Journal des débats 1986-mai-06 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Andrewes: I would like to take this opportunity to make a small request of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). He is fully aware that the economy of Ontario continues to grow at a rapid rate, partially as the result of excellent management by previous governments. This booming economy, which is projected to grow twice as fast as the Treasurer predicted last fall, will net the government a revenue windfall of at least $2 billion this year.

Major tax changes announced in the 1985 federal budget will bring an additional $525 million into the government's coffers, even after taking into account the $275 million the Treasurer believes the province will lose as a result of the decrease in transfer payments and the effect of capital gains exemption.

This money, when combined with the massive tax increase of $700 million contained in the Treasurer's previous budget, will give the province a net revenue gain of more than $3,225,000,000 million for 1986.

In the light of this major windfall the government finds itself with, my request to the Treasurer is that he reduce taxes in the upcoming budget, take steps to reduce the provincial deficit and increase funding to a number of critical areas. The Treasurer has the resources and the flexibility to accomplish this. I hope he will take this opportunity to provide some relief to the beleaguered taxpayers of the province and to ensure that the economy will continue to grow at a healthy rate.

DAY CARE DAY

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I rise in the House today to mark Day Care Day in Toronto. There will be a day-long series of activities on the issue.

Day Care Day comes at a time when the federal government has set up yet another committee to discuss the needs of child care despite the fact that the issue is already well known to us. I will be appearing before that special parliamentary committee on child care tomorrow to urge it to finally take the action that is required to guarantee universally accessible child care as a right in this country and not as a privilege.

Day Care Day also comes at a time when the cost to a family that is placing an 18-month-old infant in child care in Toronto averages $5,893 a year. There are some nonprofit centres where parents pay up to $6,760 a year, which is more than the cost of a day student at Upper Canada College.

Finally, I note that the activities of Day Care Day stand in marked contrast to the inaction of this Liberal government on child care. Despite the kind words of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) on the subject, we still do not know what is being planned by the ministry. Words are not enough. They will not serve the crying needs of children for whom there are no spaces or of families that cannot afford the existing spaces. It is time we knew what the government is going to do about day care, and Day Care Day is the perfect day to find out.

CHIROPRACTIC AMATEUR ATHLETIC FUND

Mr. Reycraft: Last Friday the London Chiropractic Society launched a week of activities with its eighth annual Spinal Health Week banquet. The society is using the week to showcase the chiropractic amateur athletic fund which its members have established.

A large number of young Canadian athletes is now training for the 1988 summer and winter Olympics. Many of them have attained the necessary calibre to win medals. However, unless they receive the best coaching and assistance with training, travel and living expenses, they will be unable to participate fully in international athletic events. Because of the current circumstances, the fund has been established to ensure that amateur athletes get the assistance they require.

For years, athletes and chiropractors have had a special relationship. A large number of our finest and most promising athletes call upon the services of chiropractors to aid them in physical preparation. Now London and Middlesex chiropractors are offering citizens an opportunity to help our amateur athletes too.

The chiropractic amateur athletic fund will enable many of our athletes to look forward to meaningful participation in the 1988 Olympics and international sporting events. I want to draw to this Legislature's attention this very fine and noble effort by the London Chiropractic Society.

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

Mr. Sheppard: Because of an overwhelming demand for senior citizens' housing in Cobourg and surrounding municipalities, the Cobourg Legion has incorporated a nonprofit housing corporation called Branch 133 Legion Village. This multi-year building project was laid out in a three-stage implementation. The objective of the entire project was and is to provide a place where people aged 50 and up can reside in the confidence that their changing needs will be met. This facility relieves the residents of anxiety concerning where they will live and how they will cope should they suffer infirmity. Thus far, phases 1 and 2 have been completed. They are fully operational and extremely successful in fulfilling their mandate. There are waiting lists to get into both facilities at the complex.

Initially, the federal government and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. approved and very warmly welcomed the overall plan for the Cobourg Legion Village with the stipulation that it be built in three phases. Unfortunately, the jurisdiction of this facility has subsequently been transferred to the provincial government and everything has stopped there. To everyone's dismay, including municipal officials, local housing groups and the senior citizen population, phase 3 was not included in the provincial government's 1986 building program nor is it on any sort of a priority list for 1986-87 construction.

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

Mr. Sheppard: The completion of this project was to have been under way right now.

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

Mr. Sheppard: I urge the minister to make completion of this third phase a top priority and to do so now.

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

SPRAY PROGRAM

Mr. Laughren: I rise because of my concern about what is happening within the Ministry of Natural Resources. Members will recall that before the House adjourned for the Christmas break, it was announced by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) that no chemicals would be used in the spraying of Ontario's forests. Since that time, Ontario's executive co-ordinator of forest resources declared before a national conference on forestry in Ottawa that governments and others who refuse to use chemicals in spraying are irresponsible.

I do not know how government members feel about the minister, but I do not feel irresponsible in calling for a ban on the use of chemicals in spraying our forests in order to control the budworm.

It is important to understand that when governments announce policy, people responsible for implementing that policy have a responsibility to do just that. I am not suggesting for a moment that this government use the heavy, arbitrary hand the previous minister in the previous government used when his senior officials spoke out, but as long as senior people within government do not implement policies determined in a very democratic way by the government, those policies will never be implemented. It is time the Minister of Natural Resources had a serious talk with senior officials in his ministry.

CANCER TREATMENT CENTRES

Mr. Wildman: It is obvious that we have a need to upgrade and modernize Ontario's cancer treatment centres. Since the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) is concerned with accessibility to health care in this province, I expect he will be making an announcement in the near future in regard to allocation of funds for improvement to cancer treatment facilities in Ontario.

It is imperative that existing facilities in Toronto be upgraded with new technologies and approaches to care and that new facilities be provided in southern Ontario. It is even more imperative that the minister provide the funds needed for community-based programs in other cities across the province. The highly skilled physicians practising outside the Ontario Cancer Treatment Research Foundation must also be provided with the modern facilities they need to serve the people in the outlying communities in the north, as well as in southern Ontario.

The Sudbury cancer treatment centre requires significant funding to meet its mandate. Community-based programs in cities such as Saint Ste. Marie must be funded as well. Funding to be announced by the minister must not be directed completely to Toronto or southern Ontario. Northern Ontario needs modern cancer treatment facilities too. Similarly, funding in the north must be shared among northern communities besides Sudbury, such as Sault Ste. Marie, if the needs of northern cancer patients are to be met.

MULTICULTURAL EXTRAVAGANZA

Mr. Callahan: I want to take a very quick opportunity to invite all members of the Legislature, as well as those who may be viewing us today, to an excellent multicultural extravaganza that occurs in Brampton. One can see a sampling of the entire event on June 30 at the Lester B. Pearson Memorial Theatre at 7:30 p.m. or attend some of the 16 pavilions we will be conducting on July 5 and 6.

TOURISM IN EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr. Villeneuve: I want to make a few comments regarding tourism in eastern Ontario as announced by the government in its speech from the throne. Weed harvesting has been a very positive aspect of attracting tourists from Quebec and New York state. It is my understanding that the chances are that we could lose this project in eastern Ontario. I urge the government to promote tourism by maintaining this very special program.

VISITORS

Mr. Brandt: I ask the indulgence of the House to introduce members of a Sarnia delegation who are in the gallery. This will take me only a moment. They are Mayor Marceil Saddy, Alderman Doug Bain, John Robertson, city manager, and Rick Draker, director of planning. We are pleased to have them here.

Mr. Speaker: I am certain the members are pleased to welcome all guests in the galleries today. However, I must remind members that this should take place during members' statements.

2: 13 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HUMAN RIGHTS

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Most Canadians take for granted the human rights that we enjoy in our country. Now and again, however, we have occasion to be reminded of just how precious those rights really are. We in this House are presented with such an occasion today.

In 1976, there began a so-called dirty war waged by the military junta in Argentina against what it described as terrorism. Between 1976 and 1979, an estimated 9,000 to 30,000 Argentinian infants, youths and adults disappeared. Since then, every Thursday in Buenos Aires, a group of mothers don white scarves embroidered with the names of their missing children and march in the Plaza del Mayo in front of the presidential palace.

This afternoon I have the honour and privilege, as minister responsible for human rights, of introducing to members Mrs. Renee Epelbaum, one of the "Mothers of the Plaza del Mayo." Her three children, aged 25, 23 and 20, were among those who disappeared in 1976. She and other mothers have travelled throughout North America and western Europe when they can, trying to ensure that the fate of their children is not forgotten. I know all members join me in paying tribute to the courage and devotion that she and all the mothers display in the face of grave personal danger.

The commitment and unfailing faith of this group of women, demonstrating peacefully for a full accounting of all missing children, speaking openly and critically in the face of oppression and dedicating themselves to the cause of the disappeared and the cause of human rights in Argentina, serve as a beacon to the world.

Renee Epelbaum and her colleagues deserve our heartfelt gratitude and our unstinting support. Mrs. Epelbaum is in the members' east gallery. I ask her to stand and be recognized.

Mr. Gillies: On behalf of the official opposition, I would like to join the Minister of Labour in a warm greeting to Mrs. Renee Epelbaum. Mrs. Epelbaum and her colleagues probably would never understand that people in a free country such as ours often take their freedoms and human rights for granted. It is our hope in this party, and I am sure of all members, that some day she and her countrymen will be able to step out from the shadows and themselves bask in the sunlight of universal human rights. l am delighted she is able to visit us as a symbol of the courage of an oppressed people.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I wish to join in the welcome to Mrs. Renee Epelbaum. It was approximately five years ago that some representatives of the mothers and grandmothers from the Plaza del Mayo came before our caucus and told us of their fight. We saw at first hand the incredible courage of those women. They set an example in those days and are an example now to parents and families in Chile and Guatemala, where children are also disappearing under repressive regimes. They are a wonderful example to us all, and it is an honour that she has joined us today.

INSURANCE RATES

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to table in the House the report of the Ontario Task Force on Insurance. As members will recall, the task force was established on January 9, 1986, to address issues related to cost and capacity problems in the property and casualty insurance markets.

Dr. David Slater chaired the task force. I am most appreciative of the fine work this task force has achieved. I want to express my sincere congratulations to Dr. Slater, his support and administrative staff, the policy advisory group and general counsel, on a job exceedingly well done. A special mention for their contribution goes to Deborah Coyne, who acted as executive director, and Murray Thompson, superintendent of insurance. Dr. Slater and Deborah Coyne are in the members' gallery, and I ask that members recognize them.

Not only did Dr. Slater present his report on schedule and on time, something that does not often occur when dealing with a complex subject, but also the material provides us with the opportunity for thoughtful discussion. The task force has set out about 100 recommendations in its 520-page, two-volume report. The public and industry will have the opportunity to provide us with comments until July 31, 1986. In the meantime, my staff and I will carefully review the recommendations, and I hope the members will review the material and find it informative.

Mr. Runciman: Members will appreciate that even a Conservative cannot digest a 200-page document in half an hour. I am certain there will be further opportunities to debate the Slater task force report. I would like to convey my sincere appreciation to officials in the Ministry of Financial Institutions for allowing Lorrie Goldstein and the Toronto Sun a sneak preview of the Slater report. I would prefer that these reports were released here in the Legislature, but I will take advantage of the minister's leaky operation to make a few comments.

Many months have passed since my colleagues and members of the third party started questioning the minister on insurance. Whatever its merits -- and I compliment Dr. Slater, there are quite a few -- this report is too late for the swimming school in Markham, the architect in Willowdale, the tour operator in Brockville, the riding stables in Port Carling and municipalities such as Thorold and Ancaster, to name but a few.

As I stated earlier, there are many merits to this report, and I hope the minister will not wait much longer before adopting many of the recommendations. However, it ignores many pressing problems. There is much to be said for a privately run, no-fault insurance plan. It is significantly better than a government-run plan. Any system must have checks and balances. If it were up to Dr. Slater, individuals would lose the right to sue for personal injury from automobile accidents, no matter how serious. As well, damages for pain and suffering could be obtained only by purchasing additional coverage. In the longer term, there would be no access to the courts for any accidental injuries.

The task force is recommending a no-fault scheme for everyone. The insurance companies will get a predetermined schedule of payments, probably on the low side, and no obligation to pay for pain and suffering. What a field day for Ontario's insurance companies.

