Journal des débats 1986-avril-24 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask all members to join me in welcoming the first group of legislative pages to serve in the Second Session of the 33rd Parliament, 1986. Their names and ridings are as follows:

Gillian Babe, Lake Nipigon; Jeffrey Blain, Brock; Joseph Biello, Hamilton Mountain; Melanie Brunt, Chatham-Kent; Deborah Carraro, Yorkview; Jonathan Daniels, Kitchener; Larissa Fenn, Scarborough Centre; Nathalie Fredette, Nickel Belt; Matthew Ginn, Halton-Burlington; Jamie Halpin, Essex North; Marc Joanisse, Cochrane North; Tanya Jordan, Beaches-Woodbine; Steven Leonard, Mississauga South; Tomas Liacas, St. David; Jennifer Manuell, Kenora; Anna Michener, Simcoe East; Karen Northey, Muskoka; Matthew Raniowski, Prince Edward-Lennox; Jeremy Rhodes, Grey; Karina Rogers, High Park-Swansea; Benjamin Rutherford, Scarborough-Ellesmere; Tziona Szajman, York Centre; Lisa Taillefer, Peterborough.

Please join me in welcoming the pages.

COMMISSION ON ELECTION CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENSES

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I now will lay upon the table the 11th annual report of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses for the fiscal year 1985-86.

Also, I will place upon the table the ninth report of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses respecting indemnities of the members of the Ontario Legislature.

For the members' information, these two reports have been placed inside their desks.

PRESENTATION

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to present apples from the great riding of Grey to you and the other members of the Legislature. The southern Georgian Bay area is the largest apple-growing area in Ontario, where more than 7,500 acres produce McIntosh apples as well as other varieties. Last year, the Georgian Bay crop totalled approximately 2.7 million bushels. Today, these apples have come to you directly from the environmentally controlled storage and packing facility of Georgian Triangle Apples Ltd. of Thornbury.

VISITORS

Mr. Villeneuve: In the members' gallery today, we have a very famous young couple with us, Kim Hanford from London, Ontario, and Julien Lalonde from St. Isidore de Prescott, Ontario. They were the junior dance pairs runners-up in the Canadian Figure Skating Championships, 1985, and performed in Europe recently.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ARMENIAN MEMORIAL DAY

Hon. Ms. Caplan: On behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), my colleagues and the government of Ontario, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the significance of this day, which marks the proclamation of Armenian Memorial Day in Ontario.

This day of remembrance for those who have suffered makes us even more aware of the value of our democratic rights and freedoms. The Armenian genocide was a violation of inalienable human rights and decency. Through this memorial, we hope to preserve the ideals of individual liberty, freedom and opportunity that form the foundation of our society in Ontario. Let us hope that history has taught us some lessons.

Mr. Shymko: On behalf of the members of Her Majesty's opposition, I would like to join my honourable colleague in reminding members that in April 1979 the late Osie Villeneuve's private member's resolution was passed unanimously by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proclaim this memorial day. We are pleased to join the member in reminding us of the tragic genocide of the Armenian people in 1915. This memorial will symbolize the tragedy of the Armenian nation and will remind us that these holocausts should never be perpetrated again.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to be in attendance when the Premier presented a proclamation on behalf of the people of Ontario on this very special occasion. I urge all members to attend the official unveiling of the monument commemorating this occasion. The ceremony will be held here in Toronto at three o'clock on Sunday afternoon.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to join the other members of the House in paying special recognition to the Armenian community and the memorial to their suffering in the past.

This has come up many times in the House. My first time in the Legislature I remember Jim Renwick, the then member for Riverdale, speaking very passionately about the need for this province to recognize the very special problem in the history of the Armenian people on an ongoing basis as part of their struggle. I am pleased to be able to join with other members and expect that many of us will be able to be at the unveiling.

SPECIAL WARRANTS

Hon. Ms. Caplan: In accordance with section 51 of the standing orders of the assembly, I am tabling the special warrants that were issued when the Legislature was not in session. Copies of these special warrants have been placed in the postal boxes of the members.

When the Legislature is not in session, a special warrant is issued by the Lieutenant Governor under section 4 of the Management Board of Cabinet Act authorizing expenditures of an urgent nature for which there is no existing appropriation.

One special warrant provides for general and necessary government expenditures on and after April 1, 1986. The other provides for the general and necessary expenditures of the Office of the Provincial Auditor, the Office of the Chief Election Officer and the Office of the Ombudsman on and after April 1, 1986.

Since authority for making payments had to be in place on April 1 for the beginning of the new fiscal year and the House was not in session, the two special warrants were required. If the House had been in session, the expenditures authorized by the special warrants would have been approved by way of interim supply granted by the Legislature.

2:10 p.m.

TRADE, BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRAMS

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Today I am tabling background papers that detail the vital importance to the Ontario economy of trade, small business and entrepreneurship, and technology.

These papers demonstrate why we are concentrating our attention and resources on their rapid growth and development.

Ontario's economic health is closely linked to our success as an international trader. Our leading industrial competitors in the United States and the European Community present substantial opportunities for enhanced trade and technological exchange. Ontario is well positioned through its existing trade and investment infrastructure to move ahead and to make greater competitive gains in these areas.

However, the fastest-growing region in the world today is the Pacific Rim. Ontario has only just begun to penetrate that market, and we must intensify our efforts to build strong investment, trade, technological and cultural links with the nations of the Pacific Rim.

The speech from the throne made several announcements in support of this thrust, including a major trade and investment mission, the appointment of an Agent General to Japan and the opening of a trade and investment office in Seoul, Korea.

Further to these announcements, my ministry will launch a Pacific Rim outreach program to provide graduates and other commercially oriented young people with the opportunity to learn the language, culture and business practices of Pacific Rim countries. The government will conduct a province-wide competition to select the best and the brightest to participate in the program. Forty-five young people will be involved over a three-year period.

My ministry will also establish the capital projects ambassadors program to increase awareness abroad and opportunities for the services and the products of Ontario-based firms. The program will sponsor 20 young graduates in engineering and consulting from Pacific Rim countries to come to Ontario for one year to receive on-the-job training with Ontario firms. The program will be a building block to obtaining future business contracts in the region.

The Ontario International Corp. will focus particular attention on the export of the specialized public-sector knowledge and expertise we have developed in Ontario in areas such as policing, public transportation, health care and municipal affairs management.

My ministry will develop and maintain a directory of competent business translators and interpreters in all regions of Ontario.

The government also recognizes the ongoing contribution of small business and individual entrepreneurs.

Earlier this month, I announced the formation of the committee of parliamentary assistants for small business headed by my parliamentary assistant, the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro). I intend to use this committee as a sounding board and source of advice on new ways to improve my ministry's programs and services.

Today I am pleased to announce a further initiative in support of small business activity in Ontario. I am appointing the member for Wellington South as small business advocate for Ontario. Reporting directly to me, he will be responsible on an ongoing and full-time basis for promoting the concerns and interests of small business within the government and with the general public. He will act as liaison between small business associations and other groups, particularly educators and other industry sectors.

One of the most significant barriers to growth faced by small firms is a lack of available equity capital. I believe we need to tap the large pool of savings that exists in the hands of already successful entrepreneurs and other professionals and put it to productive use.

The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology will establish with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce the Ontario investment network. The network will operate through the 160 local offices of the chamber and offer a computer-based service to match potential investors with suitable entrepreneurs.

The government's role in the investment network will be to refer business people to the service and assist them to develop business plans, to develop and disseminate informational material on how to structure investments and to provide startup funding to assist the chamber in promotional activities. On the other hand, the Ontario chamber will promote the network, provide space and computer facilities, and process and match applications.

The government believes this community-based instrument will, at a very low cost, put existing financial resources to work for all Ontarians. I am tabling a background paper on the Ontario investment network that documents and supports the Ontario chamber's new risk-capital initiative.

My ministry will modernize and revitalize the Ontario development corporations so they are better equipped to serve small business in Ontario. To strengthen lending operations in northern and eastern Ontario, the corporations will open new, community-based offices in both regions. A renewed emphasis on customer service will be stressed so the development corporations match current standards of performance in the financial services industry.

As announced in the speech from the throne, the Premier's council will be the focal point for activities designed to guide Ontario into the front ranks of world-competitive economies. Details regarding the composition of the council and the precise role it will play will be announced in the near future.

My ministry's offices in Europe and Asia are being given the additional mandate to appoint technological attachés who will be responsible for searching out critical new technologies that are most appropriate for transfer to Ontario firms through licences or joint ventures.

I believe the initiatives I have described are examples of approaches to assisting industry in Ontario to take advantage of and participate in technological advances, to use and develop their personnel skills and expertise, to become more effective and successful entrepreneurs and to expand their horizons within Canada and abroad.

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I wish to report to honourable members on the status of the collective bargaining dispute involving All-Way Transportation Corp. in Metropolitan Toronto and Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union.

As members know, All-Way provides an outstanding and critically important daily Wheel-Trans transportation service to disabled people. There are 14,000 disabled men, women and children who are registered users of the service. For them the strike of the 178 operators and maintenance workers employed by All-Way that has been going on for the past 10 days constitutes a terrible hardship.

On a typical day, Wheel-Trans carries about 1,000 disabled people to and from their destinations within Metropolitan Toronto. About one third to one half of these trips involve getting people to and from work. The rest involve such activities as medical treatment, shopping for food and other goods and services, and recreation.

Since the strike began, supervisors have been able to provide some service, but the fact remains that only four vehicles have been in operation as opposed to the usual 70-plus. Understandably, these vehicles have been dedicated to serving about 50 people who require such essential medical treatment as kidney dialysis and chemotherapy.

Some of the 14,000 registered users of the Wheel-Trans service have been able to secure rides with family and friends. Some have had to use taxicabs, adding expense to considerable discomfort.

These options, however, are realistically available only to those who are not severely disabled. Severely disabled people, many of whom use electric wheelchairs, which are heavy and do not fold, really need a properly equipped vehicle. I understand there is a private service that operates about six such vehicles, but I also understand it is expensive and that availability might be a problem if the strike were prolonged.

I point out that the Ministry of Community and Social Services has mounted an emergency assistance plan for its own disabled clients who have not been able to make alternative arrangements and who need rides for essential reasons. That ministry has also established a telephone help line to provide information to any disabled inquirer who may be experiencing difficulty because of the strike.

Some of the short-term impacts of the strike on disabled people are clear. They involve inconvenience, the loss of independence and the loss of employment income. As Minister of Labour, I am particularly sensitive to a possible threat to security of employment for disabled men and women in both the immediate term and the longer term.

I am very pleased to note that thus far there is little hard evidence of disabled people losing their jobs as a direct result of the strike. However, I must tell this House I fear a prolonged strike could possibly add to the reluctance some employers might have about hiring disabled people who depend totally on specialized forms of public transportation.

If I may, I want to spend a few minutes setting out for members the essential collective bargaining background to the current situation.

