important recreational facilities, both for their own residents and for the prosperity of their tourist industry. This funding will help to prevent the escape of untreated sewage and septic tank contamination and, in some areas, assist with plans for treatment of contaminated storm water to help these communities keep their beaches open and safe.

Our priority in all these initiatives is simple and straightforward: better service, better protection and a better environment for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Knight: First, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your appointment as Speaker of this House. It is a well-deserved honour, one that your constituents in Perth can be proud of and one that we here are all proud of.

I am also proud to continue the tradition of Liberal representation in the riding of Halton-Burlington -- a riding that has sent only Liberals to Queen's Park, a riding that will continue to send Liberals to Queen's Park and a riding that is delighted to be soon represented by a member of the government, a fact in which I am sure all my friends on this side of the House also take delight.

The riding of Halton-Burlington is a unique blend of urban and rural. The riding, located within Halton region, is composed of the communities of Halton Hills, Milton and Burlington, or at least the larger part of Burlington, being most of the area north of the Queen Elizabeth Way. Within these regional municipalities, we have the former rural townships of Nassagaweya, Esquesing, Nelson and Trafalgar.

The major centres in my riding are Acton, Georgetown, Milton and Burlington, the latter of which I jointly represent with the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) opposite. Each has its own special personality and events to capture and present that image to the rest of the province. Each community has its annual fall fair. Georgetown has its Highland Games each June and in early spring the Jaycees' annual crazy boat race on the Credit River.

Acton has preserved its leather town image with its Old Hide House, the largest market of its kind. Milton has an annual steam era display in September, as well as a superb winter carnival each February. Burlington has its Burlington Invitational Games with Burlington, Vermont; and is home of the world-renowned Burlington Team Tour Band. Each of our municipalities includes picturesque hamlets such as Glen Williams, Ballinafad, Campbellville, Brookville, Moffat, Kilbride, Hornby, Norval and Lowville, each with its own unique history and heritage and annual special event.

Halton-Burlington is home to many attractions which are utilized by visitors from across this province, this country and abroad. The Ontario Electric Railway Museum is located in Nassagaweya. In Milton we have all seen the Ontario Agricultural Museum as we drive along Highway 401. Milton is also home to Mohawk Raceway, Crawford Lake Indian village and the Glen Eden ski area operated by the Halton Regional Conservation Authority of Kelso.

Because the Niagara Escarpment transverses the riding, natural attractions abound: Mount Nemo, Rattlesnake Point, Crawford Lake, Kelso, Hilton Falls, the Glen and, of course, the Bruce Trail from which to view these sites.

Our recreational possibilities include downhill skiing at Glen Eden, cross-country skiing at Hilton Falls, sailing and swimming at Kelso, hiking the Bruce Trail or golfing at any of the many fine golf courses in the riding, such as Tyandaga in Burlington.

As I recall, the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) mentioned birdwatching in his riding. I suggest we also have birdwatching in our riding. We have a unique bird found along the escarpment, a turkey vulture, which has been adopted as the mascot or symbol of the Halton Region Conservation Authority. I suggest that birdwatching is not unique to our ridings; I suspect in a few weeks we will be able to do some birdwatching here in the House as the vultures cross over to this side.

Halton-Burlington is more than fun and games. It is a unique blend of urban and rural residential mix. Situated on Highway 401 and the Queen Elizabeth Way and adjacent to the Hamilton and Toronto trading areas with close access to distant markets through our proximity to Lester B. Pearson International Airport, we have become home to an increasing number of industries. We have aggressive municipal business development programs and business organizations such as chambers of commerce working to attract industry to our available industrial lands in Halton Hills, Milton and Burlington.

Halton-Burlington has been one of the fastest growing areas in Ontario over the last 10 to 15 years. We have had a lot of fine people move here from all over the province. Over the next five to 10 years more substantial growth will occur in the Headon Forest area of Burlington and the proposed Milton Woods area. These people have moved to Halton-Burlington because they appreciate the kind of communities and the lifestyle of the people in our riding and they want to share in that lifestyle.

Unfortunately, for some years now a sense of frustration has been building among the people of Halton-Burlington. They have been dismayed and in many cases downright mad as this riding has been raped by successive Tory decisions to violate our beautiful countryside. Indeed, if we want to point to proof of a 42-year-old cynical attitude that shows indifference to the rights of all of us, we have only to look at my riding.

We have only to look at attempts to freeze land for the aggregate industry. We have only to look at Ontario Hydro's transmission lines and at the temptation to turn Halton-Burlington into the waste capital of Ontario, a temptation that could be rationalized only by suggesting we are at the centre of waste production and thereby presumably heavily weighting a decision in favour of minimum transportation costs, while ignoring the far greater consideration of quality of life and health.

Our riding was not even mentioned in the MacLaren report as a candidate site. It was 10 years ago that my predecessor, Mr. Reed, broke the Tory stranglehold on Halton, expressly because of a series of Tory decisions regarding land use. We had Niagara Escarpment, parkway belt and green belt. It was almost becoming the riding that the Tories belt, or should I say belted.

Mr. Reed in his maiden speech on December 18, 1975, stated: "Halton-Burlington, with its particular geographic situation, stands in the forefront of the change and evolution of this great province. As such, it is probably more sensitive to the policies of government than most other areas."

Because Halton-Burlington is more sensitive to government policies, it reacted more quickly than other areas in breaking the Tory stranglehold. It has taken 10 years, but finally on May 2 the people all across this province voted to break the Tory stranglehold on Ontario. They voted for change; they voted for reform. They wanted to oust a government that had grown sluggish and complacent. They wanted to end the kinds of actions and attitudes that could only come from a government that felt it had a divine right to govern.

That kind of attitude has continued even subsequent to the election. Look at the throne speech; but do not believe it, not for a moment. Reference has been made by the Premier (Mr. F. S. Miller) to the fact that if he had made the throne speech promises during the campaign, he would have been a big winner in the election. That is just jealousy. He is jealous of the fact that he cannot pick up the marbles, but must just go home. He is jealous of the fact that others were able to better present to the people of Ontario those policies for reform and for a better future.

