Journal des débats 1986-avril-30 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Gregory: It has been brought to my attention recently that it is taking a great deal of time to have standard drivers' licences updated to classes A and B. The class A licences are those required by the professional truck drivers in Ontario, while the class B licences are those required by all bus drivers.

We are currently near the beginning of May, and I am advised by numerous people, including those waiting to upgrade their licences as well as owners of truck and bus fleets, that appointments are now being made for early to mid-September. That is almost five months, and it is a totally unreasonable period of time for one to wait to have his or her licence upgraded to class A or class B.

Many of those applying for class B licences are women who wish to drive school buses on either a part-time or full-time basis. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications, by procrastinating on this problem, is preventing these people from earning an income. Many women, particularly in rural Ontario, drive school buses, thus not only providing a service but also contributing to the family cash flow.

My colleagues and I urge that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications provide additional staff in all areas, particularly throughout rural Ontario, to ensure that the waiting time to upgrade one's licence to class A or class B does not exceed 30 days. This is a most serious problem and it demands an immediate increase in staff at the driver examination level of MTC.

ONTARIO HUMANE SOCIETY

Mr. Warner: I do not know how anyone who would call his pets Strawberry Shortcake and Blueberry Muffin could refuse the necessary funds to the Ontario Humane Society so that it, in turn, can protect the animals in our province. I urge the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to reconsider and to provide the necessary funds. His pets, Strawberry Shortcake and Blueberry Muffin, I am sure, will appreciate the kind attention that will be afforded to the other pets.

BUS ACCIDENT

Mr. Offer: It is a pleasure to rise and participate in this new proceeding of the House. I view this as an opportunity not only to bring forward matters of concern but also to acknowledge and commend publicly the work of individuals, organizations and associations.

As we know, about three weeks ago a bus travelling from Buffalo, New York, to the Metro Toronto Zoo was involved in a traffic accident on the Queen Elizabeth Way as it travelled through the city of Mississauga. This accident left many persons injured, some less so than others. However, two people badly injured had been impaled by a steel pole.

I would like to commend publicly the work done by the medics and ambulance services of Mississauga and all the hospital staff involved in meeting the immediate demands of this accident. They acted efficiently, promptly, and maybe most important, sensitively to the nature of the injuries sustained.

In the final result, in no small measure because of the outstanding effort of all involved, no lives were lost.

WINE PRICING

Mr. Partington: I am pleased with the recent announcement by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) that the government has entered into an agreement to provide a new pricing structure for wines sold in Ontario, an agreement based on the proposals contained in the Niagara accord. You will recall that last October I introduced a private member's resolution urging the government to accept the proposals contained in the Niagara accord. I am pleased it has finally done so.

The new pricing structure will help the Ontario wine industry and the grape growers recapture their lost market share. Generally, lower wine prices should please the consumers. More important, the new pricing structure provides an opportunity for the wine industry to do what is necessary -- and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) should listen carefully -- to attain the competitiveness, stability, recognition and prosperity it so justly deserves.

The grape growers and the wine industry will seize the opportunity, Ontario and its consumers will be the beneficiaries, and the minister can now taste good Ontario product with a clear mind.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to put in my two cents' worth on the subject of the 37 cents that is missing from the dollar that women earn in this province. In spite of fine words from the Liberals, all we have seen so far is a bill to effect equal pay for 29,000 of the almost two million women in Ontario's paid labour force. At best, that is a one and a half per cent solution for the problem of unequal pay.

I would like to make a comparison. Right now, this government is equivocating on the issue of extra billing. The doctors are threatening to withdraw their services if they are not allowed to charge more than the negotiated fee schedule. Compare that with the situation of women. Women want to be put on the same fee schedule as men: not more, just the same; equal pay for work of equal value.

What would the government do if women decided to withdraw their services? What if every woman in Ontario on a given day decided she felt sick about unequal pay and called in and explained she felt so sick about pay inequity that she would not be coming to work? This province would grind to a halt. This government should take note that the government of Iceland had to move very quickly to provide equal pay protection after just such an action by the women of Iceland. We are facing an ice jam in Ontario, and we are not prepared to wait patiently any longer. We are feeling ill about pay inequities.

GREEK ORTHODOX EASTER

Ms. Hart: I rise for the first time to bring to the attention of this House a very important occasion in York East and across Ontario. On Sunday, May 4, the highest holiday of all, Easter, is celebrated in the Greek Orthodox community.

As you know, Easter symbolizes the rebirth and rejuvenation of the earth each year. It is a time of rejoicing, celebrated in the Greek Orthodox community by the ceremonial roasting of a lamb. I look forward to sharing in this celebration. First, however, I want to take this opportunity to wish all Ontarians of Greek descent, "Kalo Pascha," which I am informed by my Greek friends in York East means "a very happy Easter."

2:10 p.m.

FARM EQUIPMENT

Mr. Pollock: As most of the members are aware, farming has one of the highest fatality rates, second only to mining in this province. In 1985, there were 27 accidental farm deaths it Ontario, nine of which directly resulted from tractor rollovers.

In north Hastings this past weekend, an Oshawa man became another statistic when the tractor he was driving flipped over and pinned him underneath. This tragic incident emphasizes once again the need for improvements to existing and new farm equipment. The addition of a cat or rollover bar for farm vehicles, particularly tractors, would no doubt have saved some o these individuals' lives.

I wish to take this opportunity to urge the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to introduce legislation to allow for reimbursement to farmers who install rollover bars or protective cabs or their farm machinery.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Philip: Yesterday, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling), in responding to my concern about the demolition of a building in Etobicoke, promised yet more studies. During his studies, he should have discovered two research papers and a private member's bill that would have solved the problem for him. The research papers were done in 1983 and 1984 by the Liberal research office. The bill, Bill 128, was introduced in 1984 by the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson).

The vacancy rate of rental apartments in the city of Etobicoke is less than one in 1,000. While in opposition, the Liberals did research that the minister could have implemented 10 months ago. They are very slow to implement in government what they preached in opposition. It is time for the minister to act before those tenants are evicted this Saturday in Etobicoke, and I ask him to do so immediately.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SOVIET REACTOR

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The events at the nuclear power plant in the Ukraine have claimed the attention of the world and are of grave concern to us. In making this statement today, I wish to express this Legislature's concern for the welfare of those living in the vicinity of the plant.

At this time, it is not clear what the cause and extent may be of the accident at the Chernobyl power plant. However, it is evident that an accident of major proportions has taken place. In all likelihood, it will be many months before a clear picture of the incident is available and an assessment can be made of how we may all learn from the event. However, there are some points that can be made now.

First, it should be clear that the accident does not pose an immediate threat to the safety of the people in Ontario, nor is it likely that there will be any significant implications for the health of Canadians, even in the long term. Members will be aware that the federal Minister of the Environment has ordered increased testing of atmospheric radioactivity across Canada as a means of assessing any possible effects on Canadians.

Second, despite the lack of detailed information about the Soviet reactor itself, it is nevertheless possible to state that the Soviet design differs in fundamental ways from the Candu reactor we operate in this province. It is important that the people of Ontario recognize that the fire that appears to be burning in the graphite core of the Soviet reactor and, in retrospect, may be a major contributor to the magnitude of the event, is not possible in a Candu reactor. The other major difference is that the Russian design does not provide for containment of radioactivity in the event of an accident, as does our Candu reactor.

A detailed comparison between the two reactor systems may show other areas of significant difference. The chairman of Ontario Hydro has forwarded to me a letter which I am tabling in the House. The chairman provides more detailed comments on the differences and advises that he has contacted the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa to extend an offer of technical assistance to the Soviets should such assistance be requested.

Let us not lose sight of the long experience that we have in this country and that Ontario Hydro in particular has in the operation of nuclear power reactors at the Pickering and Bruce nuclear stations. During the course of the past 20 years, Ontario Hydro and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. have worked hard to make the Candu system reliable and safe. Ontario Hydro has achieved an excellent record of protecting its workers from radiation, and I believe this expertise may be of assistance to the Soviet authorities at this time.

In the longer term, events such as those occurring at Chernobyl and as happened at Three Mile Island cause a reassessment of safety procedures and safety systems and designs. I wish to assure the House that those ministries and agencies in this province with responsibilities for nuclear safety will be working closely together for the next few months with the international nuclear community to learn and apply whatever lessons there may be from this most unfortunate accident at Chernobyl.

I will report further to the Legislature on this matter as more information becomes available.

Mr. Rae: I want to take the opportunity to say to the Minister of Energy that we shall be addressing some of these issues in question period. We do not find the comments or remarks he has made satisfactory in terms of the extent of the problem. In particular, they are unsatisfactory in respect of the reality that this government has to make a decision as to whether Ontario will become 70 per cent nuclear dependent, or whether we in this province will find a more balanced mix of electrical generation.

That decision has been on top of the cabinet's desk for nearly a year. It is there that a decision needs to be made; it can be made and it must be made. In our view, a decision must be made in favour of a more balanced approach to electrical generation, not this overdependence on one source.

All of us who listened to the news last night heard the representations from Ontario Hydro. We have the extensive reports that have been done with respect to the systems that are in place at Pickering, Bruce, Rolphton and elsewhere. We know the facts that have been put forward by Ontario Hydro.

The issue that currently is squarely in the government's court is not simply on the question of safety, although we shall be coming to that, but what the future mix of electrical generation will be in this province. That is a decision which the minister did not refer to today. He is going to have to face up to it. We are profoundly disappointed in the statement he made today. He chose not to deal with that issue.

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The Wheel-Trans Labour Dispute Settlement Act, 1986, which received royal assent last Friday, provides for the appointment of a single arbitrator to decide upon the matters in dispute between All-Way Transportation Corp. and Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union.

I am pleased to advise the House today that Howard Brown of Burlington, Ontario has agreed to serve as arbitrator and his appointment has been made today.

A former vice-chairman of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, Mr. Brown is an experienced and highly respected adjudicator who has done private arbitration on a full-time basis since 1969. His experience includes interest and rights adjudication. He has also acted as both mediator and chairman of boards of conciliation appointed by the Minister of Labour.

I am pleased that Mr. Brown was prepared to accept this important assignment.

Mr. Harris: Very briefly, I want to congratulate the Minister of Labour on appointing an arbitrator as quickly as he has been able to in the Wheel-Trans labour dispute. We think it is important that business commence right away. I hope he also instructed the arbitrator to ignore the very ill-founded comments made by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) who said he does not agree with wage parity as a method of resolving disputes.

PROCESSING PLANT

Hon. Mr. Riddell: In view of the telephone calls my office has been receiving this morning and the rather confusing articles appearing in today's newspapers, I am obligated to take this opportunity to clear up confusion created by the inaccurate and irresponsible statement made in the House yesterday by the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) about the Southern Ontario Tomato Co-operative. This has led to false newspaper reports, including one in the London Free Press which quotes me as making the announcement. This, in turn, has raised false expectations and unnecessary concerns.

The fact is that the province is still awaiting confirmation in writing from the federal government on the amount and type of financial assistance for the co-operative. Senior members of my ministry are meeting with staff of the Honourable John Wise in Ottawa today to find out precisely what capital commitment the federal government is prepared to make and when it will be forthcoming. As of this moment, we do not have written confirmation from Ottawa.