Where is the assurance that premiums will go down? We are asking the individual to give up his right to sue and to have his personal damages individually assessed. We are giving insurance companies the stable environment they require to price their product effectively, yet we are getting nothing for the consumer in return. There is no assurance that premiums will decrease or level off, no assurance that additional coverage will be highly affordable and no assurance that the amount of no-fault payment will be adequate or that the areas of coverage will be sufficient.

There are more errors of omission. There is precious little about the problems Ontario has had in the reinsurance market and nothing about penalties for frivolous claims or about a simultaneous prevention and safety campaign. We also find nothing about establishing a consumer advocate in the office of the superintendent of insurance.

Many months ago, following the establishment of the Slater task force, this party expressed concern that there were only two representatives from the insurance industry on the task force and that there was no one from consumer groups or small business. From a cursory examination of the report, we suspect our concerns were well founded.

In summary, we hope the minister does not heed socialist calls for government-run insurance. He still has much work ahead of him in coming up with a comprehensive proposal for dealing with the insurance crisis. Members of this party will be making many constructive suggestions, and we trust he will take note.

Mr. Swart: I wish to reply to the statement of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on the Slater task force. The Slater report, if implemented, will make some improvements to the present system, but overall it is a pathetic answer to a horrendous problem.

Apart from that, the minister's statement on tabling the report is void of any grasp of the present crisis. He states, "The public and industry will have the opportunity to provide us with comments until July 31, 1986," which is three months from now. That leaves any remedial action until at least the fall, which is six months from now.

There is no mention by the minister of any interim action to deal with the crisis of volunteer organizations cutting back on services and of events being cancelled. There is no mention by him of requiring insurance companies to justify the present rates, which continue to be applied, and further massive rate increases.

Our insurance task force went out in the real world, which the Slater task force never did. It identified seven major problems in the auto insurance system, all very major ones. The Slater report, if adopted by the government in total, and that is doubtful, will resolve only two of these problems: more adequate no-fault insurance and the elimination of penalties for age, sex and marital status. Apart from not solving the other problems, if the report is adopted, it will further escalate insurance rates. The private companies will pass on to the motorists the costs of increased no-fault insurance as well as their losses from the excessive revenue now received from good young drivers.

This would not have been necessary if they had gone to the model of the public plans in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia. They already have the two benefits of no-fault insurance and age and sex parity, with rates far lower than those in force here. The savings that could have been realized by the public auto insurance system, as documented by every independent study made, including Ontario's own 1978 select committee on company law report, would have absorbed these additional costs and left substantial funds for reducing premiums generally.

It is regrettable and unforgivable that Slater simply skirted and avoided the much lower costs of the public systems. The recommendations on liability insurance lack the same imagination and answers to the real problems. The impact on society of this current liability situation is enormous. Dr. Slater said, "Insurance penetrates everything in this life." The penetration at present is one of bloodletting. The long-range proposals may improve the system, but nothing is going to change shortly or substantially. The public plans that operate in competition with private plans in the west have shown that rates are kept reasonable by the competition. Dr. Slater should have recommended that here.

Let there be no doubt that Ontario's current crisis in insurance is the direct responsibility of the insurance industry and of the government's hands-off policy. No one else is to blame. One commentator said that Slater was giving the private insurance industry one more chance. They were given that chance by the select committee report in 1978. Now it is time motorists and other insurers were given a chance in this province. Instead, what this report does, which will undoubtedly be implemented by the government, is to make the insurance market safe for the private insurance companies but not safe for the people of this province.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Hon. Mr. Scott: Later today I will introduce a bill to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act. The legislation demonstrates in concrete form this government's commitment to providing compensation for the innocent victims of crime. It contains significant amendments that will have a major beneficial financial impact for these victims.

To reflect more accurately the real cost of injuries, the bill will significantly increase the maximum amounts that can be awarded to a victim of crime. The maximum awards for one victim will be increased from $15,000 to $25,000 for a lump sum award and from $500 to $1,000 per month for periodic payments. The maximum awards for all victims in respect of any one occurrence will be increased from $100,000 to $150,000 for a lump sum payment and from $175,000 to $250,000 for periodic payments. No changes have been made in this act by the party opposite since 1971.

The bill will also harmonize the compensation for victims of crime program with the family benefits/general welfare assistance program to minimize the disadvantage experienced by victims of crime who are general assistance recipients. Each program now deducts the amount received from the other program when determining the amount of an award or benefit.

The present net result is that general assistance recipients who are victims of crime may effectively receive no compensation for being the victim of a crime. This anomaly is rectified by the legislation, which will require that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board no longer deduct welfare benefits when assessing compensation.

In preparing this legislation, we considered at great length the issue of whether government should make provision for compensating the victims of crime for grief and sorrow, independent of the existing entitlement to compensation for pain and suffering. This was a particularly difficult question for me.

The government fully recognizes that grief and sorrow are the inevitable result of any crime. However, given the limitations of a publicly funded compensation scheme, it has decided it would not be prudent to provide compensation beyond the established boundaries of pain and suffering. Even the common law and the courts have not recognized such a claim. In a program the purpose of which is to assist the victim with pecuniary losses, it would be a marked departure to introduce compensation for a highly variable factor such as grief and sorrow. Frankly, I regretfully doubt whether money can compensate for this kind of emotional pain.

The bill will also give the board more flexibility and the ability to recover its award from the criminal who caused the injury or death. In addition to its present right to maintain an action for damages against the criminal in the name of the victim, the bill gives the board the right to bring its own action in the name of the crown. This amendment reinforces the important principle that criminals have responsibilities to their victims. The fact that the government has established a program to compensate victims of crime does not alter the principle.

The legislation will require recipients of compensation to provide whatever information and co-operation they can to assist the board in maintaining an action against the offender. The bill also will give the board more flexibility to deal fairly with cases where the applicant has not co-operated with the police. In this circumstance, the board will have discretion to reduce the amount of compensation to be awarded. Currently, under the present statute, the board only has authority to refuse to make an order for compensation in such a case.

This legislation will also allow the board to hold an in camera hearing where the applicant has been the victim of child abuse and where a public hearing would be prejudicial to the final disposition of the trial of the person who caused the injury or death.

In addition, the legislation will provide that, under certain circumstances, the board can award interim payments for funeral expenses. Under the present wording, the act authorizes interim payments only in respect of maintenance and medical expenses.

The legislation we are proposing will put Ontario in the forefront of North American jurisdictions which seek to compensate their citizens for the costs of violent crime. Along with other initiatives we are taking to deal with victims of crime, the victims of child and spousal abuse in particular, these measures will mark a new beginning in our government's quest for compassionate and equitable treatment of people who are the victims of criminal conduct.

The chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Mrs. Margaret Scrivener, a distinguished former member of this Legislature from my own riding of St. David, is present in the members' gallery. I ask her to rise. I know she will be as delighted as I am in the introduction of this progressive legislation.

Mr. O'Connor: We applaud the initiative of the Attorney General in bringing in substantive amendments to the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act. Victims of crime must be adequately compensated, and today's announcement is a good start, but we must not turn a blind eye to the other, apparently forgotten victims, the family members of the crime victims. To ignore the terrible anguish of the spouse, children, parents and siblings is to say that crime affects only the individual on whom it was perpetrated.

We acknowledge by way of the Family Law Act that family members should be compensated for damages and other circumstances, having set this out in five separate categories. To ignore such a precedent in amending this act is to demean the importance of the family unit. To encourage the isolation of family members by saying, "You are not involved and this case does not concern you," is to add a second assault or a second injury. It is a flaw in this bill that is fatal.

Ms. Gigantes: On behalf of New Democrats, I welcome the statement by the Attorney General that there will be amendments to the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act. It is high time the act was changed. Public opinion has called for a change in the attention we give to victims of crime, and the announcement that we will provide greater compensation is welcome. I hope the minister will see that previous compensation, which was not adequate, is reviewed immediately the amendments are put into effect.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Before I call for oral questions, I wish to inform the members that in the east end of the Speaker's gallery we have a distinguished guest from a province to the east of us, the Honourable Richard French, Minister of Communications, from the Quebec National Assembly. Welcome, Mr. French.

2: 34 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. How is it that the Urban Transportation Development Corp. , in which the taxpayers of this province have invested more than $160 million, which projects a profit of $23 million over the next three years and which is expecting more than $4 billion worth of sales as a result of Expo 86, now has had its sale to the private sector so mismanaged by the minister and by Mr. Kruger, special adviser to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), that, in the words of an anonymous high-level government official, "Lavalin is now offering to take it off your hands for a washout" -- no money for a $160-million corporation?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am pleased to see that even the Leader of the Opposition has reduced his anticipated profit from the Urban Transportation Development Corp. from some $40 million in his March 25 release to $24 million. I cannot give much more credence to the balance of his question than to his previous statements.

Mr. Grossman: I might say to the minister, whose arrogance is showing through loud and clear --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: The taxpayers of Ontario want to know how it is that the minister, Mr. Kruger and the Premier have so mismanaged the sale of this corporation that they are about to get zero dollars as they dump it off out of government hands.

Let me quote from John Kruger. In the Globe and Mail on March 8, 1986, he reported that Bombardier "tried to make an exclusive deal for the company in early December for $54 million, even before it had seen UTDC's books.

"The new Liberal government," Mr. Kruger went on to report, "did not want to risk the political fallout of a secret deal with Bombardier.... In the process it angered Bombardier, which withdrew from the bidding."

The government had a $54-million offer in its hands, by Mr. Kruger's admission. Now, as a result of the government's mismanagement, the taxpayers are going to get no dollars for a $160-million investment. How does the minister explain that?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The Leader of the Opposition knows far more about arrogance than anyone on this side of the House. As the minister responsible for UTDC, I would be irresponsible if I responded to a question that refers to some unknown source in the newspaper.

Mr. Gillies: The Premier's arrogance is catching; that is obvious. Absolutely appalling.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: Fifty-four million dollars and he does not think it merits an answer?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Maybe the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) would control himself.

Mr. Gillies: It is difficult.

Mr. Grossman: The minister cannot hide from the public for ever on this issue. He is going to have to answer these questions. I invite him to answer them in this assembly, where it is his responsibility to do so.

The minister alleged, through Mr. Kruger, that he was getting a $36.7-million guaranteed bid, not subject to withdrawal by Lavalin, for this company. Without signing a final agreement, he then commissioned Wood Gundy to do this study in an attempt to justify politically the price he had got. Wood Gundy then reported it might be worth between $24 million and $30 million.

Is the minister prepared to acknowledge this afternoon that, to justify his political sale, he has embarrassed Lavalin, which is now saying to the government: "Your own evaluation says we paid too much. Now we are not going to pay you anything."

2: 40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I suggest that the evaluation of UTDC and the controversy surrounding it best reflect the manner in which the previous government established a corporation and in the ensuing manner in which it did the bookkeeping.

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the minister responsible for francophone affairs. Last Thursday he introduced a bill respecting French-language services. On that day, he announced that there were statutory guarantees in that bill. We asked him to point out the statutory guarantees, to enunciate them in this House and to point out where they were in the bill. He could not answer those questions.

It has now been five days since he introduced that legislation. Can he now, today, point out what those statutory guarantees are and where they are found in the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I refer the member to section 5 of the bill. I also point out that the commission that will be in place for the next three years will determine these services and make its recommendations known to cabinet and to this House.

Mr. Pope: On advice from the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), the minister is aware that a decision of that commission and a decision of cabinet by no stretch of the imagination constitute statutory guarantees. I pointed out last Thursday to the minister the multitude of exemptions and regulations from sections 5 through sections 11 of his own legislation which virtually make the entire offering of French-language services not a statutory right, not a matter of statutory guarantee, but a matter of discretion of the cabinet. Does he disagree with that interpretation?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: My answer is the same as that given previously. The commission will evaluate the present services and make recommendations. After three years, these services will be guaranteed. This is much more than the services that have been given to the francophone population for the last 43 years.

Mr. Pope: With respect, that is no different whatsoever. There is no change. There is no statutory guarantee, even though on page 3 the minister promised the francophones and the people of this province there were. There are no statutory guarantees in the law, contrary to the minister's own statement in introducing the legislation.

My final supplementary is this. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) said the minister would delay the introduction of this legislation until there were francophone professionals available to provide the service across this province. What has changed since February 13 to make it possible to introduce this bill now'? Has he now got the professional services available and is that why he is introducing the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I told the former minister responsible for francophone affairs, who did not do a thing while he had that responsibility, that the commission will evaluate these services and produce the needed guaranteed rights.