All-Way operates the Wheel-Trans program under contract to the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. The current collective agreement between the company and the 178 employees represented by Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union expired on December 31, 1985.

2:20 p.m.

The current strike began on Monday, April 14, despite intensive settlement efforts by the parties with the assistance of officials of my ministry. During the first week of the strike, these efforts intensified. An all-night mediation session took place last Thursday, culminating in a memorandum of settlement at midday on Friday, April 18.

The settlement proposal was put to a membership vote last Sunday. Despite the fact that the settlement was signed and unanimously recommended by the union's negotiating committee, it was rejected by a vote of 89 to 52.

My senior officials have now advised me that their discussions with the parties show a collective agreement cannot be reached without a prolonged strike. After discussions with my colleagues, we have decided that such hardship cannot be tolerated by members of the handicapped community.

Therefore, I wish to inform the House that later this afternoon I will introduce legislation to bring an end to this dispute.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Pope: My question is for the Premier. The speech from the throne of Tuesday of this week made no reference whatsoever to immediate job creation programs. The basic industries of this province and, more important, the workers in those basic industries -- the mill workers, the bush workers, the miners, the steelworkers -- are not even mentioned. Is this an oversight on the part of the Premier or was it intentional that these workers and industries are not important enough to be addressed in the speech from the throne?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: To the honourable critic at large, may I welcome him back to the House and say what a pleasure it is to see him here. What did he do with the other two? Where is he hiding them?

The speech from the throne was not intended to address every issue in the province. It created a broad thrust, and my honourable colleague opposite will know that a number of the basic industries are involved in structural transformations into higher-technology adaptions, productions and other matters. We are very cognizant of that. This government remains very supportive of those basic industries. He could go through that list and find his name was not mentioned either, but it does not mean we do not care about him.

Mr. Pope: The Premier can be as flippant and as condescending as he wants. We have seen a 65 per cent increase in the layoffs in January and February of this year across this province. How is his speech from the throne going to help the 1,500 steelworkers in Sault Ste. Marie? How is it going to help the miners in Wawa? How is it going to help the workers here in Toronto who have been laid off or those who are facing layoffs?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Pope: Why has the Premier not dealt with that number one issue in this province in the speech from the throne?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable critic at large is reading without spectacles. He would be aware, if he wants to be fair-minded about this situation, that employment is up 180,000 over the last year. We have, I would remind my honourable friend, the lowest unemployment rate in this country. I am not suggesting for a moment that is good enough, and we are aspiring to be even better.

My honourable friend will realize the economy is going through structural transformation. It is not going to be, in the future, the way it was in the past. He who concentrated all his efforts on the past knows what that can do to him. That is why we have a forward-looking, visionary program that will provide retraining and new opportunities for people who are unfortunately shunted aside in some of the transformations. This government is even more aware of the problems than he is, and we are doing something about them.

Mr. Pope: The Premier has referred to his high-technology funds. He has talked in the speech from the throne about world-class technologies here in Ontario and he is talking about the year 2000. Is the Premier not aware that on April 12, 1985, he said, "The previous government was prepared to spend $1 billion of taxpayers money with absolutely no job guarantees. It is the height of irresponsibility"? That is exactly what he has done.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot buy those remarks. This is not a fund that will be applied to building marinas; it is not a reallocation of funds from other departments wrapped up in a fancy title such as the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development. We do not have the kind of creative imagination the member has.

This is specifically directed to enhancing the productivity and the competitiveness of the economy of Ontario, and when my fair-minded friend opposite sees the results of this, I am sure he will stand up in this House and say, "Thank the Lord we had some creative leadership in this government."

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the Premier. He is quoted today as saying that his government's Bill 94 is draconian, and he criticizes his former friends in the New Democratic Party for wanting to jam the bill down the doctors' throats. That is a direct quote from the Toronto Sun.

Will the Premier agree today to hoist Bill 94 and instruct his emissary the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to negotiate with the doctors fairly and reasonably?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have been negotiating fairly and reasonably with the doctors. Discussions are going on and we are searching for a negotiated settlement, if that is possible. The honourable member is aware of the difficulties, obviously, where I have disagreed with my friends in the New Democratic Party. Their approach, as I read about it, would have been just to jam the bill in without discussions, without trying to negotiate a settlement.

Mr. Davis: That is what the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) did.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect to my honourable colleague opposite, he is completely oblivious to the facts in this situation. The minister has been conducting an ongoing series of meetings. It is our view that progress is being made. I cannot guarantee a resolution of this, but I can tell the member that he has seen an example of real leadership on an issue rather than running away and changing our position, as the members opposite do all the time.

Mr. Andrewes: The positions are changing minute by minute. Although the negotiations have been conducted in secret with the Ontario Medical Association, the Premier continues to muse about possibilities and about the content of the so-called 10-point program. Can he tell us now exactly what he is negotiating with the OMA?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is that we are not discussing in public -- the minister has not discussed in public and neither has anyone else who has been part of those discussions -- what has been on the table. I told the member then and I will tell him again: we are not going to discuss that.

I refer the member to his honourable leader, who said on a number of occasions when he was negotiating with the doctors that he was not prepared to negotiate in this House and he was not prepared to negotiate in public, because that is not constructive.

If the OMA wants to tell the member what was discussed, that is its prerogative. I can tell my honourable friend I do not think it is constructive towards reaching a resolution to discuss those details in the House.

Mr. Andrewes: It is a little difficult to understand how the government can, on the one hand, declare that the legislation will definitely be passed, as it did in the throne speech, and yet, on the other hand, continue to say it would prefer a negotiated settlement.

I find the Premier's comments quite trite and flip. The people of this province deserve some answers from him. His comments have been misleading to the members of this House, to the members of the standing committee on social development and to the OMA.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member withdraw the remark "misleading this House"?

Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, my comments --

Mr. Speaker: Yes or no?

Mr. Andrewes: My comments were that --

Mr. Speaker: Yes or no?

Mr. Andrewes: -- the comments of the Premier were misleading. I did not indicate that the Premier had misled the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member withdraw the comment "misleading this House"?

Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, in the light of your interpretation of my comments, I will withdraw them. May I proceed with my question?

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary question.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Andrewes: Is the Premier saying that if he can negotiate a settlement with the OMA, he will amend the legislation and bring it back to the House for passage? Or is he saying that if the Attorney General is unsuccessful in his negotiation, he is going to ram the legislation through? Which one is it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Is the member looking for a yes-or-no answer? The position of this government is that we are going to end extra billing. As I said before, there are many ways to do that; there are many details that can be negotiated. The Minister of Health is in discussion on those matters and we hope to reach some kind of accommodation. Obviously, we are going to end extra billing. That is the answer to the member's question.

Mr. Rae: My question is to the Premier and it concerns a number of statements that have been made by him and by others about extra billing.

Can he explain what is draconian and what is undemocratic about meeting one's commitments to the public, made not only during an election campaign but also in an accord signed with this party? What kind of democracy is it when the Premier of the province refuses to commit the government publicly to a timetable on a bill that has been discussed at great length in committee and in this Legislature and that took the government six months to introduce? When will third reading of this bill finally be introduced so that we can get on with the end to extra billing?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Frankly, I am surprised at my honourable friend. I am surprised that the member -- who speaks so much about and has such great respect for the parliamentary process, who understands that this bill is in the hands of a committee and that there have been hearings on the matter, and who believes that people should be widely consulted -- would not give that parliamentary process a chance to operate. Even though my friends opposite do not have anything worthwhile to say, they should have an opportunity to contribute, should they feel they want to. That is why we are consulting widely.

It is in the hands of the committee. It will be reported back to the House. Amendments will be made. As the member knows, he has an opportunity and the party opposite has an opportunity to contribute to those amendments. I do not feel that I am the dictator of this province. Sometimes when socialists have a little power, they do feel they are dictators.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the question has been answered.

Mr. Rae: The committee hearings were concluded and the Premier's party and the Tory party took that bill off the committee's agenda. That is the parliamentary action that his party has taken with respect to extra billing. Those are the facts, and if the Premier regards that as democracy in action, then that is his particular definition.

Dr. Moran is quoted as having said yesterday, "We are willing to meet until the cows come home." That is the position the OMA has taken. In addition to rejecting the $53-million slush fund the Premier put forward as a solution to the problem, they said, "We are willing to meet until the cows come home."

Is the Premier going to go along with that approach of meeting until the cows go home while patients are being extra billed $1 million a week -- more than $40 million since the election on May 2, 1985?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend, if he has read the throne speech, will understand that we took a number of initiatives with respect to the health of farm animals. I think he will find those cows will be coming home sooner under our administration than they would have under other administrations.

Mr. Andrewes: What amendments does the Premier propose to Bill 94?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: They will all be in the committee, and the honourable member will have his opportunity to contribute in his very positive and constructive ways. We look forward to that.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: In view of the fact that the Premier's government started public hearings on banning extra billing last fall through the district health councils, in which the OMA refused to participate, and then we have had public hearings in the standing committee on social development -- it has now been six months and the patients in this province will never recover the $24 million of extra billing -- is the Premier prepared to tell the Legislature today that when the bill is reported in about two weeks' time it will be called immediately for third reading?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend, we must be satisfied that it has run through the parliamentary processes and we have had full hearings. I am mindful of the point he makes. It is not a bad point.

Let me draw a parallel for him. When we got into the discussion on the separate school issue, he will recall the previous government did nothing for a year. There were no consultations; nothing happened. We as a government decided we should have full consultations as well as take the issue to the courts. That was our approach. It still is not solved and it is currently two years old. We hope we are close to a resolution.

This is an equally difficult issue for a number of people and I know there are simplistic views of the situation. I reiterate, we are committed to ending extra billing. There is a variety of alternatives in ways to do this kind of thing and we want to be satisfied that we have had full hearings and that people have had an opportunity to speak on this issue. We do not want to shut off the democratic process. I cannot give the member a specific date but I say to my friend, the cows will be coming home sooner rather than later.

Mr. Rae: There is nothing more undemocratic and draconian than extra billing itself.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Rae: I have a question to the Premier with respect to another issue which concerns a great many people in northern Ontario. Why did the government not know earlier of the decision announced last week by Algoma Steel on the layoff of 1,500 workers, potentially in both the Sault and the town of Wawa? Why was that information not taken by the government and then an alternative plan developed? Why has the government been put in a position of simply putting out brush fires? I understand a committee of deputy ministers has been appointed. Why has it not yet contacted the workers affected in both the Sault and Wawa? Can the Premier explain why that is the case in Ontario today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It will come as no surprise to my honourable friend that for some time there have been troubles with Algoma in the Sault. He knew that, I knew that and I think every member of this House knew that; the members from the Sault area in particular.

All has not been well in the steel industry. We have seen a downsizing in the number of people employed as it has been going through a restructuring. None of this brings me any cheer or joy but those are the realities; so we have been familiar with them.