11:50 a.m.

The people of Ontario do not believe the throne speech. The only real things being given away in the throne speech are Tory principles. The people of Ontario are intelligent people. They will share my view that the throne speech was simply a last arrogant act on the part of a past-tense government. Indeed, the throne speech should more correctly be called the pancake speech; it is the big flip that flopped.

The people of Ontario will take some hope from the throne speech. They will recognize that many of the promises were lifted from the Liberal Party platform. They know a Liberal government will not flip-flop from its election platform. Progressive measures of reform will be introduced in this House by a fresh team with a fresh approach, progressive measures of reform for which the people of this province expressed a desire on May 2.

I am proud to be able to serve in this House as these changes occur and I look forward to being a part of this period in the changing history of Ontario. I am looking forward to next Tuesday to help put the icing on the cake that the electorate baked on May 2.

Mr. Laughren: It is good to be back for a fifth consecutive term. I use the word "consecutive" so that my colleague the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) will understand.

Mr. Kerrio: Did the member say this was his maiden speech?

Mr. Laughren: My maiden speech in this Parliament, yes.

I want to congratulate the new members of the assembly. I do so with more enthusiasm for some than for others, but they all deserve to be congratulated. The calibre of the throne debate speeches has been such that we are assured of having a very interesting parliament in the next couple of years.

I am much heartened by the return to this caucus of two not old friends but good friends: the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) and the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. It is very good to have them back in our midst.

If you have been listening during question period, Mr. Speaker, you will know that our new members are going to add a great deal to our caucus. I refer to the members for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), for Essex North (Mr. Hayes), for Saint Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom), for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) and for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay). It is so good to have that person here from Timiskaming. I do not think I need to reinforce my remarks other than to say that even the members of the Conservative Party restrained their grief on election night when the New Democratic candidate was elected as member for Timiskaming.

There is also our new member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville), who has a very difficult act to follow. Those of us who knew Jim Renwick know of the contribution he made in this chamber. I will not dwell on it, but he was of enormous assistance to me personally over the years. I cannot tell how much I and others will miss his presence.

During the election campaign it was evident that something was happening that could lead to the defeat of the government, or the virtual defeat. I should be careful. The party did win more seats than any other. There was such a sense of change, a need for change, that it was inevitable the government would lose seats. What was not inevitable was that we would strike an accord with the Liberal Party.

There were three reasons for which I felt the need to support the Liberal rather than the Conservative caucus. I do not want to be mean about it. One was the need for change that was being felt in the electorate. Another was the argument that was being used, all across the province, I suspect. Certainly, it was used very heavily in my constituency by my Conservative opponent, who ran a decent campaign. It was the argument that one had to have a government member to get one's fair share.

I would ask members to think about the illogical extension of that argument. Surely if one riding has to get its fair share only by getting a government member, then the same argument applies to all ridings. Members opposite may want a one-party state in Ontario, but the electorate does not.

Mr. Jackson: We have a two-party system now.

Mr. Laughren: It is a lot better than one, infinitely better than one.

That was an anti-democratic appeal to the people of Ontario and they were not so stupid or so simple-minded as to have bought that argument all across the province. It backfired. The Premier himself used the argument in the last, desperate, dying stages of the campaign. Thank goodness the people of Ontario said, "We will not buy your anti-democratic claptrap." That is what they told the government of this province.

The third reason I found it inevitable that I would end up supporting the Liberal caucus and not the Conservative caucus was the line the Premier used. It bothered me more than I like to admit. I have been in politics since 1971 and I am used to having people do a job on me, almost always fairly. I am not complaining or whining about it; I am used to taking some heat and I can live with it.

When I heard the Premier say that our party is the party of misery and hate, that bothered me more than I would have thought it would. If someone had asked me ahead of time whether it would bother me if that was said, I would have answered, "No, it would roll off me like water off a duck's back." It did bother me because of what it said about what he believes this party stands for.

I think fair-minded members on all sides would admit that this caucus has tried to fight over the years for the underdog in our society. We have tried to fight for redistribution of wealth and income in the province. We have tried to make things better for people who find themselves not in positions of power and influence. We have tried to do that, and one does not do that if one is a vehicle for misery and hate. That is why it was such an unfair accusation by the Premier. Once again, I suspect it was because he was feeling somewhat desperate.

For these three reasons I felt I had to support the idea of an accord with the Liberal Party so we could change the government in the province. Believe me -- and I do not mind saying this right out -- it is not because I have any great affection for the Liberal Party in Ontario. I have seen its positions over the years on matters dealing, for example, with labour and they bother me a great deal. We will be watching very carefully and we will not be restrained in debate or in our criticism when that party behaves in a way that simply is not fair.

I would do the same again. I believe we made the right decision. I do not think I would want to go back to my constituency if we had made another decision because there was a very strong feeling that it was time for change in this province.

One of the areas I want to speak briefly about today is an example of the government reaching a point where it set its own course and did not listen to what was happening out there. That is the whole question of the privatization of our provincial parks. We have an enormous investment in our 155 provincial parks. This year 18 of them are being contracted out to private contractors. I think that is fundamentally wrong. The government knew there was opposition to that but went ahead anyway.

Here is what the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) said back in 1976 when he was Minister of Natural Resources. This was before they created a job for him in Northern Affairs.

He said they were going to phase out overnight camping on the 21,000 sites the government operated in 122 provincial parks; the process would go into effect in 1979 and would take about 20 years to complete. He said they were planning an absolute farewell to campsites. He admitted they would not get out of them totally, but in the back of his head was the idea of getting completely out of public campgrounds in the provincial parks.

He said there were three reasons: (1) the campsites were losing money, (2) cutting them out would not only save operating expenses but also effect a reduction in civil service jobs and (3) it was part of an overall trend, a greater role for the private sector to play. That was what the Minister of Northern Affairs said back in 1978.