Mr. Rae: It is refreshing to hear someone say the bill is so bad it is just the way it was for 42 years.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Rae: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It concerns car insurance. Now that we have the report, and given that in Saskatchewan premiums fell by seven per cent in 1985 and are going to be frozen for 1986, and in Manitoba they fell by two per cent in 1985, as they did in British Columbia, given those clear facts, coupled with the harsh reality that in Ontario rates have gone up by as much as 20 or 25 per cent depending on the driver, can the minister tell us why his government continues to refuse to embrace the logical, fair, democratic and eminently reasonable idea of public automobile insurance in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The leader of the third party makes statements that reflect his party's philosophical answer to insurance. We established a task force headed by Dr. Slater, who is a very well respected gentleman. He looked at all the information that the leader of the third party just outlined. In his determination, that was not the answer.

We have received his report; we are going to look at it and we will then make our determination. I can tell the member now that Dr. Slater comes out very emphatically that in his investigation of all the provinces that have their own car insurance business, there are more problems than there are solutions. That is his position and, at this moment, that is the position we are maintaining.

Mr. Rae: It would take a Liberal to be astounded by the fact that my question reflects the philosophy our party holds. I know a Liberal finds that difficult to understand, but yes, I confess, the question does reflect my point of view. It reflects a sincerely held point of view.

It also reflects the facts, and it is in connection with those facts that I address a second question to the minister. Can the minister tell us what assurance a driver, young or old, man or woman, rich or poor, has today that this government will take steps to ensure that rates in Ontario will and can come down and not go up'? What steps is the minister prepared to announce today to protect the real interests of consumers in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: To respond to the first part of the member's question, the mere fact that it reflects that party's point of view does not mean it reflects that of the province and of the population of Ontario. Otherwise, they would be in a majority situation.

To answer the member's question, the marketplace is working. The situation in Ontario is relatively unusual. We have no indication that government insurance would help the problem. We will look at the total, overall insurance problem as a result of this report and we will act accordingly.

Mr. Rae: I am glad the minister is where he is; that is all I can say. I am just delighted.

I would like to ask the minister this question with respect to automobile insurance. Can he simply announce today what steps he is prepared to announce? Alberta has a privately controlled system, but it at least has a government board that regulates the price of insurance. Is the minister prepared, at least on an interim basis, to announce measures today that will ensure that motorists will no longer be ripped off to the extent to which they are being ripped off today in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The very simple answer to his question is that I am not prepared to do that today.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Energy with respect to the implications and impact of the accident at Chernobyl. He has now had some time to consider a response. Can he point to one change in public policy, one shift in point of view in his ministry, in Ontario Hydro or at any other level that reflects the implications of the accident that took place some 10 days ago?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The problem I have in replying to that kind of question is that no one knows what happened at Chernobyl. I think we would be less than responsible if we did not wait to see exactly what happened and how we should respond. I am not sure that what happened in Chernobyl with a graphite reactor is something that could happen here.

I tell the member, with the greatest commitment we have on this side, that when we know full well what took place at Chernobyl, we will be up in the Legislature reporting to the assembly.

Mr. Rae: The minister's view seems to reflect that dangerous complacency that simply says, "It cannot happen here."

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, it is not.

Mr. Rae: That is what I heard from the minister's statement. That is the answer I heard very clearly.

Mr. Mancini: That is not what he said.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Rae: If the minister has a different answer, let him give it. Can he explain why no steps have been taken after his statement last week with respect to the need for a systematic study of safety and of the implications of a serious accident with respect to any of our plants? Can he explain why no steps have been taken in that direction, why no indication has been made of a need for an independent study and no steps been taken on the need to change and shift Ontario's policy? Is the minister saying no steps will be taken with respect to what has happened?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: This government has taken many steps on where we will go. We are looking at alternatives such as hydraulic generation, conservation and cogeneration. We are not going to put all our eggs in one basket. We are looking at all those options.

The member is aware that a former New Democratic member, Donald MacDonald, was the chairman of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs which looked into safety. I am sure he was satisfied at that time, and right up to the present, that our reactors are such that workers feel safe working in them.

Mr. Rae: Since the minister has referred to that report, let me remind him that recommendations from both the Porter commission and the select committee chaired by Mr. MacDonald, to which he referred, suggested a thorough examination of the likelihood and consequences of a serious nuclear accident. The minister must know that the specific recommendations with respect to the implications of a nuclear accident were systematically ignored by Hydro, by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., by the Atomic Energy Control Board and by the government of Ontario.

Since the minister apparently has endorsed that report today, is he prepared at least to take a minimal step and undertake such a study or review to assure Ontario citizens that a province that will be 70 per cent nuclear dependent by 1990, thanks to his government, its decisions and priorities, will at least have the safest system in the world?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: My first response is that this was not our decision. It may be our responsibility now, but it was not our decision when it was entered into. I am very willing to accept what the member is saying. Part of the responsibility is that of the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes), who has very seriously taken that into account. Certainly, we are going to do the things the member is suggesting.

One thing that gives me some comfort is that the Hydro workers themselves say it all. Members of Local 1000 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees work in the plants and they are the strongest supporters of the safety of the nuclear plants in Ontario. I am not going to their defence to the point that I will not look into the alternatives, but I think the workers in those plants say it all.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: I have another question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I want to give him the unfettered opportunity to explain what happened to reduce a $160-million investment to zero.

The minister, together with Mr. Kruger, stated with quite a fanfare several months ago that he was getting an alleged $71 million for the sale of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. to Lavalin. Can the minister explain to the House and the taxpayers of this province what has transpired from that day to this to cause Lavalin to withdraw its offer and the government to lose an alleged $71 million?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I do not agree the offer is causing less than what we indicated in March. The Leader of the Opposition is aware the offer contained an allowance for the bidders to take a detailed look at the accounting practices and books of the UTDC. One of the things of particular concern to us as well as the bidders is the ongoing liability of UTDC, of which the Leader of the Opposition is very much aware since he was the Treasurer when some of those liabilities were entered into.

Mr. Grossman: The minister announced the deal before he had signed a firm offer. He stood up and trumpeted $71 million without having a commitment from Lavalin, as it turns out. He then commissioned a report that said to Lavalin, "John Kruger and the Premier have said to the world, `We got $71 million from Lavalin.'" He then got Wood Gundy to say to the world: "Lavalin, they took you. In Wood Gundy's view, the company is worth $26 million to $30 million." Is the minister prepared to admit that when this became public, Lavalin called up and said it was no longer prepared to be held out to the public as paying $71 million for something that his own report said was worth $26 million?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: We did not announce a deal. We announced the award to a successful bidder to explore further the possibility of negotiating the privatization of the corporation. It is that simple.

TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. What specific safeguards is the minister implementing as a result of his ministry's findings released last Friday that the most toxic form of dioxin, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, has been found at the level of 210 parts per trillion in the primary settling lagoon at the Boise Cascade mill in Fort Frances?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member will recall some time ago it was revealed that dioxin had been found in the fish in the Rainy River. At that time, I indicated that the Ministry of the Environment and its counterpart in Minnesota would examine a number of potential sources of that dioxin, a significant amount having been found, at least enough to flag a problem. Subsequent to that, the ministry examined the effluent in Boise Cascade's material coming out of the plant. The effluent did not contain anything, but the sludge did contain dioxin.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, that is what I just said.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I know this is a serious matter and the member will consider that.

Mr. Foulds: The minister released the information on Friday afternoon in northwestern Ontario and not here.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think that was a pretty well known fact.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister was actually starting to answer what I guess was a supplementary question. Is there a supplementary?

Mr. Wildman: He was starting to answer the first question.

Mr. Rae: He repeated the question and then he did not get on to his answer.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you could respond briefly.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will try to respond in a more brief manner.

As a result of testing in our lab, we did find dioxin in the sludge at Boise Cascade. We are looking at six or seven other plants, at the same time as those on the American side are, to identify whether the problem is prevalent in all the plants or in one specific plant, because it has been found in other places. As a result, we are working with the companies to determine how they might change their processes to avoid the production of dioxin.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister agree with the present Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), who said in 1983, "Sweet assurances from the ministry that all is well in the face of a growing dioxin threat are beginning to ring hollow"?

When will the minister be in a position to tell us that his ministry has accepted its responsibility (1) to guarantee that these discharges are not going into the Rainy River in any way, shape or form, (2) to determine what it is in the kraft pulping process that appears to produce dioxin as a byproduct and (3) to find out what is causing the contamination level of dioxin in the fish in the Rainy River?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is absolutely correct. It is the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment to determine that and the responsibility of no one else.

We are in a position to say that is why we did the testing of the fish, the testing of the effluent and the testing of the sludge. At this time, our officials are working with the companies to determine the source so the procedure that produces dioxin as a byproduct can be changed and we no longer have that byproduct making its way into the environment. It is a legitimate concern. We are moving very quickly, and at the earliest opportunity we hope to have the solution.

3 p.m.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. A senior member of the cabinet has recently stated that he favours enhanced trade with the United States. Will the minister draw some distinction between the meaning of "enhanced trade" and "freer trade" with respect to the United States?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I take it that enhanced trade means increased trade.

Mr. Brandt: I am glad to hear the government has an identifiable position and it is in favour of more trade. It is delightful to hear that. However, what is the government going to do about enhancing trade with the US if it is in opposition to some form of freer trade or to some of the discussions that are going on at present on the part of the federal government?

Will the minister please clarify for this House what his position is on enhanced trade, freer trade, free trade, trade liberalization or anything else to do with trade so that we will know?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I find it very hard to understand that a previous Minister of Industry and Trade does not understand the issue. We will work very hard for increased or enhanced trade to raise our trade figures with the US for ever, I hope, depending on what comes out of the free trade --

Mr. Brandt: So he is in favour of free trade.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Enhanced or increased trade.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the Minister of Housing. Yesterday, the Minister of Housing said the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) would address the question of severing rental row housing for a private sale. In turn, the Minister of Municipal Affairs said he would review all municipal consents to the severance of row housing.

Will the Minister of Housing tell us whether Bill 11 or the associated and somewhat confused ministerial statements will allow an appeal to cabinet of the recent Ontario Municipal Board approval of severances for 94 units of rental row housing in Overbrook and Carlington Park in the ridings of Ottawa Centre and Ottawa East?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If I understand the honourable member's question, she is asking whether that case will allow an appeal from the OMB to the cabinet. Is that what she is asking?

Ms. Gigantes: Can it be appealed?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I cannot answer the question. I will have to check whether it can be appealed and get back to her.

Ms. Gigantes: While the minister is checking, will he also inquire of whomever tells him whether under Bill 11 the tenants of the 90 rental units in the Bonaventure Apartments at 180 MacLaren in the riding of Ottawa Centre can follow steps which will lead to an appeal to cabinet to prevent their building from becoming converted unit by unit to an apartment hotel?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I will also check into that.

Mr. Shymko: My question is to the Premier. On February 12, he promised this government would not unilaterally interfere with municipalities on the issue of conversion. In reply to my question about protecting tenant ownership, he said: "The power is in the hands of Metro Toronto.... Surely he is not asking me to impose my will unilaterally, one way or another, on this situation. No good yuppie would do that kind of thing."

How does a good yuppie Premier explain this blatant policy flip-flop, of which the acrobatics outmatch even such masters as Rosenberg and Player? Is this another example of the Liberal version of keeping its promise? What kind of political con game is he playing now that he has even his own Minister of Housing paralysed in total confusion?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With sympathy, I understand my friend's confusion. After all, he is a member of the Progressive Conservative caucus. That caucus has 16 different positions on every issue. What is his position on this matter? When is he going to stand up and tell us where he stands on it?

We told him very clearly where we stand. We brought in that law yesterday to address problems that we think are serious. It will last for two years and will ultimately allow an appeal to the cabinet. That is very clearly where we stand.

Mr. Shymko: I am surprised by this flippant answer. Will the Premier not admit he has misled this member, this House and his own Liberal Party association in High Park-Swansea, which officially supports conversion? Is he playing another con game with his Liberal cronies? What is his game?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member take his seat? Will he withdraw the words he used regarding misleading?

Mr. Shymko: Unlike the Premier, I do not mislead the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the member once more, will he withdraw those words?