The member will be aware that two days ago in our throne speech a number of specific thrusts were taken and in the near future they will be amplified with respect to broadening the economic base of northern Ontario. There is no question about that. We are sensitive to those problems and are working with them. There have been meetings with the company and others and a number of initiatives are now in mind to try to assist the community in this situation. It is troublesome. There is not an easy solution that I can put my finger on and I suspect the member cannot either.

Mr. Rae: The Premier mentioned the throne speech. Can he tell us why there was no mention in the throne speech of mining, steel or forestry, the basic industries in northern Ontario, and no mention of what the prospects are for those workers faced with the kind of change that is there? If he had that sense of reality with respect to the situation in 1986 that faces the Algoma workers and the workers in the Sault, why was the throne speech so full of not that reality and not the need for specific measures, but was a falderal of what may come in 2001 and 2005 in the high-tech future, which apparently leaves all these workers in the lurch?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I heard that speech from the critic at large of the Conservative Party. I do not agree with that interpretation. The member could have mentioned a lot of others. We also did not mention the plastics industry, so he could have said we were neglecting that. I do not think that is a fair interpretation of what we are doing.

2:40 p.m.

We are talking about technology as it applies to these industries. We understand, as I am sure the member does, the restructuring that is going on. We are there to assist and to guarantee a future for these people who are unfortunate byproducts of these transformations. We are working with retraining funds. My colleague has a number of plans for these people, but we have to move with these new realities, and we are doing that.

Obviously it troubles us, but we cannot wave a magic wand. This House cannot pass any act that is going to change the situation in broad terms, and I think the member understands that. That is why we are working with many people, including the member to the immediate left of the member opposite, to look at alternatives to broaden the economic base of northern Ontario: tourism, hydro and a variety of others.

Mr. Pope: We are talking about the most important issue facing this province today. We are talking about spiralling layoffs in virtually every basic industry in this province. The Premier has not recognized that priority in his throne speech.

Last year in Sudbury, the Premier said he could not do anything to solve the unemployment problems there. Are we going to see the same attitude from him now with respect to the Algoma Steel layoffs in Sault Ste. Marie, the miners in Wawa or the mill workers at Kimberly-Clark in Thunder Bay? Is the Premier's approach that he cannot do anything? He has not announced an immediate job creation program; when is he going to do that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: For the information of my friend, Kimberly-Clark is in Terrace Bay. Some of the problems we are facing today are there because the previous government ignored them for 40 years. The members opposite are the ones who thought of things only in terms of their political options in the short term. Does the honourable member think all this developed in the past nine months? I cannot believe even my friend the critic at large would be intellectually dishonest enough to stand up and say these things developed in the past nine months.

We are now in the process of building a future for northern Ontario, for southern Ontario, for eastern Ontario, for the entire province. We see the future far more clearly than the member did. The members opposite only saw the future in terms of the next election, and look what happened to them.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I beg to differ with the Premier on his throne speech. It presents a fairyland vision of a high-technology 21st century, bearing no relationship to the economic realities facing northern Ontario today. It is about time his government recognized the unique problems of northern communities dependent on single industries.

What specific action can the Premier announce today that will give assurance of economic growth and control over their economic future to the people of Sault Ste. Marie, Wawa and other communities in the north?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I talked to the honourable member's leader a few moments ago about some of the initiatives undertaken in the throne speech. We are going to continue to do that.

With respect to specific problems in Sault Ste. Marie and potential problems in Wawa, a committee of deputy ministers is meeting on those problems. I am mindful of the problems of single-industry towns right across the province. This is nothing new. The member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) has been talking about it for the past 10 years; we are now in the process of addressing it. When the member sees the full result of our initiatives, he will stand up in this House and praise the government.

PAYROLL TAX

Miss Stephenson: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The minister has demonstrated that he believes in the need to support small business through some of the initiatives he has announced today. We are pleased he has accepted totally the idea, the program and the plan developed by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce for the network concept for small business, which will be very helpful. That is a reasonable acceptance on his part.

Given that obvious support for small business, I wonder whether the minister will give us an absolute undertaking that he will oppose totally the government's plan to introduce a payroll tax on business to fund the health care system in this province today.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I am aware of no such plan. If the honourable member has information on such, I would appreciate receiving it from her.

Miss Stephenson: We shall be very glad to send him all the news clippings of the expounded statements of the Premier of this province regarding this matter and some of the documentation that is at hand as well.

It is intriguing that the minister has appointed a flexible wand to act as an antenna with the small business community.

Mr. Speaker: Your supplementary, please.

Miss Stephenson: It is important too that the small, flexible wand and the minister recognize the concern that has been expressed on a number of occasions by the small business group in this province, both by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which would demonstrate clearly that the burden of the --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member place her supplementary question?

Miss Stephenson: I will be pleased to, and I will not accuse the minister of being intellectually dishonest, which the Premier accused my colleague of being.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Miss Stephenson: I believe that is unparliamentary, and the Speaker said nothing about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member place her supplementary question? It is question period.

Miss Stephenson: I shall be pleased to do so. Thank you very much.

I am sure the minister is aware they have grave concerns about the cost of the payroll tax to small business. Will he please ensure that kind of activity will not become an integral part of the health care funding program in Ontario if he wants to keep jobs in that important sector of business?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: This minister and this government are very aware of how important small business is and how many jobs it creates in the economy. I can assure the member that, with the interest we take in small businesses, anything that would be counter to making them successful will be carefully examined.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Premier.

Since he has acknowledged, despite the rosy picture painted in his throne speech, that there is an economic crisis in northern Ontario and that there has been a series of layoffs at Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa in the Algoma Steel operation since 1982, will he respond to the unemployment rate, which is already over 20 per cent in that area, and tell us what specific government programs and initiatives his government is going to take that will deal with the direct, permanent job loss of 1,500 more jobs and the possible spinoff effects of up to 3,000 or 4,000 jobs affecting Algoma Central Railway, the lumber industry in the area, the tourist industry and the whole business community?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can tell the honourable member that northern Ontario has never had a more passionate or knowledgeable advocate than the minister who is now responsible for it. However, let me be fair. I do not want to be unfair about this, because we have discussed these issues over many years, and there are a number of members in this House who have brought those concerns here eloquently. I include the member for Algoma and many others when I make that remark.

In the last budget, we put aside $100 million, an unprecedented sum, in a northern development fund. However, there is no one solution to the problem, as the member knows; there is a multiplicity of smaller ones. We have launched the initiatives already. I can only repeat what I said to his colleague who asked me roughly the same question: We have undertaken that process with understanding and commitment.

I look forward to working with my colleague, as does the minister; I know they work closely on these matters. We will make sure those moneys are allocated properly for the maximum impact on employment in northern Ontario. We have a lot of work to do in tourism, hydro, small business development, resource development and many other areas, which I think is going to be very constructive in the long term.

Mr. Morin-Strom: It is clear there is a need for greater public and governmental understanding of the economy of northern Ontario and the consequences of decisions such as this on cities such as Sault Ste. Marie when massive layoffs are announced. Now that the Premier has had an opportunity to be briefed on the Sault crisis, will he support the call by our party that a legislative committee be empowered to conduct a comprehensive public inquiry into the actions of Algoma Steel and its implications for the economy of Saint Ste. Marie and the Algoma district?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member is an economist. Am I correct in saying he worked for Algoma? I am sure he is in a position to stand up and tell some of his colleagues the reality and perhaps even enhance their knowledge of the situation in the steel industry and others.

I do not think it is particularly constructive to have a committee on every company that has layoffs in this province at present. I am not sure; the member has given them the benefit of his knowledge in the past, and look where they are today. If the member feels something constructive can be done, we are amenable to any positive suggestions. If his suggestion is that every single time there is a layoff a committee of this House should try to second-guess a company or run it differently, I am not persuaded a committee of this House could run Algoma any better than it is being run at present.

Mr. Gillies: All the Premier's hand-wringing is not doing anybody in Sault Ste. Marie or anywhere else any good. There is an unemployment rate in the Sault area that is unacceptably high. Four per cent of the population of that city is on welfare. Apart from his navel-gazing about the year 2000, what is his government prepared to do now to assist that community?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member phrased the question eloquently, but I answered it when I responded to the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom). The member for Brantford is not suggesting we pass a bill preventing those layoffs, is he? If he is, he should stand up and say so. I have not seen anything constructive out of his party on this issue in the past 40 years.

COLOURED FUEL

Mr. McGuigan: My question is for the Minister of Revenue. Is the minister aware that the Manitoba government has made it possible for farm users of diesel fuel to add dye to the fuel to identify it as tax-exempt fuel at the United States-Canada border, thereby allowing those users to take advantage of the 10 per cent to 15 per cent saving for diesel fuel purchases south of the border? I am sure the minister is aware that diesel fuel prices have not fallen with the prices of other fuels in Ontario. Will the minister investigate making a similar arrangement to benefit the farmers who are already suffering from high production costs and low commodity prices?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The government is anxious to do everything it can having to do with fuel prices and any other assistance that is possible for farmers. I have asked officials in the Ministry of Revenue to look at the alternative the honourable member put forward in his question. We are anxious to keep fuel prices as low as possible.

Mr. Ashe: As was indicated by the minister's colleague, there has not been a close association between the downturn in gasoline prices and in those of diesel fuel, the fuel where the colouring is added. While his ministry is looking at the whole issue of coloured fuel, will he at the same time speak to his colleagues the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) -- perhaps as Treasurer he will look into it himself -- to see why there has not been a further pass-through in the total cost of fuel, including coloured fuel? Why does he not look at the dastardly Fuel Tax Act, which is keeping the price of gasoline higher? It is gouging.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I was informed by the Minister of Energy on Tuesday, the day before yesterday, that the price of diesel fuel had begun to descend. We expect it to go down further. We have no plans to review the motor vehicle fuel tax in the immediate future.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, small business advocate and Pacific Rim developer, with respect to a speech he made some months ago in Washington in which he made some comments reflecting on the issue of free trade and indicated in a direct sense that he was very much in favour of some form of free trade agreement with the United States.

That statement seems to run in direct contradiction to the statements made by his leader, the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who has been very negative and convoluted in his statements on this subject. What is the minister's position on it? Is he, as is the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine), a passionate advocate of free trade? What is the Premier's position? What is the government's position on this issue? Can the minister clarify where he stands?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: My position is the same as the Premier's. We have to approach this topic very cautiously and have answers before we consent totally to it.

Mr. Brandt: This is probably the number one economic issue in this entire province. The minister talks about expanding free trade to the Pacific Rim. I want the government to know I endorse those efforts and am totally behind them. However, we started them; so why would the government not carry them out? It has picked up every good idea we have had.

Does the minister recognize that 90 per cent of our trade goes to the United States? If he wants to secure markets in that jurisdiction, the minister had better send some clear signals on where his government stands.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I believe the signals have been very strong. They point out exactly how we feel about the subject.