12 noon

If we can move ahead to 1985, the new Minister of Natural Resources is the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), who has stated that he has some concerns about this privatization. I am going to quote a speech he made on April 25, which was just before election day. He was speaking to the Northeastern Ontario Parks Association education seminar. He said:

"We are offering individuals the opportunity to operate a park while ensuring that our standards are maintained. We also believe it is a way to save money in the long run, because private operators often have more freedom to find ways to economize. We are not concentrating the operation of parks in order to reduce staff; rather, it is one way of better utilizing the staff we have. Our system is growing, and we need our staff elsewhere."

I would not want to accuse the minister of lying, or even of not telling the truth. However, when staff are laid off, they are not reassigned in the ministry; most of them become unemployed, so to use that kind of spurious reasoning simply is not appropriate.

The ministry knows it is not popular with the public; it did surveys and discovered it was not popular. It has virtually gone underground since 1978 to implement this policy. The way in which this program has been implemented in Ontario was underhanded and sneaky.

Back in 1978, the same year the Minister of Northern Affairs made his speech, there was an internal document that laid out the pros and cons of the privatization of our provincial parks. Let me tell members what the pros were as the government saw them. First, it reduces costs to the ministry. Would you not know that would be the first? Second, it produces opportunities for the private sector, which is consistent with government strategy. Third, it could allow redirection or alternative use of ministry staff. Fourth, it could result in a reduction in work loads, such as staff training, hiring procedures, handling of cash, permits, etc.

Those were the pros of privatizing our provincial parks, which the people of Ontario paid for only to have them now turned over to the private sector after we have paid for them. That is not free enterprise; that is socialism for the private sector.

What were the cons in 1978 as the government saw them? "It reduces employment opportunities, especially for students." Is that not nice? They reduce employment opportunities for students and then have student employment programs in the summer.

"Short-term concessions or contracts provide no incentive for the operator to maintain the capital plant. Concessions and long-term leases result in loss of revenue to the government. All concepts reduce the ministry presence, a presence which has contributed over the years to a good ministry image.

"Operator does not have the legal authority of a superintendent to enforce the law. A successful operation is highly dependent upon the suitability of the operator, and the best operator will not always correspond to the most favourable tender.

"There could be some increases in administrative costs (tenders, agreements, audits, etc.). Since the only parks that are suitable for concession or long-term lease are generally profitable or near-profitable operations on their own, the system would eventually lose these, and the ratio between costs and revenues in the remainder of the system would suffer. Another way of looking at this is to say we lose parks that contribute revenue at lower costs. This is not the case, of course, with a contract operation."

That is exactly what has happened over the years as the ministry has contracted out some of these 18 parks. We can see the cons are about three times the pros, but the government went ahead because of its ideological straitjacket, particularly that of the then Minister of Natural Resources, now the Minister of Northern Affairs, and of the present Premier.

Let me give some examples of some of the jobs lost. Craigleith, six jobs gone, no one hired back; Sauble Falls, 13 staff, no one hired back; Silver Lake, 11 positions, no one hired back; Rideau River, some but not all hired back; Fitzroy, 17 positions, some of the older workers hired back at lower rates of pay; Rainbow Falls, no one hired back out of 15 positions; and it goes on and on. The point is, the government is quite prepared to reduce the number of jobs and at the same time to make announcements of job creation projects, which is absolute and total nonsense. The government is playing a silly, stupid game with people's lives. One person who had more than 20 years' seniority with the ministry ended up without a job.

Back in 1978 I raised this matter with the present Premier, who I guess at that point was the Minister of Natural Resources. I asked him whether one person could start cornering the market on all these privatized campgrounds. He said, and I quote from the May 3, 1978, Hansard:

"Up to date we have not even gone far enough to say. I am not thinking of a Kampgrounds of America chain under the Ministry of Natural Resources, if that is what you mean. What I am trying to do is re-establish and rekindle that pioneering spirit of free enterprise that lies dormant even in some of you to the left of me."

That is the real reason this government was privatizing our campgrounds, which we paid for. It is handing them out to the private sector for what it thinks is a quick buck. The government really is a bunch of quick-buck artists.

It is not even as though there are cost savings. Even though the government is contracting the parks out, it is still doing work in them. It is still spending money in those parks even though it has contracted them out. It spends time and money preparing the prospectus. It monitors the operator once he has it. There are legal costs. Also, it is still supplying material in some of the parks that have been contracted out. What kind of free enterprise is that? What a bloody joke this government is!

The government puts on a one-week enforcement course for the operators when they take over and provides the visitor services program for one year. I looked at the problem up at Sauble Falls and at Fitzroy. At Fitzroy the government put in new showers; previously there had been only two for 252 sites.

After the government contracts them out, it goes in and spends money. What kind of contracting out is that? The government buys things like tractors, lawnmowers, chemicals and toilet paper. It is really a joke.

If the government were really contracting them out, then it could rest on its ideological haunches and say: "That is what we are doing. We believe in getting out of the provincial parks business." But no, the government has to mix it up a bit; it has to contract it out and then subsidize them yet further after our enormous investment over the years in those parks.

I certainly hope the new government will take a serious look at that policy and stop this trend; it is really stupid. The government is not getting anything out of it. It is giving the best ones away and is left with the losers. I do not even like to call them losers, because I do not think provincial parks have to make money. That never was the intention of having provincial parks. The government never had the intention that provincial parks would break even at the park level. The government is always talking about tourism. One cannot measure the success of a park simply by the dollars at the gate. The parks make an enormous contribution to tourism in Ontario.

I looked at the way the government selects the operators. What are the selection criteria? Let me read from a document headed "Evaluation of Personal or Corporate Qualifications," which states:

"Each qualified tender will be evaluated on the following personal or corporate qualifications: experience in public relations; experience in the operation of a small business, preferably in the recreation or tourism field; experience in law enforcement; administrative experience and ability; supervisory experience; good character; esteem; and a minimum of three personal or business references, including one from a financial institution."

12:10 p.m.

Is there any mention about conservation? No. Is there any mention about knowledge of how to run parks or nature trails? There is nothing. It really is a joke.