Mr. Shymko: The Premier should withdraw his previous statement of February 12.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is that a no? It is with regret that I must name the honourable member and ask him to withdraw for the rest of the day.

Mr. Shymko left the chamber.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have two very quick points of order. I will not prolong your decision, but I ask you to check Hansard. My colleague's comment was a question, not an accusation. I would like you to check that with Hansard when you get the chance.

Second, can we have the answer to the question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I feel I heard it correctly. I made a decision. The member has left the chamber; therefore, there is no need for a response. If another member wishes to ask the same question in a different way, that is fine.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: History has been made again. Tom Stelling has made it on to television throwing somebody out of the House; well done. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) is only sorry it was not he who could be here today.

DAY CARE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is of the Minister of Community and Social Services. On April 4, 1985, our would-be Premier said, "Provision of child care services is an issue central to the economic health of Ontario and to equitable employment opportunities for women. Despite the rhetoric and promises, the Conservative government continues to treat child care as a welfare issue." A year later, why does the minister continue to do so?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: This government has clearly gone on record as saying it plans to move welfare from a welfare issue to a public service matter. We are now in the process of developing the procedure for making that happen.

The honourable member is clearly aware that there are three central issues here: the accessibility, the affordability and the wages of the workers. To the extent that one puts all three together in a single, integrated, comprehensive package, one begins to deal with the issue. To try to deal with any one of them in isolation simply will not work.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I never said the minister had to separate them.

Recently, the minister was quoted in the Toronto Star as saying, "For a long time it" -- meaning day care -- "was not seen by government or the public as a necessary service." I presume from what he is saying that he does see it as a necessary service. If it is, when is he going to implement this necessary service? When are we going to see his white paper on the integration of the three matters to which he just spoke?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: This party indicated, as an election campaign promise, that 10,000 new spaces would be made available over a two-year period. We have implemented that promise. That is step number one. Step number two has been identified: simply putting new spaces on the market does not resolve the problems I have just identified. That is why a comprehensive, integrated package is now being put together. As soon as it is, it will be made available to the member and every other member of this House.

3: 10 p.m.

ETHNIC PROGRAM

Mr. Davis: I have a question of the Minister of Education. The social community relations program begun in 1975 and applauded by the Ministry of Education, which assisted parents in becoming involved in their children's education, is being terminated by the Toronto Board of Education. The parents who are upset, especially those of Portuguese background, have asked the minister to undertake a pilot project in order that the strategies and models may be developed so this program can be used in other jurisdictions. Will the minister implement this type of program?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I must say that I am wondering, as are my friends the member for York South (Mr. Rae) and the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), whether I am hearing the member for Scarborough Centre correctly. I know that in recent days the member for Scarborough Centre has announced publicly that it is therapeutic to change one's mind, but this surely is carrying that to a ridiculous extreme.

I want to say to my distinguished friend from Scarborough --

Mr. Baetz: The minister is too young to be so arrogant.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Arrogant? Speaking about changing one's mind, I see we have aroused the interest of the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz), who has been publicly undressing on a public policy matter for the past six months. I think we are about to see that emperor without any clothes at all in a few days.

Mr. Davis: I have a supplementary, but first, I would hope the minister would attempt to answer the question. Second, I guess my colleagues from the left are a little bit upset because they could not understand the situation; they had not raised it in the House.

Is the minister, along with his colleagues, telling the people of Ontario that he does not give a damn about the ethnic people of this community when he refuses to instigate these pilot projects so parents in this province can learn to access the educational system?

Mr. Gillies: The minister is looking arrogant again.

Hon. Mr. Conway: As my friend the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) and I know, that is surely not the vernacular in which the honourable reverend gentleman from Scarborough was schooled. In front of all these young people, l am sure the Education spokesman for the official opposition would want to review that language.

As the honourable member knows, these are matters that are properly before the Toronto Board of Education. The Ministry of Education has its responsibilities, and I intend to take those very seriously. However, the particular matter to which the member makes reference is one that falls within the purview of the local board; it has taken a decision. I am sure the member, and his friends in the official opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), might want to take this up with their friends on the Toronto school board. However, it is quite properly a matter of the board's jurisdiction.

PAPER MILL

Mr. Pouliot: l have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. What concrete steps is his ministry willing to take to ensure that the Kimberly-Clark paper mill in the township of Terrace Bay will not close?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am sure that question was answered by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye). As the question relates to me, we assured the mill that the Ministry of Natural Resources would provide the materials necessary to keep the mill going. I am sure the honourable member will admit that is the only responsibility I have as it relates to that mill operation. We have given that guarantee.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister guarantee that should Kimberly-Clark close the mill, the timber rights will be withdrawn from Kimberly-Clark and that any successor company must guarantee to keep the mill open to get those timber rights?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would have to look into the legal ramifications.

Mr. Wildman: The minister is the one who makes the decisions.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Just a minute. Let us talk about the contracts being binding or not.

Mr. Foulds: The company can break its contract with the people of Terrace Bay; it can shut down the community, and yet the minister is afraid to take away its licence.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am not. If it is within my prerogative to guarantee those jobs, I will give the House that undertaking.

Mr. Pouliot: Please, do not ask your staff.

Mr. Wildman: The minister is the one who makes the decision.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

Mr. McCague: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The Prince Edward Island potato growers have received support, first from their government and subsequently from the federal government. Why did the minister turn down the Ontario potato growers when they asked for a stabilization payment?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I do not think the information received by the honourable member is completely factual. I did not turn them down. I suggested they contact the federal Minister of Agriculture because, as the member well knows, the stabilization program is a federal program. It is the Agricultural Stabilization Act program.

I wrote a letter to my counterpart in Ottawa and told him that if he were prepared to give them an advance payment or even to give them a subsidy similar to the one he gave to PEI producers, I would seriously consider sharing that support payment to the potato producers in this province.

Mr. McCague: I am pleased to have the minister's answer. Would he like my help in persuading the federal government to come first so that he might come second?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Sure. We will ask for all the support we can get to make sure our agricultural industry remains as viable as it possibly can. If the member has a pipeline to his federal counterparts, I suggest he jump on the line and tell Mr. Wise to get moving and to do something about the agricultural industry, not only in this province but also elsewhere in this country, because the federal government is doing nothing.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I wonder whether the Minister of Health is aware of a letter that went to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) today from the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, saying, "The Registered Nurses Association of Ontario is distressed with your government's postponements, mixed messages and foot dragging over the passage of Bill 94 to end the practice of extra billing."

Is the minister not aware that partners in the health care system, such as nurses, nurses' assistants and other professionals, are frustrated with the double standard his government is taking with regard to the doctors as opposed to the needs they have within the health care system?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am not aware of that letter. It was not delivered to my office before I left; it may be on its way.

I have spoken directly with the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario on several occasions; in fact, I addressed a meeting it had last week, and that sort of expression was not conveyed to me at that time. I can tell the honourable member and the people of the province that we are not dragging our feet. We are proceeding, and we will continue to proceed, to a conclusion on this issue.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I asked the minister yesterday, and I will ask him again today: In view of the fact that on Friday his negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association broke off again and the OMA was not even willing to discuss with him a moratorium on extra billing while negotiations continue, can the minister give an indication to the registered nurses and to this Legislature where there is room for a negotiated settlement with the OMA? Why is he not proceeding with this bill now?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman knows the bill is currently in committee; we are dealing with Bills 54 and 55, and there is then, in addition, Bill 30. We are dealing with the legislation that is in the committee, and we will continue to conduct the business of the committee as it is ordered. We are not at a stage where discussions have broken off. That is his interpretation. We expect to have other meetings.

The member would want to know that we are taking every step to ensure that we find out whether there is a middle road, and we are still anticipating some new material to be forwarded to us at an appropriate meeting.

FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE

Mr. Guindon: J'ai une question pour le ministre de l'Éducation.

In the speech from the throne, the government indicated it would be addressing the needs of the functionally illiterate. Does the minister have a specific program in place to address the needs of francophones who are functionally illiterate?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The speech from the throne does address this government's concern about the illiteracy rate in the province. My colleagues the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) and the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) and I are reviewing a variety of initiatives and options at present. I invite the honourable member to stand by. We will have something to say more specifically for the anglophone and francophone communities, as well as many others, in the not-too-distant future.

3: 20 p.m.

Mr. Guindon: I am willing to stand by, but I do not know for how long. Will the minister be consulting with groups such as l'Association des enseignants franco-ontariens and l'Association française des conseils scolaires de l'Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Cornwall knows only too well from our cooperative and consultative effort on École secondaire la Citadelle that I am a consultative fellow and I will consult with the organizations to which he makes reference and a host of others. This government is quite concerned about --

Mr. Villeneuve: Are you listening?

Hon. Mr. Conway: We have aroused the squire from Moose Creek. I am prepared to go to Moose Creek and to have the representations of my friend the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve).

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will talk about Moose Creek some other time.

FLOODING

Mr. Hayes: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Now that the minister has set up his lame-duck committee to study the flooding problems along the Great Lakes, is he prepared to include in his committee some knowledgeable individuals on this subject from the riparian groups to offset his collection of party hacks?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am tempted not to respond to that, but I shall. I am sorry the honourable member feels that way about the whole involvement, because I think we are doing something that augurs well for the people along the lakefront. The member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), who is the chairman of that committee, and representatives from cities along the lakeshore are not hacks in my book. They are people who are genuinely concerned about what is happening and they will do a good job for us. The member is privileged to go there and make his feelings known. The only time he has done too much is to get up in the Legislature and say what is wrong. We are looking to the member to help us go in the right direction and to tell us what is correct.

The Americans are doing a very major study with the Corps of Engineers, which I am sure will be helpful to the whole process of what is happening on the Great Lakes. Our people are doing an excellent job. I am very proud of that committee and I hope the member will cooperate with it.

Mr. Hayes: I think I have been very co-operative. I have actually brought some knowledgeable people to speak to the minister, but he has ignored what they have been telling him to do.

It is no different than the previous party. We cannot afford to wait while millions of dollars worth of property damage occurs. Will the minister tell us when the committee will actually begin its public meetings so that it can get on with its task force very quickly?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member really knows how to hurt a guy. Being compared to the previous government is about all I can take. The committee has had its inaugural meeting. A list of where the meetings will take place will be provided to the member. Another important player the member should be addressing is the federal government. We have had a great deal of correspondence with the Honourable Tom McMillan relating to any controls or any investigative help they would give us at the federal level, and it is ongoing.

The member will have to look for a major commitment from the federal government. When one looks at a province that has 3,000 miles of shoreline, it will take considerable effort and money. Of necessity, it will need the cooperation of the federal government and the government of the United States. It is really an international problem.

WINTARIO CAPITAL GRANTS PROGRAM

Mr. Rowe: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I hope his microphone will work, so we do not have to listen to a three-page report tomorrow.

Can the minister explain why the application forms for the Wintario capital funding program he announced in January were made available only last week?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The Wintario capital grants program which was announced is the first program we have had in three years. A lot of thought has gone into this program, and I am delighted that it is now out and in place.

Mr. Rowe: The reality of this great program that the minister is telling us he has announced is that he has done nothing for four months but announce the program. He is so busy getting his glossy picture on the face of magazines trying to look good that he will not run his ministry.

With only 18 working days left from today, does he expect applicants to fill out some 32 questions on an application form and return it to him by May 31? In view of his mishandling of this, will he agree to extend the May 31 deadline for the applicants who need some of that money?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: No one will be penalized because of the date. The people in the field are client groups. Municipalities are just delighted with this program. The applications are starting to come in, and it is going to be a very successful program.

CANRON PLANT

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Is the minister aware of the decision of the Abex Corp. of Baltimore, Maryland, to cancel the rights of the Canron plant at St. Thomas, represented by Local 4815 of the United Steelworkers of America, to manufacture brake shoes for Canadian National and Canadian Pacific? What is he doing about it?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I am not aware of it, but if the member would forward any information he has, I will do what I can to help.

Mr. Mackenzie: Is the minister aware and can he verify that this is the only plant in Canada that is manufacturing brake shoes that are used by CN and CP? The decision to cancel the right to manufacture these brake shoes can mean the closing of the plant and the loss of better than 50 jobs as well as the necessity for us to source in the United States. What is he doing to protect basic industries like this to see that it does not happen?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Again, if the member would be kind enough to forward any information he has, I would be very pleased to speak with him on it and to help in any way I can.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Gregory: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In a recent article the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) stated that the government's 8.3-cents-a-litre tax on gasoline is necessary if people want things such as good roads.