We are working closely with the tomato co-op. I stress that no one on my staff has informed the co-op that funding will flow, as was stated yesterday by the member for Durham-York. We also want to see whether Ottawa is prepared to offer protection to the tomato paste industry against cheap offshore imports so the co-op has chance to be competitive.

2:20 p.m.

While the province is anxious to be of assistance, we feel these matters must be clarified. Details are still being worked out. We are still waiting for confirmation that the co-op has lined up bank loans. We also want to examine any terms and conditions of these loans.

Unlike the member for Durham-York, I will not make irresponsible statements in or out of this House. The member does no service to the tomato co-op by playing political games and creating--

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the minister continue?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The member does no service to the Southern Ontario Tomato Cooperative by playing political games and creating undue expectations before negotiations are completed. This behaviour is reminiscent of the member's actions during the short time he spent as Minister of Agriculture and Food when he made promises without the dollars to back them up.

Furthermore, I am forwarding this matter to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to see whether such mischief is an appropriate use of members' statements.

Mr. Stevenson: I would like to respond to the statement just made by the Minister of Agriculture and Food. When it comes to irresponsible statements, there is one member of the House from whom virtually all the rest of us can take lessons.

The Southern Ontario Tomato Co-operative met with the ministry staff in July 1985 and with the minister on August 23, 1985, when it presented him with approximately a 100-page document, informing him of its intentions and how that organization would be established.

I was contacted by sources both in Ottawa and at the tomato co-op to see whether I could get some sort of action out of the provincial minister. My sources in Ottawa inform me that there was a public commitment made to the tomato co-op. I have been verbally informed that there was a letter of intent written with a commitment of $1.5 million from the federal government, conditional on a $1-million funding from the province. I believe the letter was signed in the third week of February.

There is no question that the tomato co-op got a phone call on Monday morning. Since we had worked on the question last week, it called on Monday morning to tell me that funding would flow. It did not want me to be embarrassed in the House when the minister stood up and admitted the funding could flow as a result of my question. It was obvious that the minister knew nothing of what had been going on behind the scenes and was not aware that the phone call had been made. It took me a few hours to figure out what the heck was going on, from what I knew about the issue and the response to his question.

It is also my information that staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food were in Ottawa yesterday -- not just today -- working out the particulars of this program. There is great pressure right now. The tomato co-op cannot establish the final structure of the project and will not know exactly how to set up its corporate structure until it gets the financial backing. It has pretty good bank commitments, but until the province decides what it is going to do, it does not know exactly how it will be set up. It has contracts to let for this production year.

From the co-op and from Ottawa, it is very clear that the minister has been dragging his feet for months. To the best of my knowledge from all the information I have been able to obtain on the issue since last Thursday, the statement I made in the House yesterday is correct. I must say the phone caller did not commit himself to $1 million; he just said that funding would be flowing.

Mr. Ramsay: I want to address the announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I feel a little pasty having this responsibility today, but it really is a juicy topic and I think I can squeeze a bit out of it.

To cut through all the shenanigans that have happened here between the two members of the House, the important thing is if we had an agricultural food policy, this basic tenet of import replacement would be a main part of that policy. It is something our party encourages. We have $25 million worth of paste coming into this country every year and it is something in which we could be self-sufficient and we should be striving towards that. Not only would it encourage more growth in the tomato industry as far as farmers are concerned, but also there are a lot of good processing jobs that add value to this product. This is what we should be striving towards. I encourage the minister to help this co-op and do it as quickly as possible.

COMMISSION ON ELECTION CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENSES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On behalf of the government, I am pleased, in fact delighted, to announce the appointment of Donald C. MacDonald as chairman of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses for a period of three years, commencing May 1, 1986.

Mr. MacDonald has had a distinguished career in the Legislature and as leader of his party. We all know he will serve the province well in this new position, to which he brings a sense of fairness and a commitment to open participation in the political process. In so doing, he will keep a close eye on his former colleagues.

Mr. MacDonald will be located in the commission offices at 151 Bloor Street West. I know he and his staff--the senior staff are in the gallery this afternoon--will continue to welcome members of the Legislature there.

Mr. Harris: I want to comment very briefly on the appointment of Donald C. MacDonald as chairman of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses. Our party welcomes the appointment. We think he is very deserving and will do a good job. We agree with the comment that he will bring a sense of fairness and commitment to open participation in the political process.

I say with a little bit of regret that I believe the current government has cast a cloud over the appointment. Because I hold Mr. MacDonald in such high esteem, I regret the government has cast such a cloud by bringing forth an obvious patronage appointment in this manner before the Legislature to live up to the accord in such a blatant manner.

This government announced it would set up a committee to review these appointments. We welcome that. We think it is needed and we are in support of that. Now it is rushing through the patronage appointments as fast as it can so it will not have to deal with the committee in an open and fair way.

We wish Mr. MacDonald well. We are with him. I regret the way the government is carrying on business.

Mr. Rae: First, on behalf of our party, I want to say Mr. MacDonald's career has taken on yet another fascinating aspect. He is somebody who has contributed to the public life of this province for more than 30 years, somebody who is known to all members of all parties and somebody whose contribution to the public life of this province has been without parallel. It is an appointment that I know from personal knowledge was discussed at length among all three parties and had the consent of all three parties. In that spirit, I want to congratulate Mr. MacDonald.

I regard the comments by the member for Nipissing as something that could only stem from an ignorance of the process of what went on with respect to this appointment. He could not have said what he said if he had understood the nature of the process. For him to have made the comments he made will be seen as singularly inappropriate. The appointment was one that was discussed among all three parties and one that was agreed to by all three parties, as is appropriate. If I may say so, it was a process of consultation that in my experience is far more extensive than anything I have been involved in as leader under the previous Tory administration. The process of consultation with respect to this appointment is unlike that which I have personally seen with respect to two other appointments with which I was associated: that of the Ombudsman, Mr. Hill, and that of the current chairman of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses, Mr. Aiken, a former Tory MP for the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka.

It is important to put those facts on the record. I wanted to state that very clearly and categorically.

2:30 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PREMIER'S LETTER

Mr. O'Connor: I have a question of the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet. The minister recently sent a letter, signed by the Premier (Mr. Peterson), to all of the provincial court judges along with their latest pay packet. The letter addresses the provincial court judges as civil servants, and it reminds them of their duty to "directly implement government programs."

Do the minister and this government not yet understand that our judges are not civil servants; that not only are they independent of the executive branch but they also must be seen to be independent of the executive branch?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: A letter was sent out by the Premier to all those receiving cheques from the Ministry of Government Services payroll system. The letter was enclosed to everyone receiving those cheques. As provincial court judges receive their cheques through that process, they received a letter along with everyone else.

Mr. O'Connor: If I might quote further from the letter, it says: "Your accomplishments should be recognized and rewarded. To do this we must identify the best ways to encourage those who consistently meet their objectives and provide exceptional service to the people of Ontario. Of course, poor performance must also be directly addressed."

What programs and what methods of assessment does this government have in mind for judging the judges on their work? Is it suggesting that perhaps there should be a quota system for guilty findings by these judges?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Yes, Mr. Speaker

Some hon. members: Yes?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The answer to the question is that the letter was sent out, as I stated, to everyone receiving cheques from the government payroll system. The judges received theirs. It was a recognition by this government of the very professional and good service we have received from the very professional and good civil servants.

However, as members know, whenever mass mailings are undertaken and letters are distributed in that manner, some inadvertently are sent to the judges. I will ensure that does not occur in the future.

Mr. O'Connor: The real question is, does the minister feel this kind of propaganda to civil servants, be they judges or otherwise, at the taxpayers' expense is appropriate in these circumstances?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I think it is very appropriate for the government to communicate with people serving the government as employees. Let me respond to the member in this way: I receive much mail on a personal basis, even some from the Tory party soliciting funds. If they were to check their lists, they might find errors in their mailings in sending that material to a good Liberal member such as myself. These things happen occasionally. I will ensure they do not happen in the future.

ELEVATOR ACCIDENTS

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. According to the press today, the minister has announced another study, this time on joyriding on elevators. Problems with elevators have been rampant for at least half a year and have included two teen-age deaths.

Interjections.

Mr. Runciman: I will send over a chronology to remind the members on that side of the House.

Mr. Mancini: You should be embarrassed.

Mr. Runciman: The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) should be embarrassed. He has lot of things to be embarrassed about. Will the minister tell this House why it has taken him so long to react to this urgent situation?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member raises a serious problem that we are very concerned about and are very active in trying to resolve. He should know it is not something flippant; it is a very serious problem. The more one talks about it, the more one adds to the problem. We have talked to professionals. Elevators are not meant to be ridden from on top of the cabs. Notwithstanding that, unfortunately, some youngsters are doing it. We are trying to resolve the problem. I have groups looking at it. I am very concerned about it and we are addressing the problem.

Mr. Runciman: It is astounding. He refers to talking about it. Why is the minister's face in the paper this morning talking about it? The minister was faster than a speeding bullet in getting his name on all the elevators across this province. We all know that. That says something about his priorities.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I again say to the members they are wasting their own time.

Mr. Runciman: Will the minister agree -- I guess he will not, but I am going to ask him anyway -- that rather than waiting for the results of this study he has initiated, he should embark immediately on a hard-hitting public awareness campaign aimed at teenagers and telling them there is no joy in joyriding?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to point out to the member that he had the honour of being the shortest-lived Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It was for a period of less than a month, and his name appears on several elevators around the province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind all members that we might hear the questions faster and get to the replies faster without too much editorial comment.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It is a very serious problem. Without trying to be flippant, it requires a vast solution and not a half-vast solution.

Mr. Runciman: The ministry has been approached several times, starting in early March, by the makers of an anti-tampering device for elevators. Has the minister met with these people and if not, why not?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The officials of the technical standards branch of my ministry have been meeting on this problem constantly. We are trying to come up with a solution that works. It is a very difficult solution because one has to understand that any solution that might solve that problem might create more problems than it solved. People go into those elevators and have to get out in emergencies. People have to service them. It is a very difficult problem to resolve.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Energy in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson). The minister was one of the members of this Legislature who in 1980 signed a report entitled The Safety of Ontario's Nuclear Reactors. Recommendation X of that report states: "The AECB should commission a study to analyse the likelihood and consequences of a catastrophic accident in a Candu reactor. The study should be directed by recognized experts outside the AECB, AECL and Ontario Hydro. It should be funded by a special grant from the federal government. If this study is not commissioned by July 31, 1980, the province of Ontario should ensure that it is undertaken."

As a result of conversations with the Atomic Energy Control Board, it is our understanding that this specific study requested by the Legislature of Ontario has not been undertaken. Other studies have; a specific study of this nature has not. Is it the view of the Minister of Energy that such a study would be worth while, and if so, will he see that it is undertaken by the government of this province?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes, I was on that committee during most of its tenure. Those recommendations were put forward to the previous government. I am not suggesting they did not do anything about it, but it appears obvious that it did not happen. In view of the circumstance that has everyone in the world kind of standing still, I am willing to take into account any suggestion from all sides of this House as to what we should be doing in Ontario, the province that has the largest involvement of Candu reactors in Canada.