Mr. Foulds: On the same subject of free trade, I would like to direct my question to the Premier. Given that the Mulroney government has sacrificed foreign investment review, the national energy program and cruise missile testing as well as low-cost generic drugs in its pursuit of fast-track negotiations with the United States, and given that the speech from the throne was absolutely silent on the subject, can the Premier categorically assure us that Ontario's lumber, steel and auto jobs have not been sacrificed in the last round of wheeling and dealing in Washington?

If the Premier is quoted correctly as saying, "We must be very firm in our resolve not to give anything away," how can he support free trade negotiations led by Mr. Mulroney, who said last night, "You can be certain that there are going to be concessions"?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member raises a very good question. I cannot stand in my place and give absolute assurance that no concessions or deals were made anywhere. I was not a party to those discussions. I do not know the answer to the question of whether there were special concessions.

Mr. Foulds: When the hell is the Premier going to stand up for Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member will notice that we have on many occasions. I do not know what transpired in the arm-twisting that went on in the Senate committee in the United States among the administration, the President's office and that particular committee to get the vote of yesterday. The 10-10 vote on the veto was a tie but was construed as a victory. I do not know whether any deals were made on lumber, steel, pharmaceuticals or anything else. I do not know whether the Canadian officials have made any deals in that regard.

This government has stood firm in its protection of the consumers in Ontario and Canada with respect to the pharmaceutical situation. We stood firm on the auto pact and a lot of other things. The concessions the member asks about worry me as well. I do not know what they will be in the future. However, I assure the member that this government will stay vigilant in the protection of Ontario's interests.

Mr. Mackenzie: The Premier knows Senator Packwood has said there is not a fish that swims, a crop grown or a widget made that is not to be subject to negotiations. As well, all the members of the select committee on economic affairs who were in Washington heard very clearly from the Americans that everything had to be on the table in the course of the trade talks.

With some 550,000 Ontario jobs at stake, why did the five Liberal members on that committee vote with the four Tory members to endorse the Mulroney initiative in the free trade talks? Can the Premier tell us when he will get off the fence? Can he tell us clearly where his party really stands so we will have some influence before we sell this province down the river?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member has been following this issue for a long time, and he knows where this government stands. The federal government also knows where this government stands, as do a lot of other people who are discussing the matter.

3 p.m.

With respect to the theoretical issue of having discussion about enhanced access, we are prepared to listen to that. It is this government, and no other government in this country, that has stood firm on a number of important issues. We have been well prepared for these discussions and we will continue to be so. I assure my honourable friend that we will remain vigilant in the protection of those interests. We are not going to let this country be steamrollered in these discussions.

That is why we have been fighting for provincial participation. That is the reason for what happened at the Halifax conference, which the member will recall, and for what happened subsequent to that. That is why we insist on a wide provincial role, setting a mandate so that we do not walk into the kind of situations the member talks about. I can assure him we will continue to play a national leadership role.

Mr. Brandt: Contrary to what the Premier might think, there are very few people in Ontario who know his position, the government's position, or that of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil).

When is the Premier going to clarify where he stands on this issue and stop this Pontius Pilate routine of washing his hands of all responsibility, as he has been doing?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, what is the honourable member's position? I have seen at least six or eight positions from his party. What is the federal position? We are negotiating and we have not said we would walk away from that, but we are negotiating under certain terms and conditions. The member knows as well what we have said about the auto pact and a variety of other matters, so when my friend stands up in a bluster, playing holier than thou, let me say that the members of his party would have rolled over on their backs and this country would be in bad shape.

KNOWLEDGE WORKERS

Mr. McFadden: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Would he define for this House and for the province the meaning of the words "knowledge workers" as set out in the speech from the throne?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I do not have a dictionary definition of the term "knowledge workers." The member opposite is a person of some substantial intellect. He knows what we are talking about in that context is workers who work in an information-based society that will depend on abilities to deal with the high-technology world into which we are moving. He knows that as well I do.

Mr. McFadden: Perhaps we have just now seen an example of what a knowledgeable politician is not; I am not sure. Are we to infer from that definition set out by the minister that the rest of the work force in Ontario could be defined as "unknowledgeable" or "unknowledge workers"?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The answer is no.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Swart: In view of the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter), I would like to put a question on gasoline prices to the Premier.

The Canadian president of Shell has admitted that his company has been and is skimming off two or three cents a litre that would otherwise be passed on to the consumers in Ontario through lower gasoline prices. Given that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations said yesterday that he was very unhappy about the high gasoline and oil prices generally throughout much of Ontario, would the Premier tell us exactly what intervention he or the minister has made with those oil companies to force prices down? What has the Premier or the minister said to them, verbally or in writing, to tell them that the prices must be lowered?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot give the honourable member all the details of that. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is not here today, but I will inquire of him and ask him about his specific interventions. I am like the member for Welland-Thorold: I found to be extraordinary the statement made by the president of Shell today that he was pocketing two or three cents a litre. The member can rest assured we will be looking at this.

Mr. Swart: When the Premier is giving some thought -- he obviously has not given any so far -- to the action the minister has taken, will he recall that 11 years ago when the present Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) was Leader of the Opposition he proposed legislation to provide ongoing power for the government of Ontario to control gasoline prices at a reasonable level? Why does the Premier not now dry his crocodile tears and do exactly what the Treasurer previously proposed and show he is prepared to protect consumers with something more than just rhetoric?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I was not born when the Treasurer was elected to this House and I am not familiar with all the things he has said over the last years, but I can tell the member that I have found him always to be wise and far-seeing in the things he has said. So many of the things he has said in the past years are coming true. I am not aware of that specific quote of 11 years ago. We should perhaps look into it, but the member is very well aware that the federal government controls this issue and not us.

Mr. Ashe: As the Premier well knows, it was the amendments to the Gasoline Tax Act by the Treasurer, supported by this party to our left which is supposedly the consumer-oriented party, that are now causing gasoline prices to be two to three cents higher than they should be. We told the Premier it was going to happen. What is he going to do to pass some relief on to the consumers of this province to undo what the Liberal and New Democratic parties perpetrated?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This party is very grateful to have support from wherever it can find it. We are grateful for the wisdom of the New Democratic Party on this issue. I assume the Progressive Conservative Party believes in fiscal responsibility. The member will notice that we brought the net cash requirements down. A certain amount of money has to be raised to finance roads, hospitals, schools and northern development -- all the things that the member's friends in the front row were asking about today. When he looks at the evenhanded and fair-minded way in which we extract tax dollars in this province, I am sure he will agree it is a fair system.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Low-cost rental apartments are disappearing at an alarming rate in Toronto. What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I would like to remind the honourable member that the assured housing policy addressed what we were going to do about it. Also, if he is making reference to any of those stocks that we are losing by demolition or conversion, he knows we are addressing that matter seriously and it will be introduced in the House shortly.

Mr. Gordon: There is a lot of fear in the hearts of tenants in Toronto, especially when they see their friends or relatives -- some of their parents -- being evicted from low-cost rental housing because that low-cost rental housing is going to be made into luxury housing. What we need is affordable housing, not more luxury housing. How does he explain his failure to do anything about renovations in this city?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am surprised the member feels we are not doing anything about it.

Mr. Brandt: Tell us about your program.

Mr. Villeneuve: Let us in on the secret.

Hon. Mr. Curling: There is no secret to it. As a matter of fact, as I said, the members will shortly see what we will be doing about addressing the loss of those affordable rental stocks.

DAY CARE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. There are many amusing things in the throne speech, such as the words "knowledge workers" and so on, which we can all now drop into our world-class jargon. One thing that was very disappointing was the absence of any promises on day care, except for some more spaces.

What happened to the great white paper on day care that I hear the minister prepared and took into cabinet committees several times? Why was there no mention of that in the throne speech? Did the cabinet gag on the financial implications or is this a backing-off on his party's commitment to children of working parents and the commitment the government made to us in the accord of a move away from welfare-based day care? Was the minister mugged in the halls of power?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The reference to day care in the throne speech clearly identified two needs. One was for more spaces, but it did not stop there. It also made a reference to economic equity and clearly indicated that the problems of accessibility, affordability and fair wages for day care workers are part of that economic equity. We are clearly saying in that very short but pungent statement that those key issues with respect to day care are all being addressed in the paper which the member knows is well on its way.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That was interesting shorthand. Perhaps "pungent" is a good adjective for it. I did not realize that is what the minister thought of it. Does this mean the minister will make some announcement on day care in a major policy statement during this session? Is he going to talk about direct subsidies to day care operations in this province, some of which now are in danger of closing if the indirect subsidy from the federal government ends as it is supposed to?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The reference to the day care paper indicates it is on its way. It is going through the process. A statement will be made before this session is over. I cannot indicate to the member the specific details of a direct payment. That may or may not be part of it. The member knows that is a serious consideration. He also knows, with respect to the indirect payments some municipalities are receiving at present, we have indicated to each and every one that we will carry it until the end of this year, which is a year longer than the previous government had been willing to do. We are clearly taking those factors into consideration.

Mr. Cousens: Will the minister admit to this House that he has lost the battle in trying to do something for day care inasmuch as it was just an addendum to the throne speech? Will he admit to this House that he has failed to convince the rest of cabinet on the great need for day care?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I will make no such admission, because it would be factually untrue.

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Farmers in other provinces are getting financial assistance to get their spring crops in the ground. Why has the minister purposely delayed stabilization payments to the beef farmers of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We have not purposely delayed payments to beef farmers. It has taken some time to get all the information and documentation that was required to make a stabilization payment. There have been some differences at the national tripartite stabilization committee as to how payment should be made, whether it should be on a per-head basis or on a pounds-of-gain basis. Recently, they came to the decision that the payment will be made on a per-head basis this year, but the committee is still sitting to make a determination as to how it will make the payment in 1987.

Some of the programs offered by other provinces are loan programs that do not put as much money into the hands of the farmers as did our Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program. The $2-billion Alberta program means $4,000 to the farmer. Our OFFIRR program put as much as $14,000 into the hands of the farmer. I would talk about our programs if I had the time.

Mr. Stevenson: Alberta has created $880 million worth of new programs since the minister has been in office. That does not include the Alberta program he is talking about. Will the minister guarantee that the Ontario beef farmers who are in financial trouble will be given a three-week emergency turnaround to put money in their hands so they can have some cash to get their crops in the ground?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We are looking at a number of programs, not only to help the beef farmers but also to help the corn producers. Some of these other people are having difficulty arranging operating credit and getting money to buy seed and fertilizer. For instance, we are rendering support to the corn producers by saying we support the interim payment under stabilization. We are working on these programs. There is a lot more to come. The honourable member should stay tuned.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Grande: My question is to the Minister of Housing with regard to the disappearance of affordable housing units in Metropolitan Toronto and the province as a whole. I understand that early next week the minister will be making a statement as a result of a major plank in the Liberal-NDP accord, with respect to conversions, demolitions, renovations and co-ownership schemes that are being used right now by speculators who gobble up this affordable housing and increase rents by 200 per cent and 300 per cent in Toronto. In view of this, will the minister tell us and the people of the riding of Oakwood --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grande: -- and in particular the tenants of the apartment building on Vaughan Road who have received and are fighting eviction notices, what hope is there that they will be able to live in their affordable homes within a month or two months instead of finding themselves on the street or perhaps in a hostel?