Mr. Hayes: What if you run a hot dog stand?

Mr. Laughren: Yes; if you run a successful hot dog stand, you could get to run a provincial park. It is total nonsense; yet that is the policy those people were all so proud to get up and represent in the recent election campaign and are so proud to sit here and represent today. I wonder how much they are told. How many of them knew the pros and cons of contracting out those parks? Did they tell them? They did not tell them, did they? They are not told either. That is decided in the inner circle. Ask the member for York West (Mr. Leluk); he is here now.

It is not just an ideological question about giving away something we have invested in. The service has deteriorated since it happened. I wish the Minister of Natural Resources were here because I have pictures taken during the long weekend. They show an unbelievable mess with sinks, toilet stalls and showers in a bloody mess. It stands to reason the private operator is going to minimize his costs. They are bottom-line people. Surely the government understands that. That is what they are doing and they wonder why they get complaints about our parks.

There are quite a few people lining up on the other side now and saying: "Hold on, you people. You are not giving away our heritage like that." Here is a quote I am sure the members will like:

"The so-called privatization of Ontario's provincial parks amounts to a despicable ripoff of citizens of Ontario in the name of free enterprise. These parks were established for and by, and at the expense of, all citizens of Ontario. They are intended to maintain recreational facilities and natural heritage regions for the benefit of all of us and for our children and our children's children. To turn them over to private commercial entrepreneurs to operate for their own profit is a betrayal to us all."

That statement is by Farley Mowat. I do not want President Reagan to hear about that slur on free enterprise and on the Conservative government of Ontario, but that is what Farley Mowat thinks of what these bandits are doing to our provincial parks,

Here is another quote those people should like: "MNR started turning on the parks back in 1976. That is when they initiated what I call the `parks purge.' Since then, manpower cuts, transfer and cost cuts have been extensive. The system now is a little too lean. I think the parks have deteriorated because they have cut back so much on staff that they just cannot maintain the proper service. Since 1976, the ministry has looked at the parks as a kind of frill, but the park system more than pays for itself, but you do not see that because of the way we finance things."

That is by George Priddle, past president of the Ontario Provincial Parks Council. I could go on and on.

Here is a quote I like:

"The policy flies in the face of the whole notion of public parks. It is a very major step in the wrong direction. Apart from the park management issue, essentially what is happening is that the province is circumventing its own wage guidelines by allowing a private operator to come in and pay minimum wages and, presumably, on that basis turn a profit. Why is that a socially valuable goal?"

It is signed by Arlin Haekman, who was previously on the staff of the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and was director of the Algonquin Wild Lands League.

I could go on and give a lot of other quotes, but my point is that it is not a popular policy. The government did a survey that showed the public did not want this done. That is why I called it sneaky and underhanded. They went ahead anyway because of the ideological straitjacket of the present Premier and because of the Minister of Natural Resources during the past couple of years.

I very much hope the government will reconsider. Actually, it is not too late for the minister to confess it was a wrongheaded, if not outright stupid, policy in the first place and to say he will reconsider it.

The ministry is already on the defensive. What did it do? The ministry got wind there were going to be some demonstrations at some of the parks; so it sent out a communications strategy to the provincial parks, telling them how to handle the demonstrations. There were things such as a letter that could be sent to managers of contracted parks to show support and handouts to be made available throughout all provincial parks, especially those that would be affected by demonstrations at their gates.

They went on to say, "Do not hand out fact sheets unless there is a demonstration." Why? Surely it is because they do not even want people to know they are doing it. I have never heard the minister stand up in this assembly and proudly trumpet what they are doing. They have never been bashful in bragging about what they do in other areas.

I wanted to make my feelings known about the privatization of parks.

I want to conclude by serving notice that there are a number of things I want to see done in the next two years in this parliament. In every case it is because of the failure of this government to act that there is such a desperate need for this.

There is the whole question of extended care beds being attached to small northern hospitals. In 1982, a telex was sent to these communities telling them that if they demonstrated a need and had a hospital, they would be eligible for extended care beds to be attached to the hospitals. Since that time the government has blatantly reneged on that promise. It used every silly excuse it could think of for not implementing it.

I can only assume the Minister of Northern Affairs has lost his clout in cabinet. I can only conclude that because he was on the line. He sent out the telex; he made the promise, and he reneged on the promise. That is not honest. He used silly bureaucratic reasons to explain why it could not be implemented in the various places. The people in my constituency, in Chapleau in particular, are fiercely determined, as I am, that we are going to get that extension of extended care beds to that hospital. The minister should not make firm promises, get all the publicity surrounding it and then simply break the promise.

I must mention that in the town of Chapleau, which has about 4,000 people, there is a part of the community that is on the other side of the tracks, so to speak, but in this case it is on the other side of the river, where the planing mills are. It is almost totally French-speaking. There are at least 1,000 people there, and the conditions are deplorable.

The government has a Ministry of Northern Affairs officer in that community. The role of a northern affairs officer is a co-ordinating one, to get the various ministries to work together to deliver programs. That has not happened in Chapleau and I want to know why. I want to know what that northern affairs officer has been doing since he arrived there. Is that not the purpose of the job? Is it just a hack job, a patronage job? If not, there has to be some action.

The government cannot allow people to live in those conditions, with those kinds of roads, while on the other side of the river all the streets are paved. It cannot be done. It is discriminatory, to start with.

The government has done nothing to resolve it. When the Conservative candidate in the election says, "I guess you have to have a government member to get those roads fixed," I am offended. I do not like using words such as fascist, but I want to tell the members --

Mr. Philip: Duplessisism is a good word.

Mr. Laughren: Duplessisism is the correct word, because that is what it leads to. Nothing makes me happier than the fact that the people of Ontario rejected that argument during this campaign.

There is also a road that links Highway 144 and Highway 129 that should be improved. I can assure the members I will be spending some time attempting to get that done.