In speaking to the leader of the third party and in reflecting on that kind of commitment made that far back, that will be taken into account as I examine all the ramifications of this tragedy in the next few days. I do not think the honourable member expects me to give him an immediate yes-or-no answer, but I hope I can convince him those things that need to be done will be done.

Mr. Rae: It is difficult to ask the Minister of Energy; perhaps if he cannot answer, he can redirect it to the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes). I was going to address all these questions to the Premier, but in view of his absence, I cannot. I will address the question to the minister, and if he feels he cannot answer, he can redirect.

It is our understanding, and we stand to be corrected if we are not right, that Ontario has a draft nuclear emergency plan for Pickering, of which I have a copy dated April 1985, but there is no such plan for the Bruce area, that the plan for Pickering is still only in the draft stage and does not provide any direct procedures for alerting the public, and that in neither the Bruce nor the Pickering area are there plans in place today with respect to the alerting of the public.

Is the minister aware of the progress being made in the development of such plans, and for the sake of those citizens who have been asking all of us in public life, can he tell us precisely what measures are in place in Ontario and what is being done with respect to those living in the vicinity of those plants?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think I very properly answered the first part of the question, but I will redirect to the Solicitor General, who has that responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: There was an old plan in 1979. It had many shortcomings. It was revised in late 1985. That has gone through the cabinet committee on emergency planning. It has been before cabinet and has been accepted in principle by cabinet, and it will be promulgated through an order in council in the very near future. It takes into account a general emergency plan for all of Ontario, but it does have in it an opportunity and means whereby the public can be well informed of any disaster.

By way of a supplementary answer, before I get it--

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the answer. There has not been a final supplementary placed.

Mr. Rae: Since I often do not know what I am going to ask, it is refreshing to have a minister who seems to know that before I do. My final supplementary is to the Minister of Energy, if that is possible.

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not possible.

Mr. Rae: I will go back to the Solicitor General in that case. Can the minister tell us specifically whether there are plans, both with respect to Pickering and with respect to Bruce, and precisely what measures are in place for alerting the public?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: We had a plan with regard to a potential disaster at Pickering last year, a very active plan in which many thousands o people took part. That plan is well in hand.

In September 1986 we have another plan for the Bruce nuclear generating station which will test the capacity of the province to respond to an emergency. In general, the plan does look out well for the safety of all citizens of Ontario.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: In view of the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who apparently has been playing the lead role in this, I would like to ask the Minister of Health whether he is in a position to answer these questions with respect to the extra billing question.

I am receiving letters daily from people who are being extra billed; I am sure the minister is a well. I have one here from someone who is paying on behalf of his father, a resident of a nursing home in Sudbury, a request for payment of a bill from a doctor. I would like to ask the minister whether he would consider sitting down with the Ontario Medical Association and putting to the OMA the simple proposition that there should be, as of today, a moratorium on extra billing so patients in this province should not suffer as a result of the inability of the government of Ontario to make up its own mind with respect to bringing in legislation on extra billing.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am in a position to answer that question and to tell this Legislature that we have made up our minds on the issue. Extra billing will be ended. That is the position of this government, it has been, it will be and we will carry it through.

With respect to the question at hand, am suggestions that any member has regarding moving ahead in discussions and negotiations with the OMA will be placed in front of out negotiating group. I will ask them if they will effect this moratorium and look forward to their reply.

I am also in a position to tell the members that at this stage we hope to receive a new set of written proposals from the OMA when we are able to sit down again in our next meeting. I am looking forward to those discussions continuing.

Mr. Rae: I am sure the minister will recognize that since the election of May 2, when a majority of this Legislature was elected on the principle that extra billing should not take place, patients in Ontario have been billed somewhere in excess of $40 million. As far as we know, they are still being billed at a rate of roughly $1 million per week.

Can the minister tell precisely what steps the government intends to take to ensure that delay no longer will be the friend of extra billing, but extra billing can come to an end because that is the commitment of this Legislature? We think it is improper and something that should not be happening in the province.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The friend of this Legislature and the friend of the public in Ontario is to continue to discuss and negotiate this matter with the profession, to resolve this question in the best method possible and to come to grips with dealing with the situation here in Ontario. We will not delay any longer if we find there is no progress being made. I can tell this Legislature that, in fact, we have made progress. When talks are going on and when new proposals are being expected, we can gladly say the public is being well served by working towards an amicable solution to this problem.

Mr. Rae: The bromide statement the minister has just delivered may make him feel better, but it does not contribute at all to the state of health of this province with respect to the question of extra billing.

How can he tell patients who at this very moment are receiving extra bills for $10, $20, $30, $50, $100, $150, $200 or $300 that this need not happen and will not happen? What assurance can he give those patients? Why has it taken his government 10 months to end the delay, the frustration and the poor morale that are affecting the health care system of this province as a result of its dithering on this issue? Does he not realize this is what is happening because of the delay?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have to disagree with my friend. In fact, there is no dithering. Action has been taken. We have moved to introduce the bill. At one point we had received indications that there would never be discussions between the government and the OMA. In fact, that has been overcome. We have had those discussions. We are having those discussions. We are putting together written proposals. We are hoping to get new proposals from that group very shortly, and we will continue to deal with this problem in a very sensitive manner.

Those patients who feel there are problems ought to go directly to their physician. They can go to their physician, as they have been told. They can come to me, and I will do my best as well to intercede for those people.

I can tell the honourable gentlemen that, from my standpoint, we are moving on this issue in the most sensitive and most sensible manner possible for the people and the public of Ontario.

INSECTICIDES

Mr. Harris: Will the Minister of the Environment share with the House any evidence the Ministry of the Environment has on the effectiveness and environmental impacts of chemical versus biological insecticides?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In terms of insecticides, is the honourable member talking about forestry?

Mr. Harris: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Of course, opinion is divided on this. There are those who represent ridings in northwestern Ontario who hold a certain point of view on these and feel they can be more effective in certain instances than the bacillus thuringiensis. Those people made known their point of view, as did the people who are in favour of Bt, at the open houses that were conducted by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio).

As the member is aware, the government has made a decision that it will use Bt, as the Minister of Natural Resources has announced, to combat the problems that are confronted by those who are specifically interested in forestry products that have been assaulted by various pests.

We will continue to have those in the industry who indicate they would prefer specific chemicals to be used and we will have those who would prefer to see Bt used, most of whom are not within the industry itself. I know that when the member consults with his caucus colleagues, those from northwestern Ontario may have certain views and those from other areas of the province may have other views.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It seems like a very comprehensive answer.

Mr. Harris: It was very comprehensive, but I was interested in what the ministry thought. I know what everybody else thinks, and I realize that opinion is divided.

I am surprised, now that chemical spraying has been identified as one of the major causes of toxic rain, or at least a very significant cause, that this ministry does not have a viewpoint on this and is relying on what some think and what some others think.

I wonder whether his ministry -- not others --agrees with Errol Caldwell, program director for chemical control agents of the Forest Pest Management Institute. He says, "We have done quite a bit of work with Bt at the institute. We found Bt as effective as chemical products." Does the minister agree with Errol Caldwell's statement?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member has now clarified his question so that I understand what he was getting at. The first question appeared to be designed to elicit an answer he may have been looking for. I wanted to explain to him the two sides of that issue.

However, since the member has asked for a viewpoint on the specific product Bt, I believe Bt is a very effective product to use. We have seen evidence of that in the past. Yes, it does require the insect actually to consume the Bt before it dies. As the member knows, it has been effective, particularly in the proper weather conditions. I feel Bt is a very effective agent, and our government is using it this year.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Labour, my friend Russell Ramsay-Wrye, arising out of a memo dated May 6, 1985, by Walter Melinyshyn, and containing this statement: "An existing `G' file of 18 months or more may, for the purpose of expedition, be placed directly to the `on-call cycle 99' without a file review by completing a code 11 report for submission to the manager." I do not know what that means.

Can I ask the minister what this means? Does this mean that once a firm is placed under a code 99, it will never again be subject to regular inspections, that code 99 files will react only to injuries or work-place refusals and that plants will not be visited to determine new procedures and to check on their accident and health and safety programs? Indeed, is this not a policy aimed at crisis management?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I do not know what code 99 means either; I will be candid in saying that to my friend. The honourable member knows that inspections of various firms, depending on their accident frequency and the danger of the work in which they are involved, can be on anywhere from a three-month cycle to a 36-month cycle. To be quite candid with the Legislature, with 200,000 firms in Ontario, it is obvious that not every firm gets a visit even within that 36-month period.

I can only say to my friend and to all the other members of the Legislature that in the last little while this government has attempted and will continue to attempt to put more resources into the occupational health and safety division, both in the inspectorate for the preliminary inspections done by the industrial, mining and construction health and safety branches and in the occupational health area, an area in which our knowledge has exploded and in which we need to have not only new experts but also additional training.

Those matters are no longer under active review. Additional hiring is taking place and additional training is being put into place. I hope we can continue to visit not only the most dangerous work places of Ontario but also all work places just as often as we can. It is a very difficult job, given the 2,000 work places.

Mr. Martel: Since the minister has indicated that some companies will not be inspected as frequently, I would like to quote from another encyclical just put out by the ministry.

Mr. Speaker: I hope it is a very brief quote.

Mr. Martel: It is a very brief quote: "For the purpose of this policy, inspections are defined as routine inspections to audit the internal responsibility system. Activities of division staff not considered routine inspection include a whole series of exclusions." What is happening--

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Martel: I am coming to the question.

Mr. Speaker: I hope so.

3 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I know you are trying to be helpful. I can tell that you are trying to be helpful.

Does this new policy -- the second one, with the ministry's code 99 policy, which is eliminating the cyclical inspections and all these listed in the latest encyclical -- mean that no inspections will occur without prior notice? What we now have is intervention when companies advise the ministry what is going on.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I know my friend is on the kick of prior notification, his suggestion being that this is what is happening. We have put out policy on prior notification that is as tight as possible in ensuring that when the inspection take place, and thousands take place every year there will be no prior notification. I am sure my friend and the members of the House in general understand that there may have to be prior notification in the tightest of circumstances; for example, when testing is about to occur. We want to be able to duplicate conditions in the plant. We may disagree--

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, I have been timing this and it is taking a little too long.

HOUSING STOCK

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Housing. Some 40 per cent of new homes in Ontario are not completed on time. What steps does the minister plan to take to assist new home buyers in this regard?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is the housing boom.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The question the member raises is of concern to us, of course. As my colleague just commented, this is part of the housing boom that is happening. There is concern about getting enough labourers, bricklayers and what have you, to complete the housing starts. The matter has been discussed with my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) and we are looking into it.

Mr. Runciman: We hear a lot of, "We are looking into it." In many municipalities--Mississauga, Brampton and Ottawa, to name a few -- this situation has reached crisis proportions. The minister has had the better part of a year to do something about it and he has done nothing. I will use two future Oakville residents as examples. Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Noonan, with one son, have been waiting 14 months for their new home. Mr. and Mrs. Robert Rizzuto, with two children, have been waiting 10 months. Will the minister assure the House he will try to get an appointment with his leader or with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to find out how to handle this important issue?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The matter is not in the hands of the Attorney General or the leader. As I expressed to the member, we are looking into the matter. It is a very complex matter. The builders have indicated to me the shortage of bricks and adequate labour. It is a compounded problem, and we are looking into the matter.