How can the Minister of Transportation and Communications justify his government's higher gas taxes when the following highways have been either cancelled or delayed by this government: the Ottawa Queensway; the Highway 403 extension; Highway 654, Parry Sound; Highway 404; Highway 407; and Highway 89?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I suggest that the member's information is incorrect. In fact, we speeded up the Ottawa Queensway. We did not delay Highway 407. We maintained and are increasing the scheduling on Highway 404. I do not know where the information comes from, but it is erroneous.

Mr. Gregory: I can assure the minister that the information I have is factual. He has spent too long in Vancouver; he has fallen behind.

In view of the fact that in the last budget there was a reduction of $34 million in the budget of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, while the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) experienced increased revenues from fuel taxes, registration and licence fees of $23 million; and in view of the fact that MTC initiatives are not even mentioned in the throne speech, can the minister tell this House how he intends to convince the Treasurer to allocate the increased revenue from gasoline taxes to MTC for road construction to deliver on the commitment of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I appreciate that the member is thanking us for the trip he enjoyed to Expo recently. The member, as an experienced member of this House, is surely aware that all revenues go into the consolidated revenue fund.

DEBT REVIEW BOARDS

Mr. Ramsay: Why has the Minister of Agriculture and Food, since becoming minister, reversed his position on third-party debt review for many of the farmers in Ontario who are in financial trouble and, instead of supporting the farmers, come down firmly on the side of the banks of this province?

3: 30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I have to disagree with the member. I have not reversed my decision on third-party debt review. As a matter of fact, the amendment to the Bankruptcy Act, which Mr. Wise hopes to get through the House before the end of June, will set up debt review boards, but review boards that will not have the authority to write down debt.

I support debt review boards and perhaps we can give farmers breathing space. In fact, he adopted his program from the farmers in transition program I introduced in this province. He is simply going to have debt review boards meet with farmers to see whether they can restructure their farm businesses to put them in a position where they can continue to farm and can continue to rely on banks for operating credit. It is a different matter if one is talking about review boards with the authority to impose arbitrary settlements. The member knows as well as I do the problems one would run into with that kind of situation.

Mr. Ramsay: It appears the minister has forgotten some of the statements he made at a meeting in Earlton before he was the minister. He came down firmly on judicial third-party debt review. We now have the silent majority of farming in this province, represented by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, firmly in support of this principle. I ask the minister again, why is he not backing up the farmers of this province?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am very much in favour of debt review boards. I have serious reservations about boards that are given the authority to say to a bank or any other lending institution or any private individual who happens to be holding a mortgage, "You are going to write down debt whether you like it or not." We saw what happened in the west with the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Some people out there are still very bitter about the fact they had to write down debt or even write the whole thing off. We have to be careful about it because more than financial institutions are backing farmers with mortgages and other loan programs. If one comes in with that kind of program, one is going to signal to those farmers that governments can come along at any time and change the rules and regulations that were made between the farmer and the

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the minister will complete his answer by letter.

SENIOR CITIZENS' SERVICES

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the minister irresponsible for senior citizens. Yesterday in this Legislature, the Minister without Portfolio for senior citizens' affairs indicated that seven months ago he tabled his report with cabinet and it still has not seen the light of day. One change has been made for senior citizens while he has been minister, and I ask him whether he consulted with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) on the change. It is the one that increases the fee for the average week of camping for a senior citizen from $17.50 a week last year to $35 a week this year.

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: That is really a two-part question. I point out to the member that the first part of the work I did in reviewingservices for seniors addressed itself to Health and to Community and Social Services. In so far as other areas or ministries affect seniors, we are beginning that phase of the work now with Transportation and Communications, Housing and other related areas. Certainly, I have consulted with the Minister of Natural Resources and he will be more than delighted to elaborate on the answer.

Mr. Harris: I am a little disappointed that the minister consulted and agrees with the minister that the fee should be doubled for the average week of camping. There is another thing in this area. I ask him again whether he consults with anybody over there, including the Minister of Natural Resources. I have a pamphlet entitled A Guide for Senior Citizens: Services and Programs in Ontario; Ron Van Horne, Minister; David Peterson, Premier.

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary question is --

Mr. Harris: It says that provincial parks offer free camping to Ontario senior citizens and that one can get the pamphlet Senior Citizens: Use of Provincial Parks. At the same time that comes out, a Ministry of Natural Resources' pamphlet comes out saying there is no free camping.

Mr. Speaker: The minister.

Mr. Harris: In fact, the fees are doubled and the pamphlet is not available.

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: I am sure the Minister of Natural Resources will want to elaborate, but the time is not available now. Let me simply say that the senior citizens' guide to which the member referred was printed when that was the policy. It was printed before the statement came out from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I did not want to interrupt the question period, but I wanted to comment on the point of order raised by the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) with respect to your ruling on the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko).

I feel that since this is a historic first, the first expulsion for the benefit of the television cameras, it should not pass unnoticed. I think your ruling was correct, because some of us knew as early as lunch-time today the honourable member planned to get himself thrown out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot see how that is a point of order. It is a point of view.

Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The member for Bellwoods definitely impugned the motives of the member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: I simply repeat that at lunch-time today I heard the member planned to have himself evicted.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If we had a little order, one could hear what is going on.

PETITIONS

UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

Mr. Jackson: I am pleased to table in the House today a petition, which has been signed by more than 3,000 residents of the metropolitan Hamilton area and forwarded to me by Dr. Alvin Lee, president of McMaster University. The preamble is lengthy, so I will only give a précis. The petition sets out that if Ontario and Canada are to compete economically and technologically with the rest of the world and to advance culturally, we must support the health of our university system. It says, "We urge the fullest possible assistance from the government of Ontario."

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Harris: I have a petition signed by 93 people with reference to the gouging Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). It states:

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

"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."

It is a timely comment.

INTRODUCTION OF BTLL

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 12, An Act to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE(CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for York East adjourned the debate. Has the honourable member finished her comments?

Ms. Hart: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any questions of the member? If not, the next speaker will be the member for Fort William.

3: 40 p.m.

Mr. Hennessy: I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the throne speech. I will limit myself to a few brief remarks on the subject I know best, northern Ontario.

I must admit I am disappointed with the contents of the throne speech. The Liberals have repeatedly assured the residents of northern Ontario that their concerns will be of the utmost importance. Judging by the throne speech, northern concerns have been given a much lower position on the Liberals' list of priorities. The few promises contained in the speech are all air and no substance.

Northerners know when something sounds too good to be true. They are industrious and down-to-earth people, and they cannot be fooled by flimsy promises. It is time the government realizes that northern Ontario demands and deserves more attention. It may be more politically fruitful for the Liberals to concentrate their efforts where they have traditionally received votes, but the north will not stand for such policies.

I was disappointed that the throne speech did not address the plight of single-industry towns. These towns are in dire need of assistance to help decrease their dependency on just one source of economic development. It is imperative that no other town meet the tragic fate of Creighton. Inco has sounded the death knell for this once-thriving community. Located 15 kilometres northwest of Sudbury, Creighton is scheduled for demolition by June 1988, leaving its 450 residents homeless and bitter.

Could this situation have been avoided? I think so. It is an important priority for the government to study this issue. I realize this cannot be solved overnight, but the government must continue to search for a solution. Task forces are not enough, especially when it is obvious the government takes no heed of recommendations that make sense.

What about unemployment in the north? In the Sudbury area, the unemployment rate was 11.6 per cent in March 1986; in the Thunder Bay area, it was slightly higher at 12.7 per cent. The provincial average is 6.8 per cent. This is disturbing. More and more of our young people are leaving the north because they cannot find steady jobs. What do the Liberals plan to do about this situation? For northerners, the situation equals frustration. Will the Liberals promise to alleviate this frustration?

Because of northern Ontario's dependence on single industries for its economic wellbeing, the economy is fragile and unstable. The failure to diversify the northern economy means a continued dependence on the mining and forestry sectors, but employment in these areas is far from promising. In the mining sector, jobs have decreased to 35,000 in 1984 from 50,000 in 1980, a 30 per cent decline. In the forestry sector, jobs were relatively stable at 15,000 from 1980 to 1983 before declining to 12,000 in 1984.

A recently released report from the Ontario Manpower Commission shows that the median growth for the province will produce only 100 more jobs in forestry and 6,300 in mining in the five-year period from 1984 to 1988, a low growth scenario that will actually see 1,000 jobs lost in forestry and only 1,900 jobs produced in mining. This indicates that the two key sectors in northern Ontario are stagnating.

I thought the throne speech would include at least a passing mention of the problems facing our softwood lumber industry. Protectionist bills introduced in the United States by congressmen seriously hamper the industry, because many of the bills are aimed at restricting access of our lumber exports and at imposing countervailing duties on our exports.

Ontario is the second-largest exporter of forestry products to the United States in Canada. In 1985, the value of softwood lumber alone exported from Ontario to the US exceeded $800 million. There are thousands of people employed in Ontario sawmills, many of which are located in the north.

The US is also putting a great deal of pressure on the federal government to make concessions on the lumber issue for the upcoming free trade talks. We know the concessions being sought will have a direct impact on Ontario's lumber industry. Why has the Liberal government played ostrich and stuck its head in the sand regarding this issue? The futures of many of these communities which depend on the lumber industry are in jeopardy.

Our resource industries are important, but perhaps the most important commodity is our youth. The north cannot afford to have our youth flock to the south looking for employment. There must be concentration on the community retaining employment to keep northern Ontario vital and alive.

Although the speech from the throne briefly mentioned the establishment of educational facilities in northern Ontario, it did not satisfactorily explain the administration or financing of these schools. I hope this new high school of science and technology succeeds. However, where will the graduates of this high school work? As I mentioned before, career opportunities in mining and forestry are best described as bleak. This school can succeed only if the north can benefit from the Liberal promises on research and development improvements.

It is always refreshing when the Liberal government agrees that one of our original programs is worth while and should be continued. The Progressive Conservative government had implemented the idea of long-distance education programs, using new technology to reach those in remote communities. The Liberals have decided to expand that program, which I understand has enriched the lives of thousands of northern Ontario residents.

I was disappointed that the Liberals did not mention what they planned to do regarding separate school funding in the north. The Liberals did not address the quandary in which many northern Ontario towns find themselves. How should a community with only one school implement the provisions found within the separate school funding issue? This is an important and controversial issue in the north, and I am gravely disappointed that the speech from the throne made no mention of it.

I was pleased to see that tourism in the north would be given a high priority. I am a little sceptical, however, as to whether the Liberal initiatives will ever be implemented. The provisions that were set out in the speech from the throne sound suspiciously like promises made by the Liberals last year and never implemented. I only hope these new promises will not sit on the shelf as rainy-day promises.

Tourism is important in the north. It is important that the north has a chance to diversify its economic base, and tourism is the natural solution. However, taxes will seriously hinder any attempts at tourism development, especially when gasoline prices are higher in the north than they are in the south. Food and accommodation are also costlier. Perhaps the Liberals will study the prospect of alleviating the tax plight and ending fancy promises and fancy programs.

It is time the Liberals realized that northern Ontario is an integral part of this province. To grow and to become economically strong, northern Ontario needs special attention to realize its potential. The Liberal government has a tendency to ignore the north. This attitude must change. I can only hope the budget will be more attentive to the north than the speech from the throne has been.

3: 50 p.m.

Mr. Ramsay: It is a pleasure to rise in my place today to comment on this document, which we had read to us on April 22, of 1986. Coming from northern Ontario, what I heard in this document came as a bit of a shock. I do not relate very well to the future that is being projected here in this speech from the throne. It does not relate to what is going on -- if members will pardon the expression -- in my neck of the woods. We are having great trouble even keeping pace with the old industrial technology and the old smokestack industries. We are even losing the few that we have. We do not seem to be moving into the glorious future that is projected here. We would like to be a part of that action, but we feel very much left out of it.

The idea of the speech is not bad in concept. Maybe we should look, as it says here, at a framework for long-term achievement. The problem of the north is that we are not achieving today. We are having a lot of trouble maintaining our own, let alone having any vision of the future.