The Ministry of Northern Affairs has to take a more active role, and not just a defensive role or a public relations role for the minister. That simply has to change. I have always tried very hard not to drag civil servants into political debates, but unless those northern affairs officers start acting in the interests of the people they are supposed to be representing rather than the minister who appointed them, they are going to be dragged into public debate.

12:20 p.m.

Almost finally, part of the accord that was signed with the Liberal caucus was that there would be reform of our workers' compensation system. My constituency office is still preoccupied at least 75 per cent of the time, sometimes closer to 90 per cent, by workers' compensation problems.

I recognize that I represent a constituency that is based on mining and forestry. We have a lot of compensation problems; I understand that. But it is not appropriate that all the constituency offices, the unions, the legal aid clinics and others are preoccupied by problems that should be solved by the Workers' Compensation Board. It is a bad system. It needs major reform from the top down.

I know the compensation system quite well in Ontario. I have handled a lot of appeals over the years. In the long run, I do not expect this Liberal government to change this or do this. In the long run, we have to abolish that board and put into place a comprehensive insurance system that insures people regardless of where they are injured and regardless of fault. That is the only answer. Otherwise, we will have an adversary system, the worker having to prove that he or she was injured on the job and any deterioration as a result of that original injury and so forth.

There is no other solution; we simply have to do it. I do not expect this Liberal government to do it. It does not have an ideological bone in its body, so I do not expect it will do it. Can you imagine the new Premier challenging the insurance industry in London with such a program? Yes, I can just imagine that. That really would be living in a dream world.

The other thing is that part of our accord was that there would be an independent forestry audit. If there is one thing this province needs in a forest, it is an independent and honest audit, not the kind of information that has come out of the Ministry of Natural Resources in the last couple of years. When we did get information about two years ago and raised it in this assembly, raised it across the province, the then Minister of Natural Resources said, "You are not getting that information any more," just like that.

Talk about arrogance. Whose forests are they? Whose numbers are they? They were not the minister's. The people of Ontario own those forests and they simply give cutting rights to the industry. For him to do that was an act of arrogance beyond description, and that is why so many of us on this side are so happy to see those bandits over there kicked out.

Hon. Mr. Leluk: I welcome this opportunity to participate in the throne speech debate. I would like to join my colleagues in this House in congratulating you on your appointment, Mr. Speaker. No doubt you will be tested from time to time during the next few months by members on both sides of the House. Having come to know you during the past 14 years, I am confident you will rise to the occasion and that you will discharge your duties in a fair and evenhanded manner.

This government has long recognized the major role that the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture plays in promoting our province's diverse culture. I am proud of our commitment to protect cultural freedoms and the ideal of full, equal and responsible citizenship. We have been sensitive to community needs, and the responsive nature of our programming clearly reflects our commitment to consultation and excellence.

My ministry's overriding goal is to open the doors to full participation for all Ontarians in the social, economic, political and cultural life of the province. Equal participation requires a strong commitment to tolerance, compassion and cultural understanding from all members of our society. This government stands proud of its record in this regard.

Mr. Sargent: You are not proud of the job you did for our jails, though, are you?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: As a matter of fact, I can say to the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) that I am quite proud of my accomplishments as minister of that ministry for the past four years. I hope he will do as well when he is appointed Minister of Energy or whatever.

Since 1945, Ontario has welcomed some 2.7 million immigrants. Last year alone, 41,400 newcomers arrived in Ontario. That is 47 per cent of total Canadian immigration, according to the preliminary 1984 figures.

I know the confusion and uncertainty that accompany many of our new immigrants. My parents arrived in Canada from the Ukraine in the early 1900s. They were put on a train in Montreal and shipped out west where they settled in the foothills of Alberta. They had to adjust to a new land and a new way of life on their own; no one offered an official hand of welcome. They would be proud of our Welcome House program today.

In Ontario, we extend the hand of friendship to newcomers by providing settlement services in 39 languages.

Last year, we expanded our Welcome House network from the downtown Toronto location to include storefront services in Mississauga, Scarborough and North York.

A mobile unit was also introduced to broaden access to guidance on government and social services. This expansion has been a tremendous success, largely due to the opening of the new facilities. The Welcome House network has recorded a huge increase in service volume. Client contacts numbered 54,000 in 1984-85, triple the previous year's total.

Immigration patterns are changing, with more newcomers making their homes outside Metro Toronto and Mississauga. To move with this trend, the ministry is now establishing a fifth Welcome House in Hamilton. Multilingual staff there will offer advice and referral information on social services, health care, employment and English-as-a-second-language classes. Our clients in Hamilton will receive the same caring support that radiates from the Toronto Welcome House locations.

We will also launch a second mobile unit to travel to communities in southwestern, eastern and northern Ontario, expanding and improving immigrant information and counselling services in communities across the province.

In a major initiative, the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture is reinforcing its support for community organizations that provide direct services to assist newcomers as well as some of our long-term immigrants. We are increasing the budget for our multicultural services program grants by $1 million to an annual total of $2.3 million, which will allow us to enrich funding for some cultural groups and welcome more organizations into the program.

These volunteer organizations make an invaluable contribution to helping immigrants get settled and acclimatized to Canadian life. They also foster positive intergroup relations and help immigrants build bridges to the larger society.

In 1984-85, 58 multicultural service organizations in 20 communities received funding, including the Council of French Organizations of Metropolitan Toronto, Centre Francophone, the Cross Cultural Learner Centre in London, the Thunder Bay Multicultural Association and the Ottawa Carleton Immigrant Services Organization.

Our multicultural service program grants represent a direct response to the mounting pressures these community-based groups are encountering in a period of social and economic change. A high priority for these organizations is aiding immigrant women who face more difficult barriers than do their male counterparts and require extra support.

The assurance of ongoing funding will provide a solid financial base for these groups to plan ahead on a long-term basis so they can meet growing community needs.

To help immigrants overcome language barriers, the ministry is strengthening its language training program. The downtown Welcome House operates an English-language school on site, together with a unique multicultural day care centre for children whose parents are enrolled in the course.

12:30 p.m.