INTERVENER FUNDING

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Attorney General. The speech from the throne promised there would be assistance for groups and individuals seeking to intervene before administrative tribunals. When can we expect to see such legislation introduced and when can we assure groups that are participating in these expensive hearings that they are no longer going to have to have bake sales and membership drives to finance their participation?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the member for the question. Some ad hoc funding has been provided from time to time. If there are any bake sales taking place, I would be glad to hear about them so that we can see funding is provided on that basis. The speech did contain that reference. We are working on a policy. When it has been examined by cabinet, I will be delighted to let the honourable member know.

Mrs. Grier: There is a very clear policy and some criteria for intervener funding, with which I am sure the Attorney General is familiar. These are the criteria that were followed by the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry in 1977.

Could the Attorney General tell the House whether, as counsel for that inquiry, he had any difficulty with the principles and the policy on intervener funding and whether he is drafting legislation based on those very important principles?

Hon. Mr. Scott: While I agree that the criteria the commission followed were in every respect excellent, they were more appropriate perhaps for northern Canada than they are for the south. As the member will remember well, they required public interest groups which were different in origin to coalesce for the purpose of hearings, a process that might not be acceptable in Ontario. However, we are looking at those and at other criteria, and a policy will be announced in due course.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. For the purposes of determining costs no longer borne, how will a tenant determine the financing costs of the landlord? Which of those costs were used in determining the rent increase?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I remind the honourable member that the report from the tenants and landlords was submitted to me recently. That issue was addressed. I will comment on that as soon as we get a chance to assess the proposal they put forth.

Mr. Gordon: This report was described by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) as historic, one that would be incorporated into Bill 78. The minister has made laudatory remarks about it. Perhaps he would share with this House what mechanisms will be put in place to facilitate a tenant's appeal of the rental review advisory board.

Hon. Mr. Curling: To begin with, the historic part about it is that we were able to get the landlords and tenants to sit down and address the issue. The member does not recognize that as historic, but we do. There are tenants and landlords who have been in the building industry for years who have never met a Minister of Housing, and the Conservatives had many in the past. The Premier made his comments, I presume, from his reading.

Mr. Gordon: Did the minister not read it?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The Premier has a right to make his comments.

We are sitting down and assessing all the proposals before us. Then we will make our presentation and my friend will have his time to make his comments in committee too.

APARTMENT CONVERSIONS

Ms. Gigantes: My question is also to the Minister of Housing. I am not sure whether I should address the question to the Minister of Housing or to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), but I will start with the Minister of Housing who has been standing in this House and telling us for the last week or so to hold our breath because action is coming on the urgent problem of the haemorrhaging of our precious affordable rental housing.

Will the Minister of Housing tell us the government's policy to prevent conversions by severance and conversions to apartment hotels? What will that policy be?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I presume I will take that question.

As with many neglected issues, this government would like to resolve this issue immediately. I am also very mindful of the fact that there are people, such as tenants and prospective buyers, who are concerned and who are wondering where they stand on this issue. Having said all that--

An. hon. member: The minister has not said anything yet.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I did that deliberately so my colleagues over there would understand where we are coming from. I will be making an announcement very shortly to address all the issues the member raised.

Mr. Ashe: The New Democratic Party should have put the minister in the accord.

Mr. McClellan: We tried to write him out of the accord.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will wait until the members are finished talking among themselves.

3:10 p.m.

Ms. Gigantes: I know that the minister will have talked to his colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who comes from the Ottawa area. We know now from the press the deal that has been made is that we are going to stop condominium conversions threatening high-rises in Toronto, and that is great. I am sure the Minister of Municipal Affairs will speak to the same issue with a great deal of urgency because of the thousands of units we have lost from affordable rental housing. I do not want to see those tenants losing more units when we have to pay good money to provide them with alternative housing.

Hon. Mr. Curling: If the question is there, I would not like to see them losing, either.

DEBRIS FROM ACCIDENT

Mr. Barlow: My question today is for the Solicitor General. There has been a large pile of debris sitting on both sides of Highway 401 in the westbound lane at kilometre marker 305, which I understand to be the contents of an American semi-trailer from Ohio that was involved in a multi-vehicle accident back on February 7.

Would the Solicitor General be kind enough to tell us why, nearly three full months after that accident, this debris, which I am told is aluminum chloride, is still sitting along Highway 401 and the Ontario Provincial Police to this date has not been successful in persuading the American insurance broker or agent to have that pile cleaned up?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: Not to be flippant, but I was almost going to ask the member to tell me why he thought it was the responsibility of the Solicitor General to clean up something along the side of Highway 401. It is a matter that might be more appropriately directed to either the Ministry of Transportation and Communications or the Ministry of the Environment.

I thought perhaps it might have been the remnants of the parkway that was demolished there just a short while ago, but I know that was well collected by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

I have no indication of why they have not succeeded. Again, while I consider it to be outside the realm of my ministry, I will attempt to get an answer for the member.

Mr. Barlow: As a supplementary--

Mr. Speaker: The minister said it was outside the realm of his ministry. I understood the question to be, why has the OPP not been successful. Under those circumstances I will allow you to ask a supplementary.

Mr. Barlow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased that you were listening to my question. Nearly three months have gone past. It is the OPP that is involved. There is mismanagement among the OPP -- the Ministry of the Solicitor General, that is -- the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. None of those ministries has taken responsibility to have this mess cleaned up. I want to know why this industrial by-product has been allowed to remain alongside the road for three full months.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I will be happy to take it under advisement, find an answer from whichever ministry bears the responsibility and provide it as soon as possible.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Labour about Algoma Steel's new announcement this week that it will be shutting down its seamless tube mill in May, resulting in the loss of an additional 350 jobs for an indefinite period on top of the 1,500 jobs we discussed at length on Monday. In this case, workers with up to 29 years' seniority, dating back to the startup of the mill in 1957, are being laid off.

Has he investigated the actions being taken by Algoma Steel? What, specifically, is his ministry doing to protect the workers at Algoma? Why has he not yet contacted union officials in regard to this serious matter?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to advise the honourable member that this minister, officials in my ministry and all of the cabinet members of the government take these problems at Algoma, and indeed the whole variety of problems in the north, with a great deal of seriousness and concern. We are looking for answers, not only in the short term but also in the long term.

Yesterday I met with John Macnamara, the chairman of Algoma, and we had a substantive discussion about Monday's announcement of the latest indefinite layoffs. I also want to advise the member that over the noon hour today, myself and my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) met with Leo Gérard, the director of District 6, and local officials of the steelworkers union and explored with them, in a preliminary way, the request they have made for details from the company on the need for these reductions. We indicated to the union that we are prepared to help bring the parties together to make sure that the union is given the ability to find out all it needs to know as to why these drastic cutbacks are necessary.

Mr. Morin-Strom: As to specific action the minister could be involved in, he must be concerned about his ministry's ineffectiveness in protecting workers from massive layoffs and the fact that, for example, less than five per cent of layoffs ever result in severance pay compensation to workers. Steel plant workers have recall rights preventing them from collecting severance pay. In the case of tenure employees, those recall rights are permanent, so they would never be eligible for severance pay.

Will the minister immediately introduce amendments to the Ontario labour legislation to ensure that every laid-off worker who exhausts unemployment insurance benefits will automatically become eligible for severance pay, without affecting the recall rights?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I cannot give my friend an assurance that I will immediately introduce amendments to the Employment Standards Act, though we are looking at the whole issue of severance pay, as he knows.

Let me share with my friend and with the House my concern about the usefulness of introducing these amendments. The member knows that severance pay, when paid, along with pension benefits, when paid, are going to be deducted dollar for dollar from unemployment insurance payments.

I and the members of this government do not know of any situation that is quite as ridiculous as this. I suggest to the member and to all members of the House that it is high time Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Wilson got off their high horse and agreed with Mr. Kelleher, and apparently most of the members of the Tory cabinet and the Tory caucus, and rolled back and reversed this absolutely ridiculous decision.

CHEESE FACTORY

Mr. Villeneuve: Has the Minister of Agriculture and Food contacted the St. Albert cheese factory in Russell county recently in order to review its particular problem with quota?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: When the matter of the St. Albert cheese factory was first brought to the attention of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I had a meeting with my staff and they are looking into the problems. We hope to call in the various organizations responsible for the milk marketing program in this province to see if there is something we can do about the smaller, independent cheese factories that maintain they do not have sufficient quota in order to manufacture not only cheddar cheese, but specialty cheese as well. We are looking into it.

Mr. Villeneuve: As the minister well knows, the St. Albert cheese factory is one of the very few farmer-owned milk processing plants in Ontario. The minister seems to be well in tune with what the Premier said. Now that he has his leader's blessing, when does the minister expect to go to St. Albert and tell them what their quota increase will be? We are running into the lush time of the year when milk production generally goes up. They need to know now. When will he tell them, and how much does he expect to tell them their quota increase will be?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The member knows full well that I have absolutely no jurisdiction over the allotment of quota. That is done by the Ontario Milk Marketing Board. I do not dictate to the board what it is going to do regarding quota for individual plants. I did tell the member that we intend to meet with the Ontario Milk Marketing Board and the Milk Commission of Ontario to see whether something different can be done regarding quotas for these smaller, independent cheese factories. However, I have no jurisdiction over allotment of quotas -- none whatsoever.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Foulds: I have a new question for the Minister of Labour, if the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) will sit down and let me have a clear shot at him.

In view of the largest layoffs since 1983 in January and February of this year -- 2,202 and 1,651, respectively -- for Ontario as a whole, and in view of the fact that the unemployment rate in northern Ontario is 50 per cent higher than that for Ontario as a whole, is the minister aware that the closure of the Great Lakes Forest Products waferboard plant in Thunder Bay tomorrow is the beginning of another 3,650 layoffs in northern Ontario in Thunder Bay, Terrace Bay, Wawa and Sault Ste. Marie? In view of that, may I ask the minister what mechanisms--

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Yes, I am aware of the ever-expanding numbers of layoffs, particularly in northern Ontario. They are matters of great concern to the government, not just to this minister but to all members of the government. We are seeking ways and means of addressing them, but the solutions are not as simple as the problem, as the honourable member knows.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister not recall saying on March 11, 1982, in response to the Ford engine plant layoffs in his part of the province, "We must put mechanisms in place which can lead to an avoidance of shutdowns and where management, labour, the community and the government can...perhaps find a way to avoid these shutdowns and these layoffs which are so crippling to the workers"?

Can he tell me as minister, now that he has had power and authority for 10 months, what mechanisms he has put in place to avoid these layoffs that are so crippling to workers?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The issues of plant shutdowns and closures, and indeed justification and notice, are under intensive and full review, particularly as we look for short-term solutions that would help northern Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: Sure, while another 4,000 people get the boot.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I share the frustration of my friend. We are looking for solutions to very complex problems. I have not changed the view I expressed back in 1982 of putting mechanisms in place, but I might share with the member and repeat what I suggested to him the other day in answer to a previous question--

Mr. Martel: Section 104 of the Mining Act.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I suggest to my friends the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) and the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) that one of the things we can do in the short term is to try to encourage as much as possible both management and labour to come to government to share their problems and to let government work with them at a very early stage in trying to solve those problems.

INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

Mr. Jackson: My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. The Ontario public service internship program is designed to provide experience training in all government ministries to recent post-secondary graduates for civil service positions. I understand from McMaster University and Carleton University that not all these positions were posted in all colleges and universities throughout our province. In fact, ministries and ministers made selective invitations to specific universities and colleges.

Can the minister tell us, in the interest of fairness to all students in this province, why he was not able to ensure that each and every community college and university received all the postings from all ministries so that students had a fair chance to apply?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The honourable member raises an interesting question. I had not been aware that these postings had not been made available to all colleges and universities. There was no selection on my part nor on the part of my ministry that I am aware of. I will be delighted to take the question under advisement, look into it and find out. Our duty and obligation is to deal fairly and equitably with every student, from Thunder Bay to Kingston and Windsor. I will have a better and more accurate response for my friend in the near future.

Mr. Jackson: It is unfortunate the minister has just learned about it, because several of these positions indicate the competitions will be closing today, tomorrow and Friday. Taking it under advisement may not be a sufficient resolution for the many students who would like to apply and are unable to do so. Will the minister give us his assurance today that he will extend these closing dates for at least two weeks and circulate to each member of this House a list of uncompleted positions available in all the ministries so all students in the province will have a fair and equitable opportunity to apply for the positions?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not in a position at this point to give assurances of that sort to the member and the House. I will have my staff look into it on an emergency basis. If there has been unfairness to any part of this province, we will take appropriate remedial measures. I hope the member does not expect me, on the basis of the matter he raises now, to assure the House and the public that I will postpone for two weeks a process that has been ongoing for some time.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Education. The minister has stated that he is not prepared to extend funding to private schools. In a recent address, Dr. Shapiro, his newly appointed deputy minister, who has yet to take office, stated that if the ministry can provide $65 million for computers, it can spend $75 million for private schools. The minister has also hailed the court decision with respect to the constitutionality of separate school funding as the foundation of a major policy initiative in that direction. The deputy minister-to-be has stated categorically that in his view that decision is incorrect.

Mr. Speaker: Is your question, "Does the minister agree?"

Mr. Allen: Will the minister please comment on these apparently serious divergencies between himself and his deputy-to-be on major policy questions in education?

Hon. Mr. Conway: At the time of Dr. Shapiro's appointment as deputy minister effective July 1, 1986, I was quite aware of the outstanding work he had performed on behalf of the province in his role as a solo commissioner on independent and private schools. I made it very clear what government policy was and is in this regard. Via Bill 30, this government intends to complete public funding of the last part of the separate school system in this province and does not intend to fund private schools. We have circulated Dr. Shapiro's outstanding work in this connection for public comment, but government policy is as I have stated it. I do not want the honourable member to be under any misapprehension about that.

Mr. Allen: The question of Dr. Shapiro's ability is beyond dispute, but I submit to the minister that on a fundamental question such as the constitutionality of a major development the ministry is promoting, for a deputy minister to be publicly asserting that the decision is wrong and incorrect is going to compound problems for him the greater the man's ability is.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister agree?

Mr. Allen: I wonder whether he should take it so calmly. For example, can he tell us whether it is in his interest to sow confusion by saying "the deputy minister says" and "the minister says"?

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Let me say again that when the appointment of Dr. Shapiro was made some weeks ago by the Premier (Mr. Peterson), we made it clear that he was bringing a very outstanding reputation to his new responsibilities. I have made the intention of this government on the position of funding private schools very clear.

Today, for example, my colleague the government House leader has indicated that Donald C. MacDonald will be the new chairman of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses. Donald MacDonald has served the New Democratic Party and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation before it with great distinction. As of May 1, Donald C. MacDonald will assume new public responsibilities which I expect he will discharge with good

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Davis: I have a question for the Minister of Education. How does he explain the absolute contradiction of his position?

On July 4, the minister said in the House: "The fourth principle in this legislation is that there is to be no unemployment as a direct result of the policy regarding full funding. No teacher or other employee will lose his job as a result of this policy of full funding." With respect to his new amendments, a designated teacher can be terminated by a Roman Catholic school board after two years of training.

Hon. Mr. Conway: There is no contradiction, but there is a confusion in the mind of my friend the member for Scarborough Centre. Let me try to deal with that confusion, because I do not like to see my distinguished friend, the spokesman on matters of education for the official opposition, so confused.

What we have done in the amendments is to broaden the basis of the protection being afforded public school teachers who will find themselves in the separate school system as a result of extension. We have done so because my friend the member for Scarborough Centre, and more especially my friend the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), have said it would be a very good idea to provide in the legislation a grounds of conscience on which an individual might object.

I want to make very clear that the practice of the first year and a half has been that no teacher or public school employee has lost his or her job as a result of extension. That is the government's view and commitment. It will be fully discharged, quite apart from the confusion of the honourable member.

STANDING ORDERS

Mr. Speaker: Can I have the attention of the members for a moment?

I have paid particular attention to the new procedure during members' and ministers' statements, and I feel that in the future we might run into a difficulty that has occurred in the House of Commons. I know the guidelines for members' statements there state that no statement should be used in any way as a personal attack on another member. Because we have no specific guidelines and it is left to the Speaker, I hope that in the future members' and ministers' statements will be used for the regular purpose and not in any way for personal attacks. I ask all members to continue to be honourable members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Andrewes: I have a number of petitions from constituents of the good riding of Lincoln who ask the government of Ontario "to reduce gasoline tax by 1.1 cents a litre, from 8.3 cents a litre to 7.2 cents a litre immediately, and to phase in further reductions over three years to 5.4 cents a litre by 1989."

Mr. Polsinelli: I have a petition addressed to the government of Ontario which reads as follows:

"We request the government of Ontario to reduce gasoline tax by 1.1 cents a litre, from 8.3 cents a litre to 7.2 cents a litre immediately, and to phase in further reductions over three years to 5.4 cents a litre by 1989."

To show the international concern of this petition, I received 558 from Ontario, two from Quebec, one from Alberta, one from British Columbia, two from Newfoundland, one from Florida and one from Arizona. I also received a Petro-Canada card which was cut in half, although I think the sender may have wanted to send it to the Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr. Pollock: I have before me a petition, signed by 85 members of the Ontario Motor League who live in my riding, that I want to present to the Premier (Mr. Peterson). It requests the government of Ontario to immediately reduce the gasoline tax by 1.1 cents a litre, from 8.3 cents a litre to 7.2 cents a litre, and to phase in further reductions over a three-year period to 5.14 cents a litre by 1989.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

SENIORS' INDEPENDENCE ACT

Mr. Warner moved first reading of Bill 3, An act for the Provision and Integration of Community-based Services for Seniors.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Warner: The short title of the bill is the Seniors' Independence Act. It creates a framework for the provision of community-based support services for seniors and the integration of these services with established programs and facilities. It is intended that the support services will give seniors greater independence and will prevent their unnecessary institutionalization by giving them access to programs that will assist them in carrying out day-to-day tasks.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Grossman: I cannot say I have looked forward to this great opportunity to participate in the response from this side of the House to the speech from the throne. I take this opportunity to say that while I will try to be brief in my remarks, I will fail in that attempt. I will fail because there is much we have to say in our first opportunity to comment in opposition about the attempt of the government to set out an agenda for the province, apparently much more than the government had to say after a lot of years trying to write this speech.

Needless to say, we on this side of the House have some expertise in writing these speeches, if not in responding to them. Perhaps we will get an opportunity to write them once again if the current flagging attempts by the government of Ontario to write these things continue to be as empty as is this first attempt.

3:40 p.m.

I begin by once again welcoming you, Mr. Speaker, to your responsibilities for this session. We appreciate a continuance of the evenhandedness with which you have been governing affairs here, at least in the past couple of days, if not before that. We will continue to look for your guidance.

The government likes to make much of the fact that there were some 42 years between Liberal throne speeches. It likes to hark back to those 42 years when other people had the responsibility of governing the province.

However, I think it is equally appropriate now for us to comment on what the Liberals used their 42 years in opposition to do and to think about, because it is very fair for all of us to note that the speech delivered last week should have reflected -- and, I presume, did reflect -- 42 years of experience and thought and a collection of 42 years' worth of ideas put together by the Liberal Party.

It was their opportunity, for the first time after 42 years, to place their unique stamp on this province, its future and its people. When one looks at the document, one wonders where that vision is. They had the opportunity. It lacks the vision. Where are the expressions of hope, of promise and of opportunity?

The government, after all, cannot beg off, as they did for too many months, by saying they are new in office, that they inherited 42 years, that they are just learning their jobs. They cannot do that. They have now been in office for close to one full year. In writing this throne speech, they had no excuses, no third party to blame or to take the credit. I know the third party in this House does not want any of the credit. Indeed, in writing this throne speech, they did not even have Tories to blame. They have only themselves to stand up and take all the credit for all the things that are not there.

There are no new approaches, no new ideas. Instead of firm promises, instead of specifics, we get buzzwords. We get new ones such as "knowledge worker," used twice. We get buzzwords such as "world class," used seven times, and "excellence," used 10 times.

I wondered, when I listened to the speech last week, where they had come up with all of this dated material. Perhaps they had discovered it in an unopened filing cabinet left over from the mid-70s in the Office of the Premier; and to and behold, when they opened it, as the leader of the third party has said, they perhaps discovered a throne speech that had been written by Bill Davis and Hugh Segal.

They have both complained about the allegation hurled by the member for York South (Mr. Rae) that they could have written the throne speech. They did not say they had not; they pointed out that they had -- in about 1976 or 1977. They were simply embarrassed to have anyone suggest they would have written that same speech in 1986. But the government, a government that had 42 years to write the throne speech, was not embarrassed.

Suffice it to say that this throne speech represents a program of so little substance, so little new direction that after one year in office the public legitimately has to ask, "What is it that this new administration stands for?" We would acknowledge, as the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) might say, the ability to cherry pick in the marketplace of jargon. They sure did that well. We knew what the contributions of the member for Renfrew North were.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: An orchard.

Mr. Grossman: To him it would be an orchard. The member for Renfrew North no doubt went out and looked for all the trendy marginalia available and offered it to the poor Lieutenant Governor, who had to stand and read that collection of trendy words, jargon and buzzwords.

If this is really the new David Peterson, if this is the real David Peterson, if this is what he really cares about--

Hon. Mr. Nixon: What you see is what there is.

Mr. Grossman: -- if this is what it is -- as the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) says, "What you see is what there is" -- we on this side are both relieved and concerned. We are relieved because, as partisans, we have now seen into the heart and soul of our party's main opponent and we have found the emptiness that we suspected always existed. In many ways, we were not surprised. After all, in opposition they flitted from position to position like hummingbirds from branch to branch.

On some issues, such as energy pricing, extra billing, doctors' fees and bilingualism, over the years the present Premier had more positions than Masters and Johnson. Now that they are in government, that fundamental, philosophical void has produced a list of me-too-isms and add-ons that speak to a fruit without a core. We can look at this throne speech, or let us call it properly Premier Peterson's vision of Ontario, and conclude that we and the public now know what his most profound beliefs really are. The one thing we can conclude is that they are neither profound nor deep; they are shallow.