Hon. Mr. Curling: We are concerned about the loss of affordable rental stock not only in Oakwood but all over Ontario. We still are committed to protecting the rental stock that is being lost through demolitions, conversions and all the other stuff the member mentioned.

Mr. Grande: I hope the minister will stop talking about being committed to protecting affordable housing and act. I am telling him --

Mr. Speaker: I hope by way of question.

Mr. Grande: Yes. The minister knows that in a month 150 tenants are going to be losing their apartments. What is he going to do right now? They will be on the streets in a month and they cannot afford to go anywhere else.

Mr. Speaker: You came to the question.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Have I ever let the honourable member down?

We promised to introduce a comprehensive housing policy. We promised to reduce rent increases from six per cent to four per cent. We have come through on all those things we promised. We also stated, as we said in the accord -- and we campaigned on that -- we were very mindful of the fact that our rental stock is lost through those types of conversions and demolitions. We shall come through. The member will have to wait and see.

Mr. Gordon: The minister said his government promised it would give tenants lower rents. If the tenants in Ontario are to believe what the minister is saying today, why does he say it is historic now that he is going to jack up the rents, give the money to the developers and just leave the tenants in the lurch?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I have to remind my honourable friend that when the Premier (Mr. Peterson) gave me this illustrious job as Minister of Housing, I thought I could consult with the people. They were not speaking to any Minister of Housing at that time. They did not know him. I have been consulting with tenants and landlords.

They have presented me with a report of many recommendations which we are reading and which makes very interesting reading. They are now talking. We will bring forth a policy that will address all the concerns of the member, which his party should have been concerned about 15 years ago and should have done something about. We are doing something about them now.

ONTARIO HUMANE SOCIETY

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Solicitor General. For more than three months the Ontario Humane Society has been seeking funding from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, and the ministry has failed to respond to its needs. I understand its last meeting was in January with the deputy minister. Because of the minister's procrastination, the humane society now has withdrawn the services of two inspectors and 54 agents across this province. What is the minister going to do to ensure proper protection against cruelty to animals in our province?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: We are well aware of the concern of the Ontario Humane Society with regard to funding. It has been under very active review, despite some of the statements it has made to the media that we had cut back on funding and that we had not been in consultation with it. We have been; a letter has gone back to them. We are acting on the issue to try to be sure the funding is there. By the way, they have never yet asked for funding for this year. It is a grant one applies for, and they have never yet applied. It is there and they have been told so in a letter, plus the potential for the increase.

Mr. Sterling: The minister had better talk to the Ontario Humane Society, because it does not believe it has not applied for such a grant or for such help. Every member in this Legislature is receiving letters from people across this province who understand the humane society has asked for this grant. I was talking to the president of the humane society this morning, and he believes he has applied. I ask the minister to take one step and perhaps even give the president a call for a change.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: The record will show that no such request has been made, but we are aware of their desire to have money. They have been negotiated with and talked to in the very last week.

Mr. Harris: Will the minister take the time to call? Will he condescend to make one phone call?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: Sure.

Mr. Harris: Thank you. That was the question. Thanks for the answer.

PETITIONS

RENT REVIEW

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I would like to present the following petition:

"We, the undersigned tenants, demand the immediate passage of Bill 78, the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1985. The act extends rent controls to all tenants in Ontario as promised by the Liberal government of Ontario during the provincial election campaign in 1985."

It is signed by about 2,000 tenants in the city of Windsor.

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr. D. W. Smith: I have a petition 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:

"The petition of the undersigned residents of the riding of Lambton in the province of Ontario, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the continued operation within the city of Toronto of the premises known as the Morgentaler Clinic for the stated purpose of performing unlawful abortions is an affront to the law-abiding citizens of the province of Ontario, who presume that the Criminal Code provision, section 251, enacted by your honourable House was meant to be obeyed; and that the visible lack of enforcement of this provision is seriously eroding the protection the Criminal Code affords all citizens of Canada. Permitting such privilege selection in the enforcement of our Criminal Code is seen to jeopardize our basic rights as Canadian citizens living in the province of Ontario.

"Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon parliament to require the government of the province of Ontario to remove any restrictions which may have been placed on the police force of Metropolitan Toronto in regard to the laying of charges under section 251 of the Criminal Code against the operators of the premises known as the Morgentaler Clinic, and to express to the government of the province of Ontario the displeasure of your honourable House in witnessing the refusal of the government to do everything within its power to enforce section 251 of the Criminal Code as enacted by your honourable House.

"And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray."

This petition is signed by Mrs. Anna Jenniskens and 70 other residents of Lambton county. Mr. Speaker I might say to all members that when they are presenting their petitions, it is not necessary to go through all the whereases. I think the "therefore" is probably enough to place on the record.

Mr. Pierce: I beg to present a petition on behalf of some of the residents of the district of Rainy River. I shall read only the "wherefore" of the petition, with your permission, Mr. Speaker.

"Wherefore, the undersigned humbly pray and call upon this Legislature to remove any restrictions which may have been placed on the police force of Metropolitan Toronto in regards to the laying of charges under section 251 of the Criminal Code against the operators of the premises known as the Morgentaler Clinic, and to compel the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario to proceed with charges, and to ensure the enforcement of the law as duly bound to do so." It is dated February 10, 1986.

HOSPITAL CLOSING

Mr. Guindon: I have a petition signed by more than 300 constituents of the riding of Cornwall. It is 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:

"That any decision to close the Macdonnell Memorial Hospital in Cornwall would add to an already unacceptable jobless rate and it would only serve to add to unemployment and welfare rolls.

"We request the reassessment of this so-called cost-saving proposal so as to not cause undue hardship on employees of the Macdonnell Memorial Hospital and that guarantees of no job losses be put in place should the Ministry of Health proceed with the building of another facility in Cornwall."

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are a lot of private conversations. I do not know whether they are all necessary -- they may be -- but they are certainly noisy.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: I was presented this morning with a petition signed by 1,917 citizens of the city of Cornwall who object to the practice of extra billing. I advise the House that I shall be presenting it with a copy of that petition.

Mr. Guindon: I have another petition from the people of my riding. It was brought to me by the Cornwall Academy of Medicine. It is from those who are against the Health Care Accessibility Act.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. McNeil from the standing committee on the Ombudsman, and pursuant to the order of the House on February 12, 1986, presented the committee's 13th report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

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

Mr. McNeil from the standing committee on the Ombudsman, and pursuant to the order of the House on February 12, 1986, presented the committee's 14th report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

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

MOTIONS

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the appointment of the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin) as deputy chairman of the committees of the whole House be continued.

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that when the House adjourns today it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, April 28, 1986.

Mr. McClellan: We have a bit of a problem here, Mr. Speaker. As you are aware, the motion that has just been read by the government House leader flows from the meeting of the three House leaders which took place this morning. I was in attendance at that meeting, together with my colleague from the official opposition and my counterpart in the government party.

This motion is based on an assumed schedule which was approved at that meeting. Quite frankly, it was not communicated to anybody that legislation would be introduced this afternoon for first reading which the government then intended to ask for unanimous consent to proceed to second and third readings. In the 11 years that I have been here since 1975, it has not been my experience that legislation of this type is not made available to the House leaders prior to its introduction in the House.

3:30 p.m.

I was at the House leaders' meeting from 10:30 in the morning until 12 noon. During the meeting, the Conservative Party members indicated they intended to move an emergency debate on the subject of the Wheel-Trans labour dispute, and we discussed that issue. At two minutes to two I learned that the government intended to move an act entitled the Wheel-Trans Labour Disputes Settlement Act.

I repeat that I was in the government House leader's office from 10:30 in the morning until 12 noon, but I was informed at two minutes to two that the government intended to move an act which obviously could not have been drafted between 12 noon and two minutes to two, nor could it have been printed between 12 noon and two minutes to two.

I do not know whether it is the intention of the government to go back to the practices of the Conservative Party under the House leadership of Eric Winkler, but I am afraid that is the clear impression being communicated here, and it is not acceptable. I ask the government House leader to withdraw his motion that we will adjourn until Monday and not sit tomorrow. If the government does have legislation to put before the House, I fail to understand why we should not be back here tomorrow to deal with it.

Mr. Harris: It is fair to say on behalf of our party that we share the concerns put forward by the honourable House leader for the third party. Our House leader was at the House leaders' meeting today as well and through that time the only discussion of the Wheel-Trans situation was when our House leader, as has been indicated, said we would be moving the emergency debate. There was ample opportunity for the discussion to carry on at the House leaders' meeting as to the government's intention. We find the whole sequence of events in the introduction of this bill most extraordinary.

I do not know whether it is possible today, but in the interest of any possibility of this Legislature being able to carry on with some semblance of order, I suggest the government House leader withdraw the motion and, if it is appropriate at some stage today, the House may agree to revert to motions and it could be placed at that time.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The facts I heard recounted by the House leader for the New Democratic Party are essentially correct. One thing that is not correct is the assumption that I was aware of these matters and failed to communicate them when I might have. I give my assurance to the honourable member that was not the case.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I did not mean to imply that.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: All right. I just wanted to make it clear. Others might have assumed the member was under the impression that I was aware of this matter. I communicated with the leader of the NDP and, I believe, the chief whip of the official opposition as soon as I was informed by the leader of the government that he wished to proceed with this matter in the House. All I can say is that.

Mr. McClellan: That is the problem.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: All right. That is significant. The facts as the member puts them are essentially correct.

About the adjournment, which is the matter under discussion, I am sure honourable members are aware that the consideration not to sit tomorrow is one that was an accommodation for a number of members in the House. If the members of the House decide they would like to continue with the work tomorrow, there is no problem with that at all.

The motion I put, which would see the House adjourn until next Monday, was for the convenience of a number of members. I will be very glad to follow the suggestion made by the two opposition House leaders and stand that motion down because I believe in the circumstances it is reasonable so to do.

Mr. Speaker, we may very well put the motion later in the day, with your concurrence and the concurrence of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I understand from all members of the House that this motion will be stood down. Is that correct?

Agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTES SETTLEMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Sweeney, first reading of Bill 2, An Act respecting the Labour Disputes between All-Way Transportation Corporation (Wheel-Trans Division) and Local 113, Amalgamated Transit Union.