We also dedicate more than $1 million a year to language classes run by local agencies, boards of education and community colleges. We support 300 community programs which reach 11,000 learners a year, 70 per cent of whom are women.

The ministry is broadening the concept of English in the work place to include all aspects of communication with the multicultural work force. Cultural attitudes in our pluralistic society vary widely on everything from handling a job interview to raising children. To communicate effectively with workers from diverse backgrounds, employers must acquire a sensitivity to these differing outlooks. Our new approach to English in the work place complements language classes with training and cross-cultural communications.

This year the ministry will introduce a new $500,000 incentive grant program to help community organizations undertake English-in-the-work-place programs. Boards of education, community colleges, labour unions, employer organizations and universities across this province will be participating. Our objectives are to build a network of deliverers of English in the work place across the province, to market the new concept of EWP widely and to develop case studies, models and techniques and materials that will be of benefit to the EWP community.

While culture and the arts are clearly an essential and integral part of our lives, it should also be recognized that they are the catalysts of a dynamic economic enterprise. Culture is a growing source of income and employment in our emerging service and information economy. According to the Canada Council, employment in the arts industry nationwide in 1981 surpassed the level in any of the 20 major manufacturing industries. Ontario counts for about 42 per cent of all arts-related jobs in Canada.

The rate of job creation in the cultural field has been extraordinary. Between 1971 and 1981, Canadian arts-industry employment increased 58 per cent, outstripping the 39 per cent labour force expansion in the economy as a whole. Culture definitely represents a major economic development opportunity.

At a meeting last December, my predecessor and her federal counterpart agreed that the cultural sector should be a priority under the federal-provincial economic and regional development agreement. I am delighted the two levels of government are now negotiating a cultural subagreement that will provide for joint federal-provincial programs in this key economic sector.

Ontario's future economic prospects depend heavily on growing international trade. We cannot afford to overlook the strong export potential of our cultural activities. Cultural happenings represent powerful magnets for tourist dollars and our cultural products are making steady gains in foreign markets.

To boost tourism, for the second consecutive year the ministry will support a series of US radio broadcasts by the Canadian Opera Company. The six COC productions to be aired on a national radio syndicate will include intermission features on Ontario cultural events and attractions. The programs will expose an estimated 10 million to 15 million American opera lovers to Ontario's menu of cultural delights.

Ontario's cultural institutions are world leaders in developing expertise and technology in museology, science education and exhibit design. The Ontario Science Centre, for example, has scored international coups with its sales of science exhibits to Japan, China, Kuwait and France. New markets are opening up in the Middle East, Europe and southeast Asia. TVOntario markets programs into the United States through its Dallas office. It is now penetrating the Middle East.

The Royal Botanical Gardens has developed the concept of amenity plantings and is selling plants to Britain.

Mr. Sargent: Time.

Hon. Mr. Leluk: It is Miller time.

Building on these successes, the ministry will work with its agencies and the Ontario International Corp. to orchestrate a major cultural marketing campaign over the next four years. This $4.5-million program will package and market Ontario cultural products and knowhow for sale to foreign educational and cultural institutions.

Through international cultural exchange, Ontario's artists gain the opportunity to broaden their creative experience and earn well-deserved prestige. The economic spinoffs also are significant since cultural relations can pave the way for trade, commerce and investment.

Time does not permit me to give a complete accounting of my ministry's agenda as I know other members of this assembly would like to participate in the debate on the speech from the throne, but let me say that we have an abiding commitment in this province to both citizenship and culture. We recognize that the arts are a crucial part of the quality of our economic and social life. We are dedicated to a society based on equality, access, cultural sharing and a common faith in the future.

It has been my privilege to serve as Minister of Citizenship and Culture for only a few weeks, but in reviewing the ministry's record over its three years of existence, I am struck by how much has been accomplished to turn these principles into action. The ministry has designed imaginative and innovative programs to guarantee access to the richness of Ontario life for all our citizens. It has fostered broad participation and the highest standards of excellence in creative behaviours and endeavours.

Mr. Grande: What is creative behaviour?

Hon. Mr. Leluk: It certainly is not the member's.

In all our programs we have formed close working relationships and strong, effective partnerships with community and volunteer organizations across the province. We have strengthened the community base through programs which use to a maximum the volunteer contribution and build self-reliance in local organizations. This ministry has advanced the cause of women, improved French-language services, encouraged training and skills development, fostered adaptation to the computer age, created employment for young people and promoted economic growth.

Mr. Grande: That is not your ministry now. Come on.

Hon. Mr. Leluk: It certainly is.

Our initiatives to foster culture and citizenship have been the right thing to do and have been done for the right reasons. The commitment to the arts and cultural life, the goal of full and equal citizenship -- such great principles as these outlive any single minister or any government.

As a special committee for the arts observed, the real strength behind the artist is not grants or donations but the public realization that the arts are fundamental to society. The same could be said of multiculturalism. It is the public commitment to cultural freedom and common citizenship that makes Ontario's diverse society a model for the world.

I am proud of my ministry's efforts to attain these goals for they represent values that make our province a better place in which to live.

12:40 p.m.

Ms. Munro: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on your new role. Congratulations, also, to my colleague the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin), who was recently appointed Chairman of the committees of the whole House.

It is with a good deal of pleasure and a sense of responsibility that I address this House as the Liberal representative for Hamilton Centre. I thank the voters for their confidence. The major issue in Hamilton Centre is jobs and the reality of destructive unemployment, particularly as it relates to our youth, women, the disabled and to our obsolete and laid-off workers. No one walks unscathed or without fear for himself, his family or his community.

Equally serious concerns are expressed in the areas of education, training and human resource development. The relationship between education and the world of work can be taken as one of the single most challenging issues to be faced both in the short and long term if we are concerned about the socioeconomic viability in this province.

High voter interest, coupled with a cynicism regarding the ability of a too-long-entrenched, leaderless Conservative government combined as a positive and demanding call for change. The people of this province opted for change, for viable alternatives, for platforms with measurable, concrete actions, visionary and pragmatic but perceptively appropriate to the reality of our times.