For all their talk of no walls and no barriers, this speech, this sad grade 10 essay masquerading as a government program, sets up brand-new walls and brand-new bamers between the "Beam me up, Scotty" view of Ontario--that is what it was; a little boosterism--and the real-life issues and the real challenges facing the real people of Ontario. They were listening and waiting, but it was not there.

It is the people of this province, the steelworkers and the auto workers, the people whom the former opposition party to our left sometimes used to see, whom the government of the day now never sees. They have no time for these people because of their heavy schedule of pay-as-you-meet-the-ministers cocktail receptions in the best clubs of Ontario. The reason the auto workers and steelworkers were left out of the throne speech is because they do not get to meet the ministers of this government. They do not have the $1,000, they do not belong to the best clubs and they do not get to meet the Premier and his ministers.

The auto workers see some new barriers now. It has been a long time since Ontario's most important industries, the pulp and paper industry, the auto industry and the steel industry, were left out of a fundamental program for Ontario, but they were left out last week. We were not surprised, because this was not a speech to deal with reality nor an attempt to deal with real current problems. It deals with the perceived reality, a new smoke-and-mirrors reality.

As partisans, I suppose we rejoice that the process of self-delusion has now begun in earnest as this government settles complacently into its second year in government. I say to the Premier and to most of his senior ministers who are not able to be here today, a government that cannot see the truth will soon be insensitive to it and will soon be its next victim. To the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway), and he should know it better than anyone else, I say that self-delusion is the beginning of self-destruction.

As Tories we rejoice in a partisan way at the emptiness of that throne speech, but as Ontario's and Canadians, which we are first, we do not rejoice. The opportunity missed in that throne speech is not the Premier's opportunity, not his ministers' opportunity, not John Kruger's opportunity or even this Legislature's opportunity. The missed opportunity belongs to the people of this province: the aged who await action, the young who seek work and the patients and doctors of this province who seek equity and fairness, not turbulence, turmoil and strife. Their opportunities are being squandered.

3:50 p.m.

We must ask what the events of a year ago were all about. What was it all for? I wonder if the program of that throne speech was really what many in the labour movement and many in the New Democratic Party so deeply hoped for when they defeated the former government and put in place this government. Is that what they wanted? Is this kind of empty throne speech what the NDP wanted for the labourers of this province, for the auto workers and the steelworkers? If it shares our belief that emptiness is a hollow ring through this house, the New Democratic Party of Ontario has only itself to blame for that throne speech.

Is this the fresh wind of reform that was supposed to sweep through this House last year, or is it, as is now obvious, a lot less than meets the eye? When a party wanders for 42 years out there in the wilderness of rejection as the Liberals did, one thinks it would develop a notion of what went wrong for it through all those years.

What did they do instead? Once they had kicked aside their foot soldiers in the NDP, what did they turn to? Not surprisingly, because we know the hearts and souls of the people across the floor, they quickly grasped a 1950s version of small-c conservatism. It is a 1955 time warp. Today's leaders of industry and labour reject that kind of politics in 1986. It is unrealistic. It is sadly superficial.

One would think that after 42 years the Liberal Party of Ontario, even with the smooth craftsmanship of the Treasurer and the Minister of Education, might be able to do more than offer us a brochure for the Niagara Institute, a grade 6 primer on yesterday's agenda, in programs.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It was grade 10 a few minutes ago. It is slipping.

Mr. Grossman: What grade did you think it was?

Mr. Rae: You changed the grade.

Mr. Grossman: It would have been grade 8 but you abandoned them, now it is grade 4. It is a sad commentary and we regret it on behalf of the people of Ontario.

It is first and foremost a document which seeks not to help the people of this province but to ride the puck until they feel they can force an election when they believe they can win, jettison their NDP footmen once and for all and do it with lots of style and as little substance as possible. In the interim, health care is needlessly threatened by a government that has simply forgotten it is dealing with doctors -- I say to the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson), as he will know, doctors who are as much good Ontarians as the Premier or the real Minister of Health, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). The doctors of this province are as dedicated to the health care system, as committed to full accessibility, as is the government's chief negotiator, the Attorney General.

The people of this province are citizens like all others: taxpayers, community leaders, key partners in the delivery of health care. "No walls and barriers," the Premier likes to say. Of course, there are no walls and barriers unless you dare dissent from the superficial party line of the day. "No walls and barriers." Ask the pharmacists, doctors, lawyers and next the dentists. Who is next? Wait for the next target group to be identified by Goldfarb and friends and it will be in the next throne speech.

We see what is happening across the province. The Premier playacts it is sweetness and light. It is good politics. He is the yuppie version as he studied it, the yuppie version of Bill Davis. That is the style he has copied, and even the style that the Minister of Education likes to put on from time to time. We remember when he sat just about here. He chirped like a canary, as my friend the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) likes to say, until he got over there. Then it was the double-breasted suits, the vests, the airs of office, and nary a word from the former canary. We understand they are all copying from the Bill Davis handbook. However, my friends have forgotten a little substance. You borrowed all the substance you have.

Let us look across at what is happening. Behind the sweetness, lightness and style that the Premier likes to adopt, who can forget the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), in his arbitrary and insulting way, moving easily to destroy the reputations of firms, businesses and communities? But no matter; it is a great headline.

There was the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) going to speak to some of the leading health care specialists in the province and taunting them, cajoling them, insulting them. Indeed, at that function he ambushed them; not a style appropriate to government.

There is the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell), a man who as we saw earlier today will holler, get excited and overreact at the slightest provocation. He was given to the greatest exaggeration and provocation when he was in opposition. Now he wanders around like a wounded calf if anyone dares to step in the way of his Eugene Whelan green-hat style of hollering and yelling throughout the province as a policy for agriculture.

There is my friend the Minister of Education. The members will remember that we used to think he was perhaps the brightest man on the Liberal benches.

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: I made a mistake. He used to think he was the brightest man on the benches across the way. We watch the Minister of Education daily, as he winces at the performance of some of his friends in the second row behind him. He can hardly conceal it.

We know about some of the pet projects of the Treasurer of Ontario. We know why the Urban Transportation Development Corp. is being sold. We know why the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education is being closed. We know why the Ontario Economic Council, a source of independent thought, has been disbanded. No walls or barriers; of course not. You do not need a wall or barrier between independent, economic thought and the government if you destroy them first. You do not need to build a wall between them. The parliamentary debates in this House are replete with the Treasurer's attacks on UTDC, OISE and the OEC. He comes to government and without consulting his colleagues, without telling them what is in his budget, without doing any study whatsoever and without consulting the board of UTDC or OISE or the economic council, there is a quick flick of the Nixon wrist and they are gone.

An hon. member: Just like Darcy McKeough told me to do.

Mr. Grossman: He said it was just like Darcy told him to do. The devil made him do it. "Let them eat cake," he said to the people at OISE. We understand, but let us not pretend that this government therefore presents through its budget documents or the throne speech anything like a vision, a sense of hope, a sense of direction. It is a combination of the latest buzzwords of the Minister of Education, some pet peeves, a hit list from the Treasurer of Ontario, some jargon and policies retreaded from previous documents and perhaps some new ideas vaguely showing their way, introduced by the putative minister of industry, Patrick Lavelle. We know what the plans are.

Mr. Ferraro: Does that mean you do not like it?

Mr. Grossman: No, it means the people of Ontario are wondering where the real throne speech is. They are wondering where the substance is. I say to the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro) that in Guelph they are wondering where it is. Last year they said they wanted change. They look at this document and they see emptiness. They see no sense of direction and they say, "What is in this document that is going to help one unemployed person in Guelph in 1986 or 1987?" The response of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) is: "Let me read you the job statistics. There were 170,000 new jobs created in Ontario." He is right about those jobs being created, and he would be accurate and fair if he acknowledged that those jobs were created in 1985, obviously by the previous administration in this province.

4 p.m.

We would never have the effrontery to go to the unemployed people in Guelph, or to those in Brantford, I say to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), or Collingwood, I say to the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock), or to the unemployed people in a lot of communities across this province and say to them, as does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil): "Not to worry. There were 170,000 jobs created in Ontario last year." The minister wants to hand them a press release saying: "Not to worry. Lots of other people got jobs; you get in the breadline. Do not worry; lots of other people got new jobs, so there could not be a problem." This throne speech gives them the same arrogant back of the hand and says: "Not to worry. We are thinking about the year 2010."

The government's price of entry, the admission fee it paid to the New Democrats to move across the aisle, was apparently the only price it paid to acquire policy and the only policy it acquired. Doctors, teachers, students, patients, senior citizens, truckers, farmers, layovers, police forces, pharmacists and municipalities all have seen the brutal force of the Premier. They all have seen the arrogance, the back of the hand as he tromps on with the agenda he purchased and the non-agenda he just wrote.

When we look over that throne speech, it indicates something worse than a lack of direction. It is a cynical approach to the people of this province. It is an approach that says to the auto workers, the steelworkers, the pulp and paper workers and laid-off steelworkers in Sault Ste. Marie: "We are not interested in your problems. We have nothing new to add." The breath of change that was offered and that the public said candidly it wanted a year ago, now has gone; it has vanished. It is an approach that says: "We will trot out a bunch of old policies. We will package them with a fancy new cover, and we will call that a new policy for Ontario."

Let me talk briefly about some of those policies. Let us look at where the government went to get the items in its throne speech. Let us go through some of the major initiatives.

The proposal to establish a Canadian insurance exchange in Toronto, which is a good idea, was stolen from one made by the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Robert Elgie, who released a report on November 3, 1983. The proposal was subsequently approved by the cabinet of Ontario. It is nothing new; it was Bob Elgie's idea.

Beer and wine in the grocery stores is the sum and substance of this government's economic policy in the last provincial campaign. I must say, though, the last provincial campaign did not include roadside rest stops as they are included in the throne speech. There is nothing new about this one either.

Here is one of the people of Ontario have to worry about when it comes to their high-tech future. The throne speech says the government will establish a Premier's council to administer a 10-year, $1-billion technology fund. When one looks behind it, is it $1 billion? No. Is it $500 million? No. Is it $50 million? Yes. It is a new $50 million per year. That is their commitment to high technology.

In 1985, the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development had $500 million a year in its program. This one-year-old Liberal government, holding out a high-tech vision of the future, establishes a $50-million-a-year fund. That is it. That is one tenth of the former BILD budget. It is less than one tenth of what is raised every year through the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. That is this government's commitment to high technology.

The Premier believes he can run the Urban Transportation Development Corp. better than the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton). The Premier believes he can run the doctors' negotiations better than the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston). The Premier believes he can make the decisions on the domed stadium better than anyone else. The Premier believes too that he can make the decisions on high-technology investments better than anyone else in the province.

The Premier is going to head the Premier's council. Is this new? Of course not. Is it $1 billion? No. Is it as much as the previous government had in place? No. Does it match the enterprise technology fund, from which it stole this idea and which had $250 million over three years? No. What is the difference? Is this a new program? No. There is only one thing new about it: The Premier wants to spend that money himself. No doubt he wants to make the decisions with John Kruger. Let us not pretend that the high-technology fund or the Premier's council has a whit of a new idea in it. It was taken right from the enterprise technology fund, directly from BILD.