4:58 p.m.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Wrye's motion for first reading of Bill 2, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Bennett, Bossy, Bradley, Brandt, Callahan, Caplan, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Cousens, Cureatz, Curling, Davis, Dean, Elston, Epp, Eves, Ferraro, Fontaine, Fulton, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Guindon, Haggerty, Harris, Henderson, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Kerrio, Knight, Lane, Leluk, Mancini, McCague;

McFadden, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McNeil, Miller, G. I., Morin, Munro, Newman, Nixon, O'Connor, Offer, O'Neil, Partington, Peterson, Pierce, Pollock, Polsinelli, Reycraft, Ridden, Rowe, Ruprecht, Sargent, Scott, Sheppard, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sorbara, South, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Sweeney, Treleaven, Van Horne, Villeneuve, Ward, Wrye, Yakabuski.

Nays

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Foulds, Gigantes, Grande, Grier, Johnston, R. F., Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Morin-Strom, Pouliot, Rae, Reville, Swart, Wildman.

Ayes 77; nays 19.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The importance of this legislation has already been described to the House. Because of that, I would ask unanimous consent to proceed.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: There is not unanimous consent to proceed.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, is there not a notice of motion before you to set aside the orders of the day?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The members opposite are supposed to do that.

Mr. Harris: Are we supposed to put it?

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Cousens moved, seconded by Mr. Harris, that pursuant to standing order 34(a), the business of the House be set aside so that the House might debate a matter of urgent public importance, that being the acute situation facing the 9,000 handicapped persons stranded in their homes by the Wheel-Trans strike.

Mr. Speaker: The notice of motion was received in time and complies with standing order 34 regarding the notice requirements. It was received at 11:43 a.m. today. I will listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes, as well as to representatives from other parties.

Mr. Speaker: I will listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes, as well as to representatives from other parties.

Mr. Cousens: This emergency has been going on now for some days, and notice was given this morning in the House leaders' meeting and, as you say, Mr. Speaker, was duly received in your office before noon. It indicates the great concern our party has for the needs of the handicapped and the disabled.

We are concerned because there has been no action taken by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to indicate that the concern is as great as it is. He has had no involvement in this. With no action forthcoming before our motion was tabled, we are pleased the motion has helped trigger at least some response in the emergency legislation that has since been tabled by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye).

At last, though it was hastily prepared, the Minister of Labour has tabled important legislation that can address the concerns of the handicapped and the disabled. To that extent, it makes this debate a very important consideration.

However, where have the Liberals been? Why are they reacting now, when the sensitivity of this issue required immediate action 11 days ago when the strike first began? Today, more than 14,000 disabled persons are cut off from their only reliable and efficient means of transportation with Wheel-Trans. While limited emergency assistance has been made available for those needing kidney dialysis, and while the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) has set up an interim service for the approximately 5,000 under the ministry's vocational rehabilitation or disability payments programs, absolutely nothing is being done or is otherwise available for Metropolitan Toronto's disabled to help them get to work, to school or their other appointments. These things are also essential to them.

By extending assistance only to those under the purview of his ministry, the Minister of Community and Social Services has effectively penalized the approximately 9,000 disabled in Toronto who, until now, have been independent and self-sufficient. About 9,000 disabled persons are trapped in their homes with very limited alternative transportation services to call upon during this crisis. My office, as well as that of our leader the member for St. Andrew-St Patrick (Mr. Grossman), has been flooded with phone calls from disabled people describing their frustrations. They have been calling upon our party to take action on their behalf.

The concerns are affecting many people, and as the strike continues into its 11th day, disabled students are kept from their classes, university students are missing exams, disabled workers are facing the trauma of potentially losing their jobs as their holiday time is gradually being used up. In his statement today, the Minister of Labour indicated that little hard evidence is available of disabled people losing their jobs as a direct result of the strike. May I say there is considerable hard evidence of the tragic circumstances being created for those people who are otherwise stranded in their homes.

Incidents such as these create enormous obstacles to the normalization of the disabled at a time when they are struggling to prove they are just as capable, reliable and independent as other employees. An incident such as the Wheel-Trans strike undermines this whole normalization process.

We welcome the fact that the Liberal government is taking immediate action and getting directly involved to bring an end to the Wheel-Trans strike. However, immediate action should have been taken 11 days ago when this strike first began.

5:10 p.m.

As critic for Community and Social Services, I am very concerned, along with our party, about seeking a resolution to this problem. Shortly after noon hour, before the House convened today, legislation was tabled. It is obvious that time is needed to consider that legislation, and I respect that the honourable members of the third party require time to look into it further to understand the implications and ramifications of the legislation. I hope we can soon come together in the House to review that legislation and pass it quickly to resolve this problem.

Mr. Rae: I want to speak in this debate to make very clear the views of my party with respect to the matters before us in the dispute between the drivers of the Wheel-Trans service and their employer.

For a period of a decade the New Democratic Party, together with the disabled and a great many other people, pushed the government of Ontario under a Tory administration to recognize finally that with respect to transportation the disabled had rights that were not being recognized, were not being dealt with and were not being met. I speak with some pride in my colleagues, going back many years, since the service that is provided is there because of the commitment of the disabled and because of the commitment of people in our party and in other parties who recognized that discrimination existed. Discrimination continues to exist. We have always argued, and I want to say so as a matter of public record, that in our view the disabled have a right to integrated transportation, a right to a service that is second to none and of which all of us can be proud. That is not at issue in this discussion today.

At issue in the discussion today is the way in which this government has chosen to deal with this dispute between the drivers and their employer. It would be foolish for us to ignore that it was the previous administration which decided that rather than have an integrated service under the Toronto Transit Commission, and rather than have it done under the mode of public transportation, it would be done as a matter of policy in Ontario by means of a subcontract to a subcontracted employer. In our view, much of the dispute between the employees and their employer today exists because of the tremendous discrepancy between the conditions under which drivers are driving for All-Way in transporting the disabled and the handicapped and the conditions under which people are driving for the TTC.

I say to the Tory members who have been heckling quietly that I do not think it is widely known that the All-Way drivers do not have a private pension plan. The workers who are driving for All-Way do not have a private pension plan; that should be a matter of record. The government of Ontario is publicly subsidizing, as is Metro, a service that does not even provide its own employees with a pension plan. The government then turns around and says: "Instead of negotiating, we are going to send people back to work. That is the basis upon which it is going to be done."

I have known for some time of the nature of the discussions that have taken place between the parties and with the Ministry of Labour. The Minister of Labour and the Premier are here today. Both know perfectly well that the issue is extremely close in terms of its ability to be resolved. They know that the negotiating committee went back to the membership with a proposal that was defeated by a vote of 89 to 52. They know that the negotiating committee met on several occasions with the mediators involved, stressing that with some changes to the final proposal it felt a settlement was possible.

As the Premier is here, I want to say to him that the drivers have a right to believe they have been treated in a fashion that was arbitrary and high-handed. They were given the impression that certain things were going to happen that have not happened at all with respect to a change being made in the offer. The government of Ontario was in a position to effect a settlement simply by indicating that it was prepared to pay the amount that would have allowed these workers to keep their wages in line with those of the TTC drivers. As the minister now knows, they are $4 behind the TTC drivers. He will also know the issue could have been settled. Instead, the Premier decided, at 1:45 p.m. or thereabouts, to bring in legislation.

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

Mr. Rae: This is no way to conduct the business of this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: We will not be railroaded or steamrollered in this way.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: First of all, let me indicate to honourable members that we on this side of the House have no objection to proceeding with this debate and to having a discussion about this very unfortunate situation which has resulted in the introduction of back-to-work legislation. The position of the government is that the debate should proceed for whatever time is remaining.

Because I know my colleagues the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the secretariat for disabled persons, that is, the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) and the Minister of Community and Social Services would like to talk about the hardships and the difficulties faced by the handicapped, let me in my remarks briefly expand on the process we have undergone in the last while and, in doing so, speak to some of the issues raised by the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) and the leader of the third party.

The government waited until this time to move on this legislation to allow a process to go forward that we hoped would at the end of the day resolve happily and in a voluntary fashion the bargaining dispute between the parties. When the strike began 11 days ago, we felt there was an opportunity for the collective bargaining dispute to be resolved. I remind my friend the member for York Centre, who with his party apparently would have pulled the trigger on day 1, that we were able to get --

Mr. Cousens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like the honourable minister to withdraw that statement. There was no indication we said, "Pull the trigger on day 1."

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I know he did not say those words; he simply said we should have moved 11 days ago. The member indicated the opposition would have moved 11 days ago. We felt the intensive and very effective mediation efforts by the Ministry of Labour officials should be allowed to proceed. I remind my friend and the members of the official opposition who would have moved so much more quickly that the two sides did reach a tentative agreement, which was agreed to unanimously by the union's negotiating committee. Regrettably, the membership of the trade union decided, as was its right, that it did not agree, and turned down the tentative agreement by a vote of 89 to 52, as the member for York South has pointed out.

We on this side made every effort to let the collective bargaining process work and in a sense it did work. We did get a tentative agreement. That is the difference between this party and the members of the official opposition.

I understand what my friend the member for York South (Mr. Rae) said in his remarks, but I must share with him our view that what divides the parties is not quite as simple as what he suggests. I would think he would want to acknowledge to the House that what divides the parties is about 63 cents an hour. That does not, in the total scheme of things, get into the millions of dollars but it is a very substantial difference, as I am sure my friend would acknowledge.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is about $200,000 maximum.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I would have thought my friend would also have acknowledged in his remarks that there was a tentative agreement reached between the parties and the tentative agreement, which did have the position on the pension scheme that he pointed out, was not ratified. I suggest to my friend that we simply have a difference of opinion. We on this side do not believe a quick and speedy resolution in any way could have been reached on the 63 cents an hour.

As my friend knows, the government of Ontario is not the only player in this matter. Discussions would have to be ongoing with the chairman of Metro Toronto and with Metro council so the money could be provided to the firm to which this work is contracted. Otherwise, the contract the firm now has would not be in any way sufficient to pay for the cost of the settlement, and that is if a settlement could be reached.

My friend suggests that by waving a magic wand we could have resolved the dispute in a matter of hours. That was not the judgement of the government. I think our judgement was the correct one, and very regretfully -- I say this quite honestly -- we decided to bring in the measures that we brought in today. I hope to hear the remainder of the debate.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre has placed a motion to set aside the business of the House. I have listened carefully to the three members who have spoken. There seems to be reasonable agreement. However, I must put the question. Shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Gillies: I am glad that this debate will be proceeding this afternoon and that the members will have an opportunity to address some of the issues that surround the Wheel-Trans situation. I believe there are a number of issues we should be talking about in this debate.

The decision of the New Democratic Party not to grant unanimous consent to the further passage of the bill is an action of which I will not be unduly critical. I say to my friends to the left that while our caucus wrestled with the issues that surround this and came into the House with a decision to support the government bill, I share some of the points that have been raised by the leader of the third party concerning the way the government saw fit to proceed on this issue today. If the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and the leader of the government feel they can come in here on any given day with some two or three minutes' notice, introduce a piece of legislation of this import and have the automatic support of the official opposition, they are quite wrong.