The strong movement for change evidenced on May 2 did not surprise those of us who have been pushing for change and, in fact, who entered or remained in politics to fight for it. We have been living in a province too long governed by those more concerned with having a triple-A rating on Wall Street than providing the necessary incentives to small business, or providing adequate retraining for the unemployed, or providing needs-responsive job programs for youth or adopting equity in employment. This government has for too long ignored problems of pollution and the necessity of a comprehensive, meaningful industrial strategy.

The voting public and those of us on this side of the House are fed up with seeing cutbacks in essential programs and services under the guise of good management and controlled provincial deficits. Many of us do not hesitate to support controlled deficit funding if it means providing the necessary budget to improve opportunities for working persons in this province, if it means an investment in visionary programs leading to a more secure and enriched way of life.

There is no change, no revolution without a cost and without a transition, but the socioeconomic revolution which is so clearly before us now is costly only in the necessary structure and budgets needed to fuel, develop and phase in programs critically needed by the people of this province. Such investment will be returned many times over. The transition will require dedication, commitment, accountability and a sensitivity to the input of the citizenry.

Very shortly, when the government changes hands, those who have been asked to govern can and will. In my view, the motions of no confidence put forward by our leader, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), and by the New Democratic Party leader, the member for York South (Mr. Rae), are more than justified.

In order not to delay unduly the unfolding of events, I will focus specifically on two issues important in Hamilton Centre, namely, education and training, and equity for women. I will not focus on the throne speech itself since I have a great deal of difficulty relating it to the 42-year Tory government record and to the Tory platform during the recent campaign.

Hamilton Centre is an industrial, steel manufacturing riding. It is working class, strongly multicultural and proud of its church affiliations. Hamilton Centre is reeling from the lack of a comprehensive industrial strategy. I know this when I take a look at the nature of constituency cases in the riding. We have job seekers, the unemployed and those seeking appropriate Workers' Compensation Board hearings. We have youth and adults seeking admission to college and to university. We have union representatives, and I would like to dwell on this for a moment.

I was visited recently by the Hamilton-Brantford Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, which brought home to me with clarity that the unemployment rate for pipefitters, plumbers, electricians and general labourers in this region ranges between 50 and 75 per cent. The workers are now taking one, two and three days' employment a week and trying to support families on that.

In addition, Local 206 of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union was in to visit me, trying to get the government and Canadian Medical Laboratories to move since the workers have been without a contract since 1982. Workers at Canadian Porcelain Co. Ltd. are appealing for government intervention so that they can make valid and realistic their offer to purchase the plant and to enter into a true worker co-operative.

Some of the effects of a lack of a comprehensive industrial strategy being felt in Hamilton include the following: an insensitive disregard of public participation in decisions that affect the lives of the electorate, including the hearings on GO advanced light rail transit, the east-west expressway, the bayfront properties currently known as Lax, halfway houses, industrial buffer zones and the Bovey commission.

The educational system is being reduced to a number of independent levels. The stranglehold on funding at all three levels places Ontario near the bottom of the list of provinces in per capita expenditure, to say nothing of the potential reduction and destruction of programs, reduced accessibility and proposed higher fees. In those post-secondary institutions where first-time and returning students graduate from education and skills programs, they often have to endure increasingly longer periods of time before they are placed in the work force, many in slots that match neither their expectations nor their level of competence.

Technological change is reducing the size of the work force in our major industries and no comprehensive government strategy exists for adequate monitoring or retraining, let alone a strategy to bring in new industry to create a diversified job market. The absence of a small business strategy geared to the needs of this important sector has had a continuing toll of financial losses, bankruptcy and work uncertainty.

At a time when worker initiatives and rights should be supported, they are being rejected or ignored. With unemployment rates escalating or clearly unmanageable, the social disruption created imposes a heavy load on medical services and social agencies and our sense of independence and wellbeing. In a period when many of these support services are needed more than ever, the government of yesterday proposes to reduce or eliminate them.

How does this Hamilton experience relate to provincial concerns in education and training and how does it touch women in the world of work? With respect to education and training, at the forefront is the necessity for immediate implementation of separate school funding in September. There is no reason open public participation could not have started last week as needed input for guidelines on policy, process and procedures relating to such funding. We must be, and we are, concerned about job security, accessibility, quality programming, time lines and models. We must, however, be just as concerned for the student.

Technical training must be retained in the secondary school system, technical training linked with the world of work, complete with career counselling and supported by business, labour and industry. We must provide more options for youth. No student should carry with him or her the stigma of failure when the appropriate alternatives to academic education are not available.

It is not unreasonable to expect that a technical skills certificate after grade 10 could be made available that would be accepted by business, industry and labour and by the college system when that young adolescent chooses to re-enter to build on his skills block. Career counselling is sadly lacking during the period in which a young person attends secondary school; career awareness and program counselling equally so. We must provide money for the upgrading of instructors and counsellors. We must provide this necessary service which is so essential to the appropriate placement of a student in the world of work.

In the college system we need expanded seed money in those programs developed jointly with the provincial and federal governments and we need to establish improved links with business and labour and industry. Work experience, apprenticeships, universal skills and placement opportunities for professional and technical development are long-standing commitments to that educational level.

At the university level there is serious underfunding. No response has yet been made to the universities from the government re the Bovey recommendations. The Council of Universities of Ontario has thus far declined to present funding requirements for 1986-87, stating that the province does not support its universities on a level comparable to that of the rest of Canada and that the province does not accord universities the priority they deserve.

12:50 p.m.

Continuing education and the part-time learner are still viewed as a second-class endeavour in this province. It must be seen as an integral part of the link between education and the world of work if we are to progress as a province in socioeconomic terms. Lifelong learning and earning must become a reality, accessible for all, and it must be funded.

We have identified the problem of literacy, and yet this government provides only guidelines and little in the way of funds for basic literacy training, life skills, English as a second language and high-technology literacy such as computer awareness.