The throne speech goes on to talk about a science, technology and culture office in China, appointing an Agent General to Japan and opening a trade office in South Korea. Is there anything new about this? There is nothing new. Where did they steal this one from? It is a direct steal from the Enterprise Ontario program put forward a year ago.

The government did not go out and write it anywhere. They did not have a group of people thinking up new options. They simply said, "We will take that Frank Miller program from a year ago." Does the Premier remember how the Liberals ran against that program? When it came time to write a throne speech, the government's cupboard was bare. It went out and took that right out of the Enterprise Ontario program, with not a new word.

Are initiatives in the Far East new? No. When this member was Minister of Industry and Tourism five years ago, he opened the trade office in Hong Kong. Over the past few years, the previous government set up special funds to expand into the Far East. The new government's whole idea of opening up this vast new area -- as if it has never been opened up before -- is to open two more offices and to put more money into it. We support it. Let us not pretend it is new, though; it is right out of the previous government's programs.

When one listens to the response given the other day by the current Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology about wanting to broaden trade with the United States, one has to wonder what the people in Philadelphia think about that idea. After that great speech from the minister the other day about wanting to increase trade with the US, we have to remember the Liberal government closed our trade office in Philadelphia. That is a fine way to expand trade.

Let us look at another throne speech initiative to see whether it is new: a program to encourage young women to explore career opportunities in non-traditional fields, especially in the science and technology fields. Where did it get this one from? That is easy; it is the Open Doors program launched by the previous government in February 1984. It is an exact duplicate reannouncement of the Open Doors policy. This one is two years old.

Another initiative is to set up a nonprofit information technology centre to provide assistance and technology development and to improve public understanding of information technology. Is a technology centre not a brand-new idea? It is six years since the previous government put in place six high-technology centres. That one is six years old. It did not take much creative genius on the other side to come up with the idea of having a seventh centre. It took nothing to come up with that idea. That is what this government is made of: It looks at old documents, and if one worked in the past -- and our high-technology centres did -- it builds another. That is its high-technology initiative.

4:10 p.m.

Let us look at another initiative: to undertake special efforts to make training opportunities available to women, single parents and special-needs groups. Where did they get this one? They got it from the June 1985 throne speech. They rewrote it almost exactly. We are complimented by it, but let us not pretend there is a single new thing in this throne speech. That is from the last throne speech.

One of the agricultural initiatives set out is to enhance programs offering marketing support for Ontario farmers. I have been in this House and have heard the current Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell), who I see is now signing mail with the Foodland Ontario insignia at the bottom of the letterhead. The brand-new initiative in the throne speech is to enhance marketing support for Ontario farmers. We agree it should be enhanced every year; only we would have expected that in the throne speech he would have had the courtesy to refer to the existing Foodland Ontario program, which led the country in promoting support for farmers and marketing. He might have said he would support and improve upon the very successful Foodland Ontario program, which the previous government put in place. Again there is nothing new.

I know that when the Minister of Agriculture and Food goes riding on his green hat throughout rural Ontario, he will be sure not to take all the credit for the Foodland Ontario program as he tried to take all the credit for the stabilization program, when his sole contribution was to take his pen in his right hand and sign his name to it. He was given the right to do that by the member for York South (Mr. Rae).

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The member's party tried for four years.

Mr. Grossman: The minister's entire contribution was to sign a program developed by the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), who led the country in putting that program together. The minister then accepted the pen from the leader of the third party and signed the document. I know he tells the farmers that as he rides his green hat.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Four years passed, and still the Conservative Party could not close the deal.

Mr. McGuigan: It takes a "closer."

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It takes a man of action to get the job done.

Miss Stephenson: The only thing active about the minister is his is tongue.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) had better not get sick again now.

Miss Stephenson: The minister has no need to worry.

Mr. Grossman: The minister should try to hide his real self this afternoon. It will serve him better.

I go on to northern Ontario. The throne speech says the government will establish programs to provide marketing assistance to northern Ontario farmers and widen consumer choice in that region. Again I ask, has the Minister of Agriculture and Food no new programs in that green hat? Has he nothing that is not simply an extension of the previous government's programs?

Last year the people of Ontario said, "Pretty good so far," but they wanted change. What they got in this throne speech and from the Minister of Agriculture and Food is not change of anything except a certain style of decency and fairness. That is what has changed. That is all gone. There is no balance.

Mr. McGuigan: The Leader of the Opposition should ask the farmers of Ontario. They will tell him.

Mr. Grossman: If they want hollering and colour instead of substance, if they want style instead of substance, and if they want green hats instead of real programs, then that is what they have.

Mr. McGuigan: Does the member think they do not know what substance is? He is insulting the farmers of Ontario, and he will answer for it.

Mr. Grossman: I say to the honourable member that they are seeing all fluff. The same thing that happened to Eugene Whelan is going to happen to the current Minister of Agriculture and Food. He cannot fool the farmers of this province. This song-and-dance routine will catch up with the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Style does not fool farmers. They are looking for substance. The member for Durham-York (Mr. Stephnson) has more substance than the current Minister of Agriculture and Food has ever had, and that will come through with less style but all substance.

The throne speech offers to provide marketing assistance for northern Ontario farmers. Not only is that a good idea, but it is also exactly the AgriNorth program launched in April 1984 by the member for Don Mills. It is nothing new; it is a reannouncement of the previous program.

Another initiative is to establish a modern pesticides and food-quality laboratory. I was personally flattered that the Minister of Agriculture and Food found a way to include that in his new agricultural policy, because it is an exact repeat from one of my policy papers during the first leadership convention. I appreciate that the minister read it; I trust he understood it. Surely in the throne speech, with his massive -- to use the appropriate word -- background in agriculture, he could have developed something in addition to what the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick in downtown Toronto was able to develop for the farmers of Ontario. No, he stole this part of the throne speech from a Larry Grossman policy pamphlet from January 1985.

There is additional assistance for soil conservation programs for farmers. Is that new? No. It is exactly what has been done since March 1983 with the five-year, $25.5-million Ontario soil conservation and environmental protection assistance program. An expansion of that program was committed to a year ago in the last throne speech. Is there anything new in this throne speech? Nothing, not a word.

The throne speech goes on to offer "programs to assist the victim of crime and physical abuse, the forgotten person in the system. Victim assistance programs will be expanded to alleviate the suffering of battered women and children." The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) ought to go to Ottawa and read that part of the throne speech to the people whose services he has cut adrift. His commitment to stop family violence and to the victims of child abuse, rape and spousal assaults goes so far as to say: "It is up to the municipality. I am not going to interfere." He does not care enough.

Mrs. Marland: The United Way does.

Mr. Grossman: The United Way cares enough. The government thinks it is a good program, but the government that wrote these words in the throne speech does not care enough to find, not a lot of money, but a few thousand dollars, to solve this problem in Ottawa. Is this program new? It is nothing new. It is an excerpt from a previous throne speech and a development of the Progressive Conservative government's Break the Silence program launched in October 1984. There is nothing new for victims of family violence.

In the health care field--

Interjection.

Mr. Grossman: I hope the government whip will listen to this as she is sitting at the desk of the current Minister of Health, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). In the health care field, "A multidisciplinary department of geriatrics will be established at an Ontario university." It is a very good proposal, exactly as was written in the care for the elderly paper this party put out three weeks ago. Is there anything new? No, there is nothing new; it was stolen from our policy papers. That was a good move.

The throne speech says, "Active partnerships in teaching and learning between schools and local business will be promoted, to permit students, school staff and business people to work side by side on mutually beneficial projects." Is there anything new? Absolutely not. This is lifted from the Enterprise Ontario program, which included the industry and school training program that would have provided exactly the same support. Is there anything new? There is nothing new. The government stole that one from Enterprise Ontario.

Mr. McGuigan: Everything in the world belongs to the Conservatives. The whole world belongs to them.

Mr. Grossman: What does the government own? I ask the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) to tell us what is new in the throne speech. When the member gets an opportunity to participate in the throne speech debate, I invite him to take his time to tell us what is new in this document. Let him tell the people in his riding, especially the farmers and the auto parts workers, what in this document is not out of Enterprise Ontario, previous Progressive Conservative throne speeches, party documents put out by the former government or policy papers put out by candidates for the leadership of this party. Let him find us the initiatives. There are not any.

4:20 p.m.

The Treasurer and the other ministers, all of whom have had this kind of smoke-and-mirrors reassembly of previous programs put together by Duncan Allan, have taken Duncan Allan's talents and run them in reverse. What has happened is sad. They have taken all those programs, folded in the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development and folded in Enterprise Ontario, dismantled them, put no new money in them, no new thoughts in them and announced them as disassembled programs. They could have done better, and they did not.

The throne speech goes to say, "Greater effort will be devoted to helping students and teachers become more familiar...with new computer technology." Where is that one from? It is partly from the 1984 computers and children program in the budget of 1984, it is partly an extension of the education technology division program undertaken by the former Minister of Education under the previous government and it is part of the Canadian-made microcomputer program launched by the previous government, by the member for York Mills as Minister of Education, in 1981. Anything new about computers and education? There is nothing new.

Back to the throne speech: "Greater emphasis will be placed on co-operative education programs." Is there anything new about co-op education programs? Nothing new. They were first established under the previous government several years ago. The Enterprise Ontario program offered the same kind of enrichment and the same kinds of programs. Is there anything new in the speech from the throne? No, it is right from Enterprise Ontario.

The speech from the throne speaks of extending the $80-million post-secondary excellence fund to be used for renewal of faculty and physical plant. Anything new in that? That comes right from the BILD-supported capital acceleration program in 1984. The university research incentive fund -- that is what it is, I say to the government whip -- is from the budget in 1984. The Enterprise Ontario program offered a $5-million enrichment, and the 1985 speech from the throne would have established a quality education fund of $100 million for exactly these purposes. Nothing new. The government just took it out of all those previous documents and rewrote it in its speech from the throne.

Computerized job search programs: We heard from the Minister of Education about this the other day. Where did they get this one from? They got it from the excellent array of computers that has been in place through the youth employment counselling centres in various locations throughout Ontario. They are already there. Anything new with computers? Nothing.

The throne speech says, "A greater priority will be placed on the retraining needs of older workers and others in the work force." I will begin by saying that the Treasurer did nothing, zero, for those people in his budget of last year. He cut them adrift all through the winter of 1985-86. Did he put anything new in the speech from the throne? Not a thing. It is simply an extension of the Ontario skills fund contained in the 1984-85 budget, with no new money. The Enterprise Ontario technology fund would have covered the same area. Anything new? No, this is BILD and Enterprise Ontario.

Support for small business: The speech from the throne says it will expand the mandate of the small business development corporations to include the service sector. This one comes from the BILD program, the 1979 budget, proposals made by two of the candidates for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Enterprise Ontario program. Anything new in this? Not a thing.

We could go on, because the list goes on. I simply want to make this point once again. I have gone through 10 or 15 initiatives, and they are the major ones. I have not talked about the other ones.

Mr. McClellan: Is that all?

Mr. Grossman: No. There are more, such as remote sensing and computerized mapping. It struck me--

Mr. Rae: It is to track down Dennis. It is the only way you will get hold of Timbrell.