The speech says we will continue to build on our traditional resource and manufacturing sectors. This is obviously one of the main areas of northern Ontario industry, but we cannot build at all. We are entering into a free-fall stage when it comes to our resources and any manufacturing we can derive from those resources.

We look at this as something in a foreign language when the economy of the future is being characterized by "an intense competition focused on services, knowledge, information and new technology in order to maintain and create jobs." We cannot keep pace with what we are doing now. How are we going to enter into this new space age in northern Ontario without some sort of vision and plan of what we need to do in the north?

As the speech says, we should be "innovating and seizing opportunities." Obviously, we should have been doing that in the past 42 years. We also could have been doing that this past year. We have opportunity after opportunity fall into our lap every time these layoffs are announced, and yet we do not do anything about them. We say, "Let us study it; let us send a committee up to Sault Ste. Marie," but there is no real, concrete action. We are going to have to come up with some alternatives if we are to populate that vast northern section of our province.

It is ironic -- and the results of elections, probably future as well as past, show this -- that some of the things that I say as a New Democrat and that people in other parties say show real agreement across party lines with many people in the north.

The free market system does not work badly in southern Ontario, where there is a concentrated market, a vast population; a few people fall through the cracks, but on the whole, it does not work too badly. The free market system fails totally in northern Ontario, and we are seeing that now with job after job being lost day after day. I am going to go through some of those jobs a little later.

April has been a real horror month for people in northern Ontario and for the people who are breadwinners for their families. The government is even starting to say it should be steering clear of ventures that are best left to the private sector.

We New Democrats believe the public sector is very good at supplying many basic services for people, but we are not saying the public sector should be in every business and should be totally running the economy. We should be planning the economy, and we should be encouraging business to carry on with the business of business in this day and age.

When it comes to northern Ontario, I have to differ. The private sector is not doing its job in northern Ontario because basically the private sector does not care about northern Ontario. It does not care about southern Ontario either, but it is striving and doing well because it cares about profits. It can make profits in southern Ontario, and my hat is off to it. I may be unlike some members of my caucus; I do not know. I am not against profits. "Profits" is not a dirty word; we must have incentives built into the system. But in northern Ontario this system does not work. We are all falling through the cracks in northern Ontario.

The speech says: "The world economy is in an era of transition. Ontario enters this period with considerable strengths." Not those of us in northern Ontario. As I said before, our economy is in a free-fall situation. We are finding it devastating, and it is hampering our vision of where we are going, because we do not feel we have a future.

The speech goes on to say, "Our economy has emerged leaner and stronger from a decade in which the world economy experienced significant upheaval." We never recovered up north.

We never recovered in farming, we never recovered in forestry, and except for a few examples such as gold, we never recovered in mining either. We are still experiencing that upheaval in northern Ontario.

The speech goes on and this, for the speech, is the good part. It says: "Over the past 12 months, 179,000 jobs have been created in Ontario. The first three months of this year saw the creation of 73,000 new jobs." That is very well and good for southern Ontario, but those new jobs were not created in the north; they are all down here.

As members know, in April we had some serious announcements made in northern Ontario concerning employment, the latest being Algoma Steel, which announced it would be laying off 1,500 people in Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa. Now we hear the basic murmurings and rumblings from Kimberly-Clark that there is a good chance the company may be closing the mill in Terrace Bay, putting 2,000 people of out work: 1,000 in the mill and 1,000 in the woodland operations. Can members imagine if this sort of announcement were made in Brantford or Mississauga or Oshawa? Two thousand people are a lot of people. That is a lot of jobs anywhere in this province, let alone in northern Ontario, where we do not have any quantity of jobs compared to southern Ontario.

On May Day, 150 jobs were lost at the Great Lakes waferboard mill in Thunder Bay. That was a very well chosen, ironic sense of timing on the part of Great Lakes. Rio Algom announced it would have to reduce its work force in Elliot Lake by 200 jobs. Again, 200 jobs are a lot of jobs in Elliot Lake. The last of the 283 jobs at the Griffith Mine in Ear Falls was also lost, finally announced in April. That is a total of 4,133 jobs threatened or lost in the past four or five weeks alone.

I do not know whether the point is getting across to the government on what is happening in northern Ontario. What we in this party have been ranting about for the past few years, to use the expression of my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), is happening. There has been a slow haemorrhage over the past few years and now, all of a sudden, we are seeing the wounds open up and the real blood letting happen in northern Ontario. It has to be obvious to all.

I did an interesting thing when I saw what was happening in April alone. Obviously April is not a typical month, but it is something that is happening and it seems to be continuing. To be fair, it is not a typical month, but if we were to lose these jobs at the rate we have in the past four to five weeks, all jobs in northern Ontario would be wiped out in seven years. There would not be a job left. That is not a very long time. We have to do something. This is an emergency. We have 46,000 people unemployed in northern Ontario.

We are going to make this the welfare part of the province. That is not what we want to be living on in northern Ontario. We want to be gainfully employed. We want to be gainfully employed in resource industries, as long as those resources are required. That is part of the problem, because there is less and less demand as we move into the new service industries and high-technology industries from the old resources that were the basis of our economy in the past. What we want to do is move into the 20th century, into the rest of the 1980s and the 1990s with everybody else in this province. We want a fair share of the economic pie that this province provides.

What do we get when we ask questions of the Premier (Mr. Peterson)? Yesterday in the House my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) asked the Premier about the situation in northern Ontario, and the Premier answered: "I wish I could wave a magic wand and tell the member I had the solutions to all these problems. We are attacking them one by one as crises."

4 p.m.

The time has now passed when we can treat these layoffs and job disruptions as individual crises. We are putting out forest fires on an ad hoc basis. That is something we are used to in northern Ontario, but we do not want to run the economy that way. We want to plan the economy a little more because, as I said, the system has failed us. This cuts across much of the thinking in northern Ontario. No matter what party the people in the north belong to, they are starting to see that there must be an alternative.

That alternative has to be government action. The government will have to decide whether we will live in northern Ontario as part of the province. Are we going to live and prosper or are we all going to move south of North Bay? If we stay up there, we will have to start making decisions about what we will do as a society. There is a lot of hard thinking ahead. I hope this Legislature comes to grips with this problem by setting up some of the structure and by giving that structure the authority to proceed and recommend ideas.

In my riding, I have started that process already. I have produced what I call an economic challenge to Timiskaming. It is approximately 46 pages of my thoughts on how we can develop our economy in my riding. The riding of Timiskaming which I represent does not have any big so-called growth centres, although these seem to be becoming a myth today. Even our growth centres in northern Ontario are declining. Timiskaming does not have a big manufacturing base, but because it has been very well blessed in the diversity of its resources, it has the chance to take the lead in northern Ontario by showing a bit of self-determination and by setting its own goals and development priorities.

We have quite a balanced set of resources in the riding of Timiskaming. The south end is a small clay belt in agricultural terms. It is a very rich agricultural area. We are also blessed with forestry and gold and iron ore mining. If the situation in Wawa keeps up, we will have the last two iron ore mines in Ontario.

I have laid out a plan for our area. I have challenged its people, and they have taken up that challenge. We must look at tourism and our resource industries of forestry, mining and agriculture. We must also develop a small business base in order to carry on an economy.

I believe tourism will play a big part in -the economy of our area and in all of northern Ontario as people have more recreational time, as they want to get away from the urban centres of southern Ontario and look at the world as it used to be until man created his own world of pollution, hurry, hustle and everyday life in the city. We offer unspoiled nature in many areas. However, that is not good enough. We have relied on our beautiful resources to attract tourists, but these are distractions rather than attractions. We need to build attractions to bring people to our area as a tourist destination, to attract them there in the first place and to keep them there, to enjoy our area and some of its God-made and man-made wonders.

We have serious problems when it comes to people with capital. We do not have the high-paying jobs, so people have not accumulated any capital to invest. We have people with ideas. Some of our people are a little afraid to invest because they have been through the boom-and-bust cycles of our towns. They have had that entrepreneurial spirit, about which the speech from the throne talks so glowingly, beaten out of them. It is very difficult to take one's life savings after one has lost job after job and say, "I am going to create a business and do all those wonderful things the speech from the throne talks about."

We have a very different mentality in the north. It is almost a siege mentality, because we have been under siege for so long. We need capital to develop our tourism base in the north. We need help with training and managerial skills. We have the ideas and we have the energy. We just need a little help. We need the tools to do what we want to accomplish in the north.

In mining -- and maybe in some cases it is almost too late now -- we should have set up a heritage fund 50 years ago. Our party has talked about this and has called it the northern Ontario tomorrow fund. We never put away for today -- not just for tomorrow but for today -- 50 years ago, when there was a lot of money coming out of northern Ontario; we never put away for today and tomorrow.

This day has now come and we are losing jobs. Mines do not go on for ever; pulp plants do not go on for ever, because the resource has not been regenerated. We have not done that. I would still like to see that initiative put in place; it will help somewhat. When we get new discoveries, like Hemlo, some of the funds generated, instead of always going to general revenue, should be put aside to help those miners find new homes and new jobs.

We should never again open a mine and build a new town around it. Those days are over. We cannot afford to build any new towns in northern Ontario. We must keep the towns we have. We must give them the infrastructure to keep running, because the towns are run down from neglect. We have dilapidated water and sewer systems in our towns. There is a great demand for money there, and these towns are now starting to apply and to get these systems fixed up. We should never again be building new towns when we open mines, because mining basically evolves and revolves around a camp. It has been that camp mentality that the towns have had to keep; they actually started as camps out of tents and were developed into towns without much planning. That was a mistake in the past that we can now correct by stopping that development.

Some mining is going to continue in the future. Not only are we going to have to start to add value to some of the products we take out of the ground, but we should also take that as an opportunity to supply the machinery and all the various supplies that mining requires from the north rather than bring in machines from Poland, Czechoslovakia, the United States and even Australia.

We have the technology and we have the resources to do that, but we do not have the determination or the political will to do it. We are going to have to start to develop that political will so that we can create secondary industries -- not something that is pie in the sky, like some car plant or something that is never going to happen in northern Ontario; those dreams are long vanished. We should develop secondary industries that are based on the resources we do have and that relate to them and can supply and nurture those resource industries.

In forestry, we are going to have to maximize the use of the resource that we have. For too long we have taken the forestry resource for granted. Until a very few years ago, we did not even replant and replace the resource we exploited. We thought it would go on for ever; we took for granted that God had blessed us with all these resources and that we could exploit them without being the stewards of those resources, nurturing them and replacing them.

4: 10 p.m.

We are going to have to make more concerted efforts on our reforestation programs. We should also maximize those uses so that we do not have any waste, whether it be in the bush or at the mills, and use 100 per cent of the product, for example, in the cogeneration of the power for those plants, for heat, or whatever, for these plants. New technology may provide the ideas for it. We have to use all of the resource and try to add as much value as possible to it in creating some of these things we are losing now, as in plywood, waferboard and particle board mills. We need to produce more of those at the forest site.

Our area is one of the few in northern Ontario that has an agricultural base and, as with agriculture all over this province, we are in tremendous trouble. We need to diversify the crop base in the north. With plant genetics, this should be possible with new achievements in plant breeding. We also have to look at much smaller scales of trying to address the markets in the north rather than relying on the system that sends all our produce south with a lot of it coming back to supply our markets. There is no rationale in that type of system when the north could be self-sufficient in the production of milk, meat and cereal grains. We should have local mills to provide the flour for local bakeries and local abattoirs to provide meat for our local supermarkets.

In this province, we are so hooked in with a central distribution system for our food stores that all the jobs of any value are in southern Ontario. We add transportation costs for the farmer to bring the produce to Toronto, and again add transportation costs to bring it back into northern Ontario for the consumer. A total rationalization of how we distribute food is needed. By doing that, we would provide jobs for people in the north. I am not looking for a handout. If we rationalize what we do, the jobs will be there. That is where we have to start thinking.

Small business does create some jobs. We have to provide small business opportunities in the north. A lot of that can be tied in with tourism opportunities both now and the future. However, we need the capital and we need some of the expertise and the help that is available from government, with government taking a part in the planning process of where we are going.

I could continue with story after story of how the north is being affected by the loss of jobs, especially lately. I hope the message is starting to get through. I want to give other members a chance to address this speech today. I thank them for this opportunity. I hope we can work for the economy of this province, especially of northern Ontario, as we go further into the 1980s.

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased to rise in the House today in reply --

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I understood that there would be the normal rotation following the opportunity to ask questions.