Let us take a look for the next eight or nine minutes at women in the world of work. The overall unemployment rate in March 1981 in Ontario was 7.5 per cent. In February 1985 it was 9.4 per cent. The 1981 unemployment rate in Hamilton Centre was approximately nine per cent. It approaches 11 per cent now. The highest concentration of unemployment is in the 15-to-24-year-old age group. Within that, female unemployment is highest, as it is in the 25-year-plus group.

Women's participation rate in Hamilton in 1981 was 50.7 per cent, compared to a 77.5 per cent participation rate for men. The Hamilton Centre participation rate for females in 1981 was also lower than males. In the 15-to-24-year-old group, it was 60.8 per cent compared to 71.3 per cent and in the 25-year-plus group, 44.2 per cent compared to 75.7 per cent. Of married women, 43.8 per cent in Hamilton Centre were very active in the labour force.

The average employment income for women in 1981 in Hamilton was $8,246. Women's average employment income as a percentage of men's was 49.1 per cent. Women are generally underrepresented in our riding in the executive management slots, in professions related to natural and social sciences and in nontraditional occupations such as machining. They are overwhelmingly represented in clerical, accounting and supervision, 61.8 per cent, which is often poorly paid, ghettoized work.

We have a long way to go in seeking equity for women. Women work for a variety of reasons, many as sole supporters of a family or to share economic responsibilities. Of lone family supporters in Hamilton, 68 per cent are women. Women are often caught in a chronic poverty syndrome. Single-parent women who work or want to and need social-assistance housing find themselves on waiting lists. Hamilton had 5,000 units available in 1984, and in the years between 1980 and 1984, there were 2.5 times as many lone-parent females on those waiting lists as there were males.

A single mother with two children, eight and 13 years old, measured against adequacy lines of Statistics Canada and paying $356 monthly rent for an apartment, should have an income of $16,345. In fact, on family benefits she would receive $10,337. It is often the case that welfare penalizes female initiative, i.e., if one is on mother's allowance and earns more than $100, it is taxed back.

One will not find a waiting list for day care services in Hamilton because the eligibility guidelines are too tough. If they changed to match the needs of women, there would be longer lists. One chronic need for women seeking re-entry into the world of work or seeking to improve themselves through education and training is the need for good-quality day care.

There is also a need for affordable child care and quality day care with experienced early child care givers. Here is a paradox, Mr. Speaker: It should be noted that it is usually a woman who takes the required early childhood education certificate. She is often married with dependants and she is likely to end up in one of the poorest-paid occupational slots with an average wage of $10,000. Fair wages, indeed.

Given home responsibilities and/or educational upgrading, women often are those most likely to seek part-time work or shared work. At present such women are not receiving fair wages or fringe benefits. It is suggested that much could be done to improve government policy in this important area of labour legislation.

Women are often paid less than men for jobs of equal classification or value. It is, therefore, important that this government follow the directions of the Abella report, which has made extensive recommendations, not only on the issue of equal pay for work of equal value but on systemic discrimination in the work force.

On the low-tech side there would be optimistic options for women if education and training moneys were available in the field of microapplications. Since traditional secretarial, microcomputer and clerical occupations provide those skills that will transfer to some of these advanced programming-analyst skill slots, women should be given first options for such training. Unfortunately, the seating arrangement through the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission is often backed up and classes are filled, a stunning paradox again when one is reminded that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business recently reported a need for competent workers in the whole area of microcomputers and word processing.

Many of the workers in the public service are women: mental retardation workers, supply teachers, child care workers and nursing assistants, many of whom work for unequal salaries and in unequal working conditions.

It is interesting to note also that in the case of Canadian Medical Laboratories and Local 206 of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, which has been without a contract since July 1, 1982, an issue raised this week by the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), all but one of the lab technicians are women making an average wage of $6 an hour, compared with lab technicians at other hospital facilities, who receive an average starting wage in the range of $7.20 to $16 an hour.

Safety and health concerns involve women and technology, i.e., the effect of video display terminals on unborn foetuses, back injuries. Women have much to fear in new technology shifts, especially if they are women re-entering traditional occupations. Training programs geared to new technology must be considered, and the terms and conditions of employment should reflect high-tech threats.

Many of the new locals seeking first contract compliance are composed of women: T. Eaton, banks and trust companies. We must guarantee those rights in labour legislation.

Women working in the private sector should be guaranteed the pension coverage they all need.

For all those reasons we should take a firm approach to the needs of women in this next government.

To close, in Hamilton Centre there was a profound dismay over provincial issues during the by-election and this general election. Yet there was also a desire to work to get things moving again, to demand accountability and fair representation at Queen's Park, to remove the Tory grip and to bring government back to the people. It appears that Hamilton Centre was not alone. Let us get on with the job.

Mr. Foulds: I have a four- or five-part speech, so I might as well use the three minutes left to me this afternoon to give a few opening remarks.

Hon. Mr. Mitchell: Why? Just give it while you have the floor.

Mr. Foulds: Is the member not glad he has the ability to heckle? Once again, we have unleashed the seals on the other side of the hall.

I am rising to vote against the present Conservative government for a number of reasons. First, the Conservative government of this province has not kept faith with either its ideals or the ideals of the people of this province. Second, the Conservative government of this province has lost the confidence not merely of this House, but also of the people of the province. Third, and more important, the Conservative government of this province has lost its own confidence. It no longer knows how to rule or govern.

I operate on a twofold philosophy -- no pun intended. First, I believe in that old biblical saying, "By their actions ye shall know them." The speech from the throne is meaningless.

Hon. Mr. Mitchell: "Fruits."

Mr. Foulds: Does the member want to give me the verse and so on?

It was easy to make a confession in the speech from the throne. It was easy to say, "These are the things we will do with government" when they were relieved of responsibility. But I ask them, where have they been for the last 42 years? Where have they been even for the last 15 years? Why were they unable, even after the resounding defeat they experienced on May 2, to proclaim the spills bill, which had been passed by the Legislature under a minority government back in 1979?

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

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

14 juin 1985