Mr. Grossman: It is the only way we will find you in the public opinion polls. Worse than that, they are not even looking for you any more. They do not know you even exist.

When I heard "remote sensing" and "computerized mapping," why did those words jump out? When I was chairman of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, that was the precise program proposed by the then Minister of Natural Resources through BILD. There is nothing even in the small programs, save and except perhaps for restrooms along the highways, that reflects anything new that the government has to offer. Nothing.

It is a sad commentary that what it comes down to is beer and wine in the grocery stores and rest stops along the highway. That is the government's industrial policy.

We, on this side, have been approaching these issues from a quite different standpoint. We have some belief in the workers and the people of Ontario. We believe they can compete. We believe we do not have to write off a whole generation of Ontarians while we wait for David Peterson's London School of Economics' phoney, $50-million-a-year high-tech fund. We are not prepared to write them off.

We believe our people can compete today, both nationally and internationally. We are not afraid to boost them in their opportunities to compete today. We are not prepared to write off all those auto workers out there or the laid-off steelworkers in Sault Ste. Marie, give them the back of the hand and say: "I am sorry. The Premier is busy. He is heading up his new research council with a group of business people." That is not for us.

We ask the government to get down to the bread-and-butter issues; to talk about those people who are currently unemployed in Ontario. We do not want to see the government, on the one hand, talk about expensive high-technology funds and, on the other hand, to satisfy the pet peeves of the Treasurer, throw all our urban transit technology out the window without study, analysis or consultation.

Does it make sense to use all the big buzzwords about high technology and Ontario's research future when, at the same time, some of the most skilled engineers and scientists in urban technology are leaving the UTDC daily? They know they have no secure future because the government is bailing out on them and walking away from our world-scale technology.

It is a sad irony that, no doubt, some time in the next day or two, the Premier of Ontario will be out at Expo 86 bragging about our "world-class technology," to use his favourite words. He will be talking to the world at Expo 86 about the great technology produced here in Ontario, which both he and his Treasurer opposed from day one; that very technology which he is throwing out the window and which has been crafted, built and designed here in Ontario by people who this day, as the Premier stands proudly in Vancouver, are looking for jobs in the United States and other places because they have no future left with UTDC in Ontario.

This throne speech, while it has all those buzzwords -- knowledge, workers, excellence, world-class -- says nothing about housing. Ours will. It promises nothing for child care. Ours will. It is not willing to go as far as my party is on employment equity in the public service. Regardless of the lack of commitment the government has to the women of this province in the public service, we will not be deterred in fighting for their rights. The government may back off as soon as it has signed a deal with the New Democratic Party and it may jettison the women of this province working in the public service. However, this Progressive Conservative Party will not do that, and we will hold the government to account.

4:30 p.m.

The public feels that it does not want complacency. It does not want mediocrity. In this speech, the government has chosen mediocrity. We, over here, choose reform and achievement. They have no agenda over there. Our agenda is a new agenda for a new Ontario where the accident of geography of one's birth will not limit one's opportunities.

In one year, having been given some new ideas from the New Democrats, after jettisoning them and saying goodbye, they have moved into a comfortable pew of complacency. We on this side prefer and demand a more energetic pursuit of excellence for the people of Ontario.

Much of what is right about Ontario was built decades ago and must now be changed or reformed, but much of what is about to go wrong in Ontario, much of what is causing some of that to crack now and some of those people to flee, whether they are, to use the words of the Premier, world-class doctors or world-class scientists at the UTDC -- they are now leaving; having second thoughts about what was built in Ontario over those years.

There is a new spirit in this land; a new spirit in Ontario that has been missed by the government; a spirit that says the purpose of any government must be to serve the people, not serve itself; a spirit that says the function of government is not to own everything or take it over, not to stifle initiative but to encourage it; a spirit that says you do not write off a generation of unemployed people by sending out the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to brag that there were lots of new jobs created in 1985; an attitude out there that says, "Let us get on now." People out there sent a message a year ago; this party neither denies that fact nor missed the message.

An hon. member: They sent it a month ago; they sent it two weeks ago.

Mr. Grossman: I say to the chief government whip that when the people of this province have a sense of what the Liberals have done, when they have a sense of what the government has accomplished in terms of dividing our society in one short year, that message will be much different.

Look at what the government has done in a year. It has attacked our health care system and some of the world's best doctors residing in this province are fleeing the Liberal government. It has attacked other of our province's professionals. It has raised taxes by $700 million. It has had a 33 per cent increase in the deficit. It has lost our credit rating. The member for London South (Mrs. E. J. Smith) should tell them that back in London. She should go home to London and brag about the tax increase, the 30 per cent increase in the deficit and the loss of the credit rating.

That is not all it has done in a year. It has sold off and destroyed our urban transportation leadership. It has done away with youth employment programs. It has reneged on pay equity in the public service. It has underfunded universities, not even meeting the transfer levels of the previous year. It is attacking the views of the police chiefs and the municipalities of this province by insisting stubbornly on having beer and wine in our grocery stores.

It has selected and developed a two-faced, inequitable backroom deal with landlords that will sell out the tenants of this province and give them not four per cent rent increases, not six per cent, but give many of them eight per cent rent increases without appeal, thanks to the deal the government cut behind their backs. That is not bad work for eight or nine months.

For a government that has been in office for one year to have launched such an all-out attack on our doctors shows the kind of arrogance that the Premier showed yesterday. What is Dr. Munro to think when he turns on the electronic Hansard, when he turns up cable channel 39 and hears the Premier saying that because of the comments made by my colleague the member for York Mills, it is obvious that opted-out doctors know nothing about expertise or excellence? What is he to think when he turns on TV and sees the Premier of this province talking like that about one of the world's best physicians?

I would have hoped that the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson) would have had a quiet word with his Premier yesterday and told him the last thing this situation needs is that sort of vindictiveness and obvious intellectual elitism from someone who should be the last to practise it with regard to the very fine doctors of this province.

It is not bad work for one year: attacks on our doctors; attacks on our lawyers; disagreements with our police chiefs and our municipalities; significant tax increases; an increased deficit; loss of our credit rating; cancellation of youth employment programs; dumping our urban transportation leadership; abandoning the women in the public service; underfunding universities; creating a crisis in the hospital sector; threatening the safety of our communities through the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores, and selling out the tenants of this province.

That spirit of change the people of this province wanted a year ago is still out there wanting. Where are the issues that matter to the individual Ontarian? Where are the issues that matter to the average person living in downtown Toronto, Brockville or Chatham? What is new in the throne speech for the people who are looking to buy a first home or to be able to afford their apartment unit; for the single parent and the young graduate? How will the throne speech change life for any one of those people? Where is the support for the handicapped and disabled? Where is the action for creating low-cost and moderate-cost housing? I say to the Treasurer, we will watch to see where the action is for the tobacco farmers of Haldimand, Norfolk, Brant, Oxford and Elgin.

There is not a single new job creation program; not a single new program in the Treasurer's budget; nothing for the older laid-off workers; nothing for the young people of this province. There is nothing there.

This government had 42 years to write a throne speech. It has had one year in office and it has used that year to pick through the BILD program, Enterprise Ontario, the previous throne speech and campaign documents of the Progressive Conservative Party. From those four sources, it has put together old programs, existing programs and old ideas; nothing new. The Liberals went to their own cupboard and it was bare.

It is sad. It gives us on this side some political hope. However, we would trade that for the opportunity to have seen any sense of anything new in the throne speech. As I said at the start of my remarks, on April 22 we had an opportunity to look into the heart and soul of this government. We had an opportunity to see what the real David Peterson thinks of us, what his ideas are, his sense of the trials and tribulations being faced by young, visible minority persons in the heart of Metropolitan Toronto, scraping and hoping to get a job somewhere. We had a chance to see how he identifies with the laid-off steelworkers in Sault Ste. Marie.

We had a chance to see how the Premier relates to and understands the concerns of various young people in smaller and single-industry communities throughout northern Ontario. Let us be honest, they were not looking for the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine). Let us be serious. They were looking for the Premier to offer a sense of hope for the future. They got nothing. The Premier had an opportunity to send a message to those people: to tell them he understood their fears, to tell them he offered some hope, whether for women in the public service or women in the private sector seeking expansion of day care opportunities, a young person seeking new training opportunities or a member of a visible minority seeking a first job out there.

4:40 p.m.

The Premier had a chance to identify with those people. He had a chance to take the hand of the unemployed auto worker. He had a chance to walk down the streets of Hamilton with the steelworkers and say: "I know it is tough out here. I know these changes are causing all sort of layoffs and the transformation is wreaking havoc in your lives. But I have a sensible practical plan, a combination of short-tern projects, long-term research projects an medium-term training projects. I have some new opportunities for you. I have some ideas with regard to how we can take advantage of"--may say it?--"freer trade opportunities. I have some ideas about how we can expand the service sector. I know how we can retrain you, even though you are 48 years old, and I am prepared to commit money to it."

I know he had an opportunity too in the throne speech to say to the women of this province that he meant what he said when he signed the accord with the New Democrats offering to do something real about equal pay.

But the Premier, left on his own, failed at those tests. He said to those people, "I am here now." He reflected, I think, what he has now come to believe, that on May 2, 1985, he got more seats than the Tories. He did not. I think he believes he got a big, overwhelming mandate, as Brian Mulroney did. He did not. I think he believes that style can replace substance in the long term.

I think he believes that once he lucked in through a series of events that even he had not foreseen, as he has himself admitted, now that he is there, he does not have to worry about those people in downtown Hamilton, those people on Brunswick Avenue in my riding, the people in Pembroke and Arnprior and, yes, the people in Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury -- all those people who have reflected a desire for change, for the breath of fresh air the Premier always likes to talk about but has been unable to deliver since the member for York South breathed it into his ear. All those people look at the throne speech and say, "There is nothing new, nothing there."

The sad reality is that after one year in office, this government came forward with no new programs, just rehashes of old programs; that this government, when it had an opportunity to express a sense of commitment, caring and passion and a little bit of heart, failed.

It has become a rudderless government that knows it is in power--boy, it really knows that. Watch the Premier in this House every day; he knows he is in power. But he knows too, through this throne speech, that the government has little else. It knows it is in power, but it does not know why. It knows it has no priorities, except figuring out how to stay in office and how to jettison the footmen over here. That insensitivity, that "Who cares?" attitude with regard to the throne speech and the thousands of unemployed people in Ontario, leads us to move that the motion be amended by adding the following thereto

Mr. McClellan: Let us have that election.

Mr. Grossman: Stop sweating. You have given it away.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: As someone who is still free to do what his conscience tells him to do in this House, I will move an amendment.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Grossman moves that the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session be amended by the addition of the following words:

"This House, however, regrets that the speech from the throne fails to address the most serious problems facing Ontario today, reflecting a total lack of government initiative, leadership and policy necessary to resolve these concerns, namely:

"The continuing unemployment crisis, particularly among this province's youth; the urgent need for affordable housing in this province; the preservation of Ontario's health, social and education sectors, and particularly support for hospitals, day care, services for the elderly and post-secondary institutions; the continuing problems facing farmers during these recessionary times.

"Therefore, this House declares its lack of confidence in the government."

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

The House adjourned at 4:47 p.m.

30 avril 1986