On a matter of principle, and out of concern for the more than 9,000 handicapped people who are being adversely affected by the duration of this strike, we will be supporting the legislation. But I suggest to the members of the government that they are too clever by half when they come out of a meeting of the House leaders of the three parties this morning, where there had been discussion of the fact that my friend the member for York Centre would be introducing a motion for an emergency debate this afternoon and realizing that they were caught with their pants down and that their neglect of this issue predicated action, and come into this House with absolutely no notice and expect the members of this chamber, with no notice and no opportunity to review the contents of their bill, then to proceed to deal with it.

Mr. Gordon: Sheer arrogance.

Mr. Gillies: My friend the member for Sudbury is right. It is arrogance, and I suggest to my friends opposite that it is not the kind of procedure we will entertain on subsequent occasions during the duration of this session.

However, we did have an opportunity to review the legislation during the division-bell period prior to the first-reading vote. There is nothing particularly imaginative or new there. It is a very standard piece of legislation, which would see the appointment of a single arbitrator, who would then be empowered, within the parameters of the Labour Relations Act, to impose a settlement on this particular dispute.

My guess is that the arbitrator will be able to do the job and that the settlement will be fair and equitable. It is my hope that the employees of Wheel-Trans who will be affected by this decision will not be adversely affected. It is my hope that the outcome of the arbitration process will be very similar to what they might have been able to bargain for themselves.

There are a couple of points I would like to make on the substance of this matter, quite apart from the legislation that comes before us.

First, I think there is virtually unanimous agreement in this chamber that Wheel-Trans is an excellent service. I had an opportunity during the past week to talk on the phone to several of the drivers, and I am absolutely convinced of the dedication and the hard work that these men and women invest in the work they do.

It is not an easy job to work in the transportation of handicapped people or, in fact, to deal closely with handicapped people in any type of work. It is hard work; it is arduous; it takes a lot of care and a lot of compassion. The drivers to whom I have spoken raise with me their concern for their clients as often as they ever raise the issues of their settlement and what they want for themselves and their families. They raise with me the concern of what is happening to their clients during this dispute.

This, then, is what we members have to weigh: the legitimate rights of the employees of Wheel-Trans to attempt to bargain a settlement of their dispute with their employer against the ramifications of a lengthy dispute for some of the most helpless people in our society. In my experience, in my dealings with them and in my work with them as a member and as a private citizen, the handicapped want to be able to do things for themselves; they want to be able to find their own way.

The days are long gone when handicapped people in Ontario wanted handouts, wanted to be dealt with in institutional settings and wanted things handed to them on a platter. The handicapped people whom I know and with whom I deal want an opportunity to make their own way and, if possible, they want to work. There is no group in our society that is faced with a higher level of unemployment than the handicapped. The unemployment rate among people confined to wheelchairs in this province is more than 80 per cent. One of the vital mechanisms that allows them to work and make their own way is the transportation network that is provided by Wheel-Trans.

Eleven days into this dispute, weighing the merits of this case, it will be the position of the official opposition to support the government bill on second and third readings.

Mention has been made of the vote already taken on the offer that was placed before the employees and rejected by a vote of 89 to 52. The tentative offer included an agreement by the province and Metropolitan Toronto to share $377,000 in extra funding for the service. The workers, whose basic position is to seek parity with Toronto Transit Commission drivers, point out that this would leave them far behind.

The tentative agreement would also have given the workers a $1-an-hour wage increase in the first year of a two-year agreement, a 37-cent increase in the second year and a $500 signing bonus. With the passage of the legislation, which we will debate in this House tomorrow morning, it is my hope that the arbitrator will take this into account in arriving at his decision and that he will take into account the strongly held position of the employees that they should have parity with the TTC workers. There are other issues in terms of overtime, hours, lengths of shifts and so on, that have to be addressed.

We were very concerned on this side of the chamber to learn that at this point, only 11 days into the dispute, some of the handicapped clients of Wheel-Trans were losing their jobs as a result of their inability to be transported to and from their employment. The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) said he expected employers to ensure that no physically handicapped employees lost their jobs because of the strike or their inability to get to work.

I know the minister well enough to know he would say that in good faith and sincerity. That would be the hope of us all. Unfortunately, it has come to light to members of this party, and to other members, that some of the handicapped people are losing their jobs. I am sure you would agree, Mr. Speaker, that this situation is untenable. It is unconscionable that we would allow that to continue. Something had to be done to break the logjam and bring a solution to this dispute.

5:30 p.m.

I also appreciate that the Minister of Community and Social Services moved to provide emergency arrangements for more than 5,000 of the people who normally rely on Wheel-Trans for their transportation. Members on all sides of the House want to laud the minister for his efforts in this regard. However, we still are left with more than 9,000 handicapped people who are unable to get to their place of employment by any means we know and pursue something they hold very important: the ability to make their own way.

This situation has to be addressed. We are sensitive to the aspirations and rights of the workers. We also are sensitive to the aspirations and rights of the clients of this service. Conscious as we are of all the arguments that have been made thus far, as well as the concerns raised by the third party, tomorrow morning this party will come into the Legislative Assembly to vote an end to this dispute and have an arbitrator arrive at a settlement for the Wheel-Trans employees.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I rise to join in this debate. I was prepared to do so before this binding-arbitration, strikebreaking legislation was brought in earlier. I am delighted to be able to do it today in practice for tomorrow's speeches on the bill as we get to them.

I would like to make a number of points, the first being the history of Wheel-Trans and the problems of transportation for the disabled. This gives us a wonderful chance at this point to look at the limitations of that system.

I also want to talk about what the workers have already done to subsidize this system. There is a lot of talk around here about government subsidization, but the group that has been primarily subsidizing transportation for the disabled in Metropolitan Toronto from day one has been the workers. The disabled people themselves know that best. Although we are getting calls about hardship and the difficulties people are encountering in getting access to jobs and necessary appointments, especially those most severely disabled, I have not had one call from anybody who opposes the demands of the workers involved. They want those workers to be properly paid.

It strikes us on this side of the House as somewhat incongruous and very bizarre that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) talks about us being draconian and antidemocratic in wanting to get a timetable for the end of extra billing. We already have heard more than 150 briefs, there have been months of lobbying and the government has held its own public hearings, and the Premier calls us antidemocratic because we want a timetable for a commitment he made during the last election. Yet the Premier comes in here today, hands us this legislation after the start of question period, wants it rammed through today and calls that democracy and efficient and humane government. I find it absolutely outrageous.

Let us look at the history of Wheel-Trans. Years ago, when Wheel-Trans was owned by one private employer, the standards were atrocious. The workers had incredibly bad working conditions. There was a prediction of a death by one rider. As the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) reminded me earlier, that person became a victim on the predecessor to the present system and was killed in an accident.

Much has changed since the new Wheel-Trans was brought into place and since new equipment was leased to All-Way Transportation Corp. by the provincial and Metro governments. Much has changed since the Toronto Transit Commission has been bargaining for its workers.

Let us look at what those workers still are faced with. They earn $4 an hour less than their colleagues on the regular transit lines, yet in my riding many of them go into a high-rise apartment building and help the disabled person downstairs and into the van. They give to that individual very personalized and humane assistance that is not expected of the normal transit driver in this city.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wonder whether the honourable member will permit a question. Is that an additional duty for the driver, or is it part of his regular duties?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It depends on how one wants to define it. In a place like Ottawa it is absolutely additional, and they are not supposed to do it. In a place like Toronto it is now understood that it can be part of their duty or it can be seen to be additional. I am not sure of the latest discussion on that.

All I am saying is that this is an incredible group of dedicated individuals who have worked very hard at $4 an hour less than their colleagues with no pension plan and no long-term disability benefits. They work 13-day shifts. They have no time off for lunch in their contract. They are basically second-class colleagues of the TTC drivers, whom we all respect -- even though we order them back to work on a relatively regular basis around here -- for the first-class, I might even say world-class, transportation system that we have here in Metropolitan Toronto.

That group of individuals did not accept a contract that was brought back to them by their negotiators; that is true. But let us look at what they were willing to accept. A two-year proposal was put to them with only a 37-cent increase in the second year. As the Minister of Labour admitted, it is very likely they would have accepted and settled for a 67-cent increase on top of that in the second year.

What would that have cost this government? If the government had assumed the entire cost for that, without any sharing from Metro -- and maybe there was a reluctance by Metro to share; I will not get into the politics of dumping on the municipal government in our transportation policies in Ontario at this point -- even if Metro was not willing to share, $200,000 is not an awful lot of money to come up with as a solution instead of ordering people back to work, taking their democratic rights from them.

How much money is the Minister of Community and Social Services spending to assist his 5,000 clients to get to their appointments? How much is that costing? We are willing to put that money out. I might even argue that the minister could do even more, if he chose to, and assist some of the others who are in danger of losing their jobs to get assistance in that way during the strike, especially since he has indicated to me in the past that he is anxious to do more for the working poor. Many of the disabled who are in that condition would fall into that category.

For that kind of money, for a strike on this kind of scale, this government is willing to bring in, at 2:15 p.m. today, this kind of draconian legislation and wants it all passed today.

If it is not passed today, what is going to be the effect on the clientele? One has to understand how Wheel-Trans works if one wants to understand what the impact is going to be.

If you want to go to your regular job by Wheel-Trans, then you set up a schedule and you are picked up on a regular basis. Those people have been disrupted because of the strike for the last little while. They will not be able to go back on the system tomorrow morning; that will not work. It is not possible for them to be back on the system on Friday morning. For every other kind of drive that those people want -- and there are real limitations on what they are allowed to use it for; let us remember that too -- they have to book a week in advance. That is transportation equity for you.

It is not going to affect them any more if we talk this through and talk about some of the ramifications of a policy for transportation for the disabled today and tomorrow, or however long it takes us to debate this and maybe to get some changes that will bring more equity into transportation for the disabled than if we were to pass this today.

5:40 p.m.

Let us talk about this policy. I cannot remember specifically what the Liberal policy was on this in the past, but I do remember when we were arguing in the past from this side about the question of access. We have argued that the vast majority of the disabled should be given access to an integrated transportation system that we all use. In the Tory regime we had the new light rail transit system going to my area in Scarborough, for instance; a world-class, innovative, high-tech -- all those things that were so wonderful in the throne speech -- kind of development with no access for the handicapped.

Recently we have had several of the stations here in downtown repaired. Has that changed the access for the handicapped? No. They are not to have part of that system. They are to have their separate system which is basically inadequate in what it can provide.

Do members know that epileptics are not eligible for Wheel-Trans? Do members know that the frail elderly are not eligible for Wheel-Trans? People who have basic cardiac problems and cannot get up and down stairs are not eligible for Wheel-Trans.

We need an integrated system. If this kind of crisis can cause us to have a full debate on the change of policy by this government in this next budget -- whether or not it is able to bring what it promised in the throne debate, which was employment equity for the disabled -- then, by God, this is all very worth while and the disabled in this province and in Metro will be glad that we have taken the extra time to discuss it, rather than forcing these drivers back to work and shelving what is a very serious problem of the inadequacy of transportation for the disabled in Ontario today.