The Deputy Speaker: That is the chair's problem. The rotation is going in the normal way. Does someone from the government side wish to speak?

Hon. Ms. Munro: I was delighted that the initial throne speech of our new Liberal government was delivered by a fellow Hamiltonian.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do not mean to interrupt the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Munro), but according to the new rules, surely Mr. Speaker should ask whether there are any members who wish to make comments or ask questions of the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay).

The Deputy Speaker: The member is quite correct. Do we have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to questions and comments?

Agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments? There being none, the member for Hamilton Centre.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I was delighted that the initial throne speech of our new Liberal government was delivered by a fellow Hamiltonian, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor. This was particularly appropriate because the agenda set forth in the address holds so much promise for the people of Hamilton-Wentworth.

This first Liberal throne speech in more than four decades has adopted a long-term, long-range perspective, indicating that our government is not obsessed with a quest for short-term political advantage. We are here to serve the lasting interests of the people of Ontario.

The focus of our throne speech is not the next year or the next election, but the next decade. We will move on the fundamental challenges that must be addressed to prepare Ontario for the world of the 1990s and beyond.

A global economy now exists, and Ontario's industries are fighting a world-wide competitive battle, based on services, knowledge, information and new technology. Our society is evolving rapidly as a result of demographic trends, the changing role of women and shifting immigration patterns.

These social and economic challenges are well known. What is new is the determination to do something about them. I am confident the Premier's council announced in the speech from the throne will provide the leadership we need to steer Ontario to the forefront of economic growth and technological innovation.

Among other tasks, this high-level council will direct a $1-billion special technology fund, including at least $500 million in new money, to be allocated in the next 10 years. The fund will support and encourage science and technology research in the private sector and in our post-secondary institutions. The overriding goal is to build a world-class Ontario economy for the 21st century.

My riding of Hamilton Centre is aptly named because it is the heart of Hamilton-Wentworth, not only geographically but also economically as the home of Stelco and Dofasco. Through investment in new technology and human resources, these two steel giants have demonstrated that Ontario industries can become world-class competitors. However, as the throne speech observes, while Ontario can look forward to economic advantages in the future, these will differ from those we have enjoyed in the past.

One of our new growth opportunities is the service sector, which now provides jobs for more than 70 per cent of Ontario's work force and is forecast to grow even more in the next decade. Services to business in particular are expanding rapidly.

In Hamilton, Westinghouse Canada, under president and chief executive officer Ted Priestner, has recently capitalized on this trend. The company has turned its human resources consulting group from a cost centre into a profit centre by selling the team's expertise to outside clients.

Tourism is a further high-potential service industry. Hamilton-Wentworth has built up its tourism base and now ranks as a first-class travel destination. Facilities such as our magnificent Victor Copps Arena and Trade Centre, the Hamilton Convention Centre, the new Sheraton Hotel and the Hamilton Place theatre put us on the map. As Minister of Citizenship and Culture, I am particularly proud of Hamilton's cultural attractions, such as our unique Royal Botanical Gardens, a terrific art gallery, a first-class philharmonic orchestra and a talented opera company.

We are not stopping there. The community is seeking federal and provincial dollars for the west harbour development, which would include boating facilities, exhibition space and an exciting crystal palace. My ministry is working with Theatre Aquarius to find a new home for one of the province's largest and most dynamic community theatre groups. My ministry is supporting underwater archaeological work on the Hamilton and the Scourge, two War of 1812 schooners, which are potentially among our most valuable heritage and tourism resources. The region is looking into the possibility of creating an iron and steel museum, which would have strong tourist drawing power.

I was delighted to see in the speech from the throne that the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is developing a long-term tourism strategy for Ontario. Hamilton-Wentworth looks forward to playing a lead role in the future of Ontario's dynamic tourism industry.

Culture and the arts represent a thriving and growing service industry in their own right. In Ontario, the cultural sector now employs more workers than any manufacturing industry group except transportation equipment and generates revenues of $3.5 billion a year.

Film and video have become an increasingly vital artistic and commercial enterprise in our information society. I am pleased the Ontario Film Development Corp. is now open for business with a three-year, $20-million budget. The corporation will deliver the necessary support to reverse the erosion of Ontario's leadership in Canadian film production.

The throne speech pledges new support for small business and entrepreneurship. We recognize that Ontario's main hope for future job creation depends on the initiative of risk-takers and entrepreneurs who invest their funds and hopes in new small to medium-sized enterprises.

My Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, for example, will introduce a native economic participation program to provide opportunity for native entrepreneurs. This measure will help Ontario's aboriginal peoples to retain and strengthen their unique cultural heritage through economic development.

As the throne speech observes, entrepreneurship is as important on the shop floor as it is in the boardroom. I am pleased that companies in my area of regional responsibility, such as Procter and Gamble in Hamilton and Linear Technology in Burlington, are in the forefront of the movement to provide workers with a direct stake in their firm's success.

To realize their potential, our industries require the full talents and contributions of women, who now represent 43 per cent of the work force. The speech from the throne announced that new child care spaces will be created to advance economic equity. This is good news for Hamilton, where we have one of the highest proportions of single-parent families in this province.

The throne speech responds to the economic needs of Ontario's regions. As a member of the new cabinet committee on northern development, I was especially pleased with the emphasis on northern Ontario. For example, tourism in the north will receive a boost and primary industries will be bolstered. For the rest of this century and into the next, Ontario's economic success will depend on our ability to sell goods and services in the fiercely competitive world market. We must act now to expand our trade horizons, particularly to the nations of the Pacific Rim, the fastest-growing market in the world.

Last year, Ontario concluded a twinning arrangement with the highly industrialized Chinese province of Jiangsu. It is gratifying that this provincial initiative has sparked community interest in stronger international ties. I encourage Hamilton-Wentworth, for example, in its efforts to seek a twin city in Jiangsu to promote local social, cultural and business opportunities in China. I welcome the throne speech announcement of the next stage in building closer relations with China, the opening of an Ontario science, technology and centre there. Cultural contacts will be vital in creating the trust and confidence on which commercial dealings depend.

I believe that as a multicultural society, Ontario has a special edge in international competition. For example, our many residents born in other countries could provide first-hand advice on how to do business and how to appeal to consumers in their former homelands. Tapping this resource is an idea that Ontario exporters might consider.

While Ontario welcomes the challenge of more open commerce, we draw the line where our cultural sovereignty is at stake. Our national identity is too valuable to sacrifice on the altar of free trade. As the Premier has cautioned, we must remember that trade issues involve not only Canada's economic survival but our political, social and cultural survival as well. Canadian cultural survival and sovereignty must be protected and nurtured.

Culture can be viewed in developmental, nurturance and maintenance terms. Despite its undeniable economic dimension, it can also be described, first and foremost, as an end in itself. This is a principle the throne speech reaffirms. Government policies will continue to recognize the importance of the arts and the need for an arm's-length relationship with funded cultural groups. I stress that this is more than rhetoric. One of the first acts of our new government was to raise the budget of the Ontario Arts Council by $2 million to meet the needs of regional arts organizations and newly emerging art forms.

The throne speech rightly proclaims a message of confidence and optimism. Ontario's future is bright. A key bridge to the future is excellence in education. The government has no higher priority than to restore relevance to education at all levels. We must shape a generation capable of innovating, adapting and seizing opportunities. I am delighted that as an immediate step, TVOntario will receive increased funding to produce more programming, with emphasis on science education.

We will also reinforce the effort to help students and teachers become more familiar and comfortable with computer technology. This initiative will build on the success of my ministry's computers-and-children program, which provides computer exposure through community-based centres across this province.

The government will place greater emphasis on co-operative education programs and other measures to smooth the transition to the work force. Hamiltonians are justly proud of the co-op programs at Mohawk College that reflect an effective partnership between industry and the educational system.

As the throne speech emphasizes, to overcome the many challenges we face, we must harness the full potential of our post-secondary system. The government will encourage the development of centres of excellence in Ontario universities. Coming from Hamilton Centre, I know that McMaster University can contribute significantly to such advanced facilities, given the opportunity and the challenge. The speech also remarks that schools can achieve excellence by recognizing the need to co-operate as well to compete. I am happy that McMaster University has displayed this co-operative spirit through an extremely worthwhile joint venture with the University of Waterloo to compile and share the results of health research.

The realities of global competition and new technology make necessary a new approach to training and skills upgrading on an ongoing basis for the entire labour force. With my career background in continuing education, I welcome the throne speech initiatives to improve the basic and technical skills of older laid-off workers.

Government will work to meet retraining needs in partnership with the community. In Hamilton, it is heartening that the Citizen Action Group has taken the initiative to establish the Hamilton Help Centre for older workers, which will open its doors this Friday. The centre will provide employment counselling, skills training and placement services, primarily for adults over 40 years of age who have lost jobs in heavy industry. The project has been made possible by 50 per cent funding from the Ministry of Skills Development.

In an era when people represent our most vital economic asset, we can no longer afford the waste of human resources caused by illiteracy. Furthermore, inability to read can be hazardous if, for example, workers cannot understand warning labels on chemicals or equipment. This government will propose measures to combat this widespread problem. Public libraries will serve as one channel for delivery of literacy training. We will build on the achievements of programs such as the adult basic education project at the Hamilton Public Library, which has successfully assisted adults to learn and to adapt.

English-as-a-second-language courses, funded by my ministry, provide newcomers with the basic skills needed to function in modern Ontario. We are now emphasizing the concept of English in the work place, which includes not only language classes but also all aspects of communications with a multicultural work force.

The throne speech not only addresses the economic imperatives that confront us; it also comes to grips with the profound social and demographic changes now under way. One of the most significant developments is the growth in the number of elderly persons. Between now and the year 2001, the province will record a 41 per cent increase in people over the age of 65. In Hamilton-Wentworth, the proportion of seniors in the population surpasses the provincial average. The vast majority of senior citizens today are active participants in their communities. Our first priority must be to help them remain that way. Today's seniors, by and large, are healthier, better educated and more active than previous older generations. They have much to offer, and they want the opportunity to lead productive and useful lives.

I am proud that Ontario is the first Canadian jurisdiction to appoint a cabinet member responsible for the specific concerns of senior citizens. Very shortly the minister will release a white paper on health and social services for the elderly. I am confident this document will provide clear directions to best serve the needs of Ontario's senior citizens in ways that will allow them to maintain their independence.

To meet the needs of our elderly residents, we must strengthen geriatric care resources in the province. The throne speech announced that a multidisciplinary department of geriatrics will be established in an Ontario university as part of a major commitment to improve teaching in this area. What better site for this new geriatric centre than McMaster University in Hamilton? The university's health sciences centre established the R. Samuel McLaughlin Centre for Gerontological Health Research in 1984 and has supported five researchers in medicine and nursing since then. Other examples across our universities are in evidence.

McMaster University has also raised $1 million for geriatric research since the establishment of the McLaughlin centre. Other Hamilton facilities specializing in the care of the elderly are located nearby, such as St. Peter's day hospital and Chedoke-McMaster Hospitals' chronic care unit and rehabilitation centre. All in all, McMaster would be an ideal environment for this new geriatrics department.

Ontario's health care system ranks with the world's best. I welcome the commitment expressed in the throne speech to begin to plan now for the provision of first-class health care well into the 21st century. Hamilton hospitals have broken new ground in improving the quality of health care service through co-operation and teamwork. A prime example is the computerized central bed registry, which has been operating for the past three years. The system provides round-the-clock information on the availability of hospital beds and the status of emergency rooms at the five participating hospitals. We are delighted this concept is now being implemented in other major Ontario communities including Metro Toronto.

The throne speech recognizes another fundamental social shift that has transformed Ontario life, the emergence of a multicultural society. The government will put in place a new policy on race relations and community harmony to ensure that Ontario remains a model of tolerance and understanding.

To ensure the fundamental rights of francophones in this province, we have introduced legislation to guarantee French-language services, and we will increase interpreter services in the courts to facilitate access by those whose mother tongue is neither English nor French. In the Hamilton area, 26 per cent of residents were born outside Canada. In percentage terms, this is the largest immigrant population of all metropolitan areas in the province, except Toronto. Last month I officially opened the new Hamilton Welcome House to extend our newcomer services to the many immigrants and refugees making Hamilton-Wentworth their new home.

4: 30 p.m.