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: There is an obvious urgency to deal with this issue. This is the first working day of this Legislature and we have introduced legislation today to deal with the Wheel-Trans labour dispute, yet we hear from the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) that we have done absolutely nothing to help out and that this issue just fell from the sky.

He should realize that we have had a number of discussions with the members of the disabled community. This morning we held a meeting with the following representatives of the disabled community: representatives from the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada, the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, the Canadian Paraplegic Association, Persons United for Self-Help in Ontario, the Blind Organization of Ontario with Self-help Tactics, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, the Ontario March of Dimes and, of course, the person who was fairly responsible for organizing the demonstration yesterday at city hall, Beryl Potter.

We wanted to find out the difficulties, what the community wanted to do and in which way the community wanted us to act. The honourable member should realize that is obviously an important aspect of a democratic process. We want to find out the feelings of those who are affected by our policies.

As I said earlier, there is some urgency. There are instances of hardship that come to light, such as difficulties in getting to employment, which was in some degree already spoken about. There has been a threat of job loss to some people who are using the system. There has also been an inability to get to medical appointments and generally some people are not able to carry on their normal life activities. There is an urgency to come to grips with the situation and that is why this afternoon we wanted to pass this legislation.

The other aspect that I find of importance is the action that was taken by the Minister of Community and Social Services. The emergency support being provided by the Ministry of Community and Social Services at this specific time until the legislation is passed is attempting to meet the immediate needs of clients and to provide general information to the public through a telephone hotline. It is only an interim measure and is not intended to substitute for the Wheel-Trans service. Members will realize that this matter was acted upon fairly quickly by the minister and I am very happy this action has taken place.

The reason there is grave urgency is that the situation will be further aggravated early next week when family benefits allowance recipients, who actually constitute the majority of users of the system, will be faced with the problem of not being able to get transportation to cash their cheques or purchase needed supplies for the upcoming month. That is why it is obvious and clear that almost immediate action is necessary. That is the kind of action this government has proposed. That is why, as the days go on, it is important that we come to grips with the situation.

I want to tell the members briefly what transpired at the meeting, because we finely believe that process is important for democracy. A thorough discussion of the implications of the strike took place and various options for seeking a resolution were explored. The options that were talked about were important. The disabled community felt it did not wish to get involved in the dispute. It felt there was some unfairness propagated by one party, but it was important to take a stand on getting the service back. Its main concern has been to reinstitute the service. As the members realize, the reasons are clear and open. The disabled community is obviously very sensitive about being able to do daily chores, go to jobs, do the shopping, go to hospitals and sometimes even to maintain a life-support system.

It was obvious this government needed to act fairly quickly. Once the discussion had taken place with the disabled community, it was important to take some action. That is why, after consulting the disabled community, I am confident it will be supportive of the action proposed by my colleague the Minister of Labour. As minister responsible for disabled persons, I look forward to Wheel-Trans resuming as quickly as possible.

Mr. Cousens: I have listened to the member for Parkdale. I am pleased he has been having meetings, but part of the concern that has brought this debate to the House is that not only are the wrong people meeting, but the government is also meeting with the wrong people.

Let me go back. Perhaps the Premier should have got involved as the former Premier did in 1984 when the Toronto Transit Commission was facing a strike. He personally made persuasion effective in bringing about a resolution. He tried to do something. It is that kind of ingredient and that kind of person that have been missing in the meetings the member for Parkdale has been talking about. Further, the member talks about the different groups he supposedly met with, and I am sure he or someone did. Why were there not further meetings with the members of the union?

We are talking about a breakdown in process and a breakdown in responsibility when a junior minister does not even pass it on to the Minister of Community and Social Services who has a direct involvement in this. He has the financial responsibility. I compliment the minister for at least looking at part of the problem, but the fact is that the senior people of this government have not been taking seriously the plight of the disabled and the handicapped during the days of this strike. They stand condemned because people are sitting in their homes unable to get out and do the things they are used to doing. I challenge this government to be more considerate of the needs of people.

5:50 p.m.

It starts at the top. It starts with the Premier himself having an involvement and a concern, knowing full well that his presence is going to have an impact. I am confident there would be no legislation before this House today if it were not for the fact that our party gave notice this morning that we would be bringing an emergency debate to this House on the Wheel-Trans issue. It would not have happened. Otherwise, we would not have received this special legislation at about two o'clock and we would not have the situation we are in now. We would not have had to be at that stage if the government had been doing the proper work it should have been doing before today. Fortunately, we are back here today and able to force some concrete action and some decisions to be made.

We are into a situation that is not fun at all. I have to be sensitive, as are all honourable members, to the needs of the handicapped as well as to the needs of those who are in negotiations. We respect that negotiating process, and I compliment very much the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) who spoke earlier on the support our party will give to the government's bill to end this strike and to get the trucks rolling and to get the people moving again. We are dealing with a crisis for people. That is what it is all about, individuals who are looking for an opportunity to get to work and to get out of their homes.

I know of one man who is confined to a wheelchair due to calcium deficiency which leaves the bones of his body extremely brittle. He says he has not been out of his apartment to buy food in those 11 days. I know of one disabled woman who has described her plight as similar to being in jail, because she is now cut off from friends, shopping and other excursions. I know of one government employee who finally found a job after six months and is now fearful of losing it. She is afraid her absence will reflect badly on her record.

There are many people out there today who are looking for relief and support. The problem is that the numbers are far greater than were being addressed by the emergency service that was being provided through the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Those people had no solution to their plight without the government at least now at last getting involved.

It is a very emotional issue; it is emotional to all people; it is emotional to those of us who are able to get around to know there are others who are suffering this way. We need this legislation passed, as difficult as it is. I am pleased and proud of our party for supporting the government in this minority situation; at least for supporting the government in expediting a solution to this problem when the accord has broken down. The problem is in the minds and hearts of those people who are not able to help themselves. We, through this body and this House, can do something about it.

We are talking about people who have been trying to demonstrate; they have been trying to get their word out; they have been trying to get to phones that are jammed because there are too many people calling and not enough phones to take their calls. We are talking about people who are anxious to fulfil themselves again. We are talking about a process of normalization, where we are saying to the people of our society, "We are all created equal and, regardless of your handicap, we want you to be part of this society."

For that reason, it is imperative that we look at Wheel-Trans at the same level of importance as we looked at the TTC in 1984. What is the difference? Some people think the difference is the smaller numbers, but that should not be the important thing. Handicapped people are suffering because they are caught in a transportation situation that is limiting their mobility.

The government stands judged by all for not having acted earlier, for not having found a solution earlier, for not involving the Premier earlier, for not sharing with the honourable members of the New Democratic Party and ourselves earlier what they were going to try to do. To come in at the last minute is really something that has not happened in a long time in this House.

We have moved to a stage where we can seek a resolution to this problem and I hope all members are able to push through the second and third readings of this bill tomorrow. We will have an opportunity tonight to read the words of it, to check out the thoughts, to make sure that it does respond to the situation we are in. We are doing that now. By virtue of that thinking process, it would be a good thing for all if we are able to complete that work tomorrow, to allow those people to proceed to their work on time on Monday.

I hope the session we are about to have in the coming days will be far different from today. It is not enjoyable for anyone to have this kind of legislation before us or to have this kind of emergency debate. May we be on our way to a solution here and to seeing good thinking and good process during the remainder of this sitting.

Mr. Mackenzie: The issue before us is not one of whether an unfairness is being inflicted upon the users of the service for the handicapped, Wheel-Trans. The issue today is one of the justice of what we are doing. The fact that the Tories moved this way in the legislation in 1984 does not make today's bill any more right. If it is wrong today -- and it is wrong today -- it was just as wrong in 1984.

I have a real difficulty with this kind of legislation. It seems to me, as I said in the debate back in 1984, that every time we bring in this kind of legislation, every time we deny workers' basic rights, it seems to get a little bit easier.

What we are really dealing with is a group of workers who do one hell of a good job in looking after a constituency that has some real difficulties associated with it, workers who really like the job they are doing -- I think you would have to like it in order to do it -- and who are doing that job for $4.05 an hour less than the regular transit drivers are getting in Toronto. They receive no pension payments whatsoever, and I wonder how they are supposed to take care of their families; they are working people like anybody else. They are not getting long-term disability benefits; they are not getting shift premiums; they are not paid overtime when they are brought in to work on off days. They are losing many of the benefits of ordinary workers, and they are doing this, I think, because they understand the importance and the nature of their job.

We are really playing a little game of blackmail here. We are really asking these workers to subsidize a vital service to people in this province. By forcing the drivers to do the subsidizing, we are taking the government and our municipalities off the hook in terms of the services that have to be there for people. What we are doing very effectively is underlining the fact that we are willing to provide a second-class service for the handicapped. I do not think that is right.

I have some difficulty with the effort of the Minister of Labour to remind us that the negotiating committee had actually recommended acceptance of the agreement that had been worked out. My experience with both of the old parties in this House is that we usually get told how the labour bosses are running things. What is wrong when, all of a sudden, a proposition is put to the workers, who know they have been getting the short end of the stick for a number of years, and they say: "No, we are not going to take it any longer. There is no reason we should not have decent wages, decent pensions and decent disability benefits. We want those kinds of things included in the contract and we are not going to settle for what you have offered us." A majority in a democratic procedure vote against accepting it, and should we, somehow or other, give less credibility to that?

The Minister of Labour should be happy that this kind of democracy at the rank and file level is alive and well in the trade union movement. We should also understand, and I think most of the handicapped workers and users of the service understand -- there is a fair amount of evidence that they do -- that while they have a difficult situation and while they want to see a settlement, they do not want to see that settlement on the basis of the subsidy being carried by the drivers, the people who are giving them the service.

I also find it very difficult to understand how, in the final days of negotiations, we can get down to a difference of probably $100,000 to $200,000 and let this kind of situation exist. When are we going to start deciding to provide the services for people on the basis of decent wages and decent conditions and not ask the workers themselves to do the subsidizing? It is just wrong.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to indicate the business of the House for the remainder of this week and next.

Tomorrow we will do second reading, committee of the whole House, if required, and third reading, if possible, of Bill 2, the Wheel-Trans Labour Disputes Settlement Act.

Monday, April 28, we will hear the mover and the seconder of the speech from the throne, followed by resolutions presented to the House that we hope will lead to the implementation of new rules, and a motion to strike committees.

Tuesday, April 29, we will hear the official opposition's response to the throne speech. Wednesday, April 30, if the new rules are accepted, we will hear the third party's response to the throne speech, followed by private members' debate on the throne speech. Thursday, May 1, in the afternoon we will have the throne speech debate. If the new rules are accepted, we will discuss the possibility of having an additional two hours in the morning for throne speech debate.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

24 avril 1986