I appreciate the interest of the McMaster Health Sciences Centre in improving access of ethnocultural groups to medical care. We are looking at an imaginative McMaster proposal to sensitize hospital and medical personnel to differing cultural attitudes towards health care.

It was refreshing to hear a speech from the throne taking a long-range perspective. This innovative document sets forth an agenda for the next decade. It offers a framework for long-term achievement rather than a list of short-term promises. I look forward to specific announcements by individual ministers to provide a more detailed blueprint of this general design for progress and reform.

We are now beginning the task of building a world-class society for our children and our children's children into the 21st century.

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased to rise in the House today to reply to the speech from the throne. Before I begin my remarks, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to those individuals and groups of citizens with whom I have met over the past number of months to discuss and examine a variety of issues in the community and social services fields. Their dedication to solving many of the problems and issues that exist in the province, and their real human compassion for those who suffer or who are inflicted with some element of injustice is a significant and yet often understated contribution they have made not only in their own neighbourhood but also throughout the province.

I have met with elderly people in nursing homes, I have talked with concerned parents whose children have come into conflict with the law and I have been in the halls of halfway houses and detention homes where our youth of today fear the uncertainty of tomorrow. In meeting with those groups and individuals, I have been impressed, not so much with the difference in views on how to solve the issues, but rather with the commonality of their commitment to be vigilant day after day in making this provide a more humane place to live and one that responds to both the needs and expectations of its citizens.

As a Presbyterian minister who has travelled the province and visited the remote and often destitute regions and townships, as former chairman of the York Region Board of Education, as one who has dealt with cases of child abuse and educational deprivation, and as a parent who has had to nurture children through an often delicate and difficult stage of life, I know full well the challenges facing Ontarians and the commitment that is required to make effective and beneficial changes. It is that virtue of commitment which, in reality, we are all discussing today in this House.

The speech from the throne purported to be the direction of the new administration, one formed as a result of political convenience and one that will have questions raised today, and most certainly tomorrow, about its motivations and its credibility. Let us not forget that this is a coalition government formed as a result of paragraphs on a page between two parties, not as the result of a definitive election. During the past year, this coalition has ignored the way in which Ontarians have come to expect governments to function: with discussion, consultation, consensus and pragmatism. The people voted for a parliament. What they have witnessed is nothing short of a cabal.

The issues addressed in the speech from the throne dealing with aspects of community and social services, care for the elderly, increased health care and the protection of individuals from injustice, whether it be wife abuse or those in need of housing shelter, are not new phenomena or part of a blueprint that has suddenly been discovered by an administration that found itself in opposition only a year ago.

For this administration to suggest that it has found the road to Damascus or that it alone has the secret formula to galvanize human compassion and fiscal responsibility to produce solutions to complex and long-standing issues is a testimony to arrogance and an insult to individual interest groups and previous governments which have dedicated themselves over the past number of years to find both creative and workable solutions. As this administration will come to learn, solutions are found not in an atmosphere of belligerence or confrontation, but rather in the spirit of co-operation, in dialogue and in a course that is evolutionary, not abrupt.

During the past year, this coalition of convenience has demonstrated in full view to the public that its approach to solutions is not to tackle important and far-reaching matters with collective resolve, consultation or pragmatism but rather with actions that produce crises and divisiveness and that pit faction against faction, interest groups against interested parties and individual against individual.

If this be the road to Damascus, where the stick of legislative fiat is supposed to triumph over a commitment to collective agreement, then I suggest it is a road that many members of this House, and the citizenry they represent, will and must reject. For that is not the tradition of good government; it is not an atmosphere that the people of this province will accept as being progressive or prudent.

We all know the litany of examples that have been produced in this province in less than 12 months that have revealed an administration that is using the leverage of power to get its way instead of using the fundamental principles of consensus and co-operation. Whether they be doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, truckers or industrial producers, this administration acts as if it believes the bullet is more effective than the ballot.

As the critic of this party who is responsible for the Community and Social Services portfolio, I have taken great interest in what the current minister has said and done over the past number of months. That ministry has the third-largest provincial government budget, with expenditures of $2.77 billion proposed for 1986-87. That amount is exceeded only by health and education spending. It is estimated that 10 cents of every dollar spent by the province this year will go towards social services. The management of that portfolio has a tremendous responsibility. Not only does it take into account the addressing of significant human issues, but it also demands a prudent fiscal approach and an ability to manage financial resources to ensure an optimum level of efficiency and delivery of service.

As this party's critic, I have had the opportunity to meet with people who want a rejuvenated approach to social policy, one that will put people's lives ahead of rigid policy structure and that will demand their participation, not command their obedience. In this context, I acknowledge that the minister has undertaken to review various aspects of his ministry. In particular, he indicated recently that he has launched a major review of Ontario's social services network and has vowed to overhaul a system which he says is 50 years out of date. While this initiative may be worthwhile and may recognize continual maintenance criteria that have been instituted over the past number of years under previous Conservative governments, I believe it is critical that input from communities throughout this province be obtained as to the priorities that are necessary to serve people best.

My fear is that the public process will not be instituted to gain and achieve a well-rounded consensus. While the minister himself has assured this House that there will be public participation, I note that the Premier, in commenting on his minister's initiatives, agreed there were serious problems with the province's social services network that require examination. However, he refused to commit himself to public hearings.

4: 40 p.m.

Notwithstanding the contradiction between the minister and the Premier, we on this side of the House, and others in this province, have to wonder whether the confrontational aspects that have occurred between different groups during the past year simply portend the process that we now will experience in the Community and Social Services portfolio. If that is the case, if there is no public process, then I can assure the minister and the Premier that this party will do everything it can to ensure a fair and open process, because these issues are far too important to be sacrificed to political expediency. The impact that these decisions will have on our future is too critical to allow it to ignore common concerns and expertise from across the province.

I can assure the minister that this party will never allow a person in need to have a gun put to his head by a coalition government. The process must be open and accessible and must respect the right of individuals to have an input into decisions that will affect their lives personally and those of their families.

Perhaps the greatest challenge we face over the coming decades is how to respond to the care of not only our current elderly but also those who will require services in the future. Seniors' concerns, not only for today but also for tomorrow, are real. Their fears about future care are immediate, and their bewilderment at how to cope with a system that appears to commit them as opposed to being committed to them, is almost overwhelming.

Once again, issues of concern to the elderly are not the proprietary concerns of any one political party. Over the past 30 years, we have witnessed intensive study and reform in a broad range of areas which affect the senior citizens and future generations of this province. The results of many of those studies appear to have understated the critical impact the rapid shift in demographics is going to have on the face of our society.

In this party, we believe there is an urgent need to develop a more co-ordinated and community-based approach to services for the elderly, a group that will increase by 55 per cent in the next 15 years. If we do not have the infrastructure in place to deal with the anticipated real needs of that section of our society, we will have betrayed our role as public representatives and legislators.

The Progressive Conservative Party has always been firm, and will remain firm, in its commitment not only to bettering the services for our current elderly but also to ensuring that future generations receive the best possible care. We recognize the need to co-ordinate various ministries involved with all aspects of senior citizen care. The goal of this party is to develop a plan linking families, community services, hospitals and nursing homes in such a way as to enhance the wellbeing and independence of our senior citizens.

During the past number of months, I have witnessed the effects of institutionalization on our seniors. I have come to believe that it is not so much the amount of money we commit to a proper infrastructure, but rather where that money should be directed, where it will have its greatest impact and where it will maximize services and assistance for those who need it most. if we continue at the same rate of institutionalization of our elderly, by the year of 2001, the increased cost of health care will be almost $6 billion. While our government is now spending $855 million annually on inappropriately placed seniors, only $68 million is spent on health and social services support alternatives.

In addition, as a result of the process that we began and by talking with all facets of the elderly care community, we recognize that existing aspects of the community-based system are underdeveloped, underfunded and uncoordinated. Further, we advocated that the extended care system must be examined fully to improve, expand and integrate it into a network of community services.

We must draw upon the ingenuity and capital resources of the private sector wherever appropriate. Government does not have an inexhaustible revenue base to ensure that facilities are continually updated and well managed. What it does possess is the ability to encourage innovative solutions and to be vigilant in ensuring that proper standards of care are met. If we do not respond collectively to this challenge, the implications not only for our elderly but also for the entire structure of government, both fiscal and administrative, will be imperilled.

To demonstrate our party's commitment to this priority, the Progressive Conservative Party on April 14, released a discussion paper entitled Care for the Elderly, 1986, under the direction of our leader, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman). In my role as chairman of this party's task force on human and social services, I can say that we are going to go throughout this province to meet with interested parties and groups to discuss the very questions that need to be answered to determine the future of services for our elderly.

This discussion paper was produced on the basis of extensive input by concerned citizens and representatives of our party. We believe this discussion paper recognizes the priority that this party places not only on providing creative solutions in an evolving issue but also on ensuring that the widest possible input is obtained for the future of human and social services in this province.

While we are out there meeting with people and doing something about the future, the current administration, with more resources available to it to address these matters, has yet to leave the starting block. We have noted with interest that the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), who is the Minister without Portfolio responsible for specific concerns of senior citizens, will shortly release a white paper on health and social services for the elderly. We applaud the minister and the current administration for following in the wake of our example. Perhaps it is better to come late than not at all.

We hope the minister will release the white paper at the earliest convenience of his cabinet colleagues, since we understand he has had some difficulty in convincing them of its priority. The difference is that this party does not have to be convinced of the priority of its senior citizens. Through experience and sensitivity, this party has recognized that priority for years, and it continues to act with determination.

There is a lack of chronic care spaces throughout the province. As a result, there is a critical problem of logjams in the health care system, where acute care spaces in hospitals are filled by chronic care patients at enormous expense to the province. It is critical not only that a long-term framework be developed but also that the administration alleviate pressures which are growing more serious every day.

In its speech from the throne, the administration makes no mention of the regulation of homes for the aged and the need to rationalize inspection, licensing and funding structures with those of nursing homes. Another area of growing concern is the power of attorney in homes for the elderly. The administration must ensure that there is no potential for conflict of interest or abuse in this regard. As the demographic shift in our population becomes more acute, it is important that we address the current pressure being exerted on homes for the aged and nursing homes.

This province owes its prominence to the work and sacrifice of its senior citizens. They have provided us with a rich tradition and the fruits of their hard work. In turn, we owe them nothing less than our total support, our respect and our ability to ensure that they can live their lives with independence and dignity.

4: 50 p.m.

We must also ensure that the youth of our province is provided for and that families have adequate access to proper day care facilities. Everyone has to wonder about this administration's commitment to day care as reflected in the speech from the throne. The prominence that day care was accorded in the speech from the throne was one sentence on the third-last page. This is an issue that surely deserves more of a commitment than a vague statement that "new spaces will be created."

Significant questions remain to be answered by the administration on the issue of day care. How does this administration plan to address the lack of affordable day care for our citizens? What is the minister's response to the federal task force report produced by Katie Cooke? Is the minister continuing or discounting the indirect subsidy to municipal child care centres? What is the minister planning to do, in view of the fact that more than 80 per cent of existing child care facilities in this province are in the unlicensed, unregulated setting?

I suggest that day care and child support services no longer can be viewed by any sector as a privilege. Such support must be viewed as a necessary part of our total economic and social infrastructure. We must share the responsibility for providing adequate child support and day care services wherever possible. The government and its affiliated agencies cannot do the job alone. What is required is a complete commitment by leaders in the fields of government, business, labour and education to promote and to share in the funding of proper facilities. Our approach must be one of commitment and collective resolve.

In addition to the concerns we have expressed for our seniors and for those families with children, there is a wider and more pervasive group in society that must receive our continuous support. I refer to those people in our cities, towns and other communities who are in need of social assistance, care and attention.

It is a tragedy that in this thriving province, more than 40 per cent of Ontarians on social assistance are children. These children become part of a vicious circle in our society. Studies have shown that when they grow up poor, they are often sick, poorly educated and more susceptible to addiction, psychological problems and participation in crime. It comes as no surprise that many poor children do not get jobs when they grow up. Studies have also shown that violence is a distinguishable byproduct of those who face frustration and roadblocks on every rung of the social ladder.

None of us is immune to the tragic personal stories that appear day after day in the public press and that are raised in this House: inadequate shelter for families who are struggling to feed their children on an income at or below the poverty line; intolerable housing conditions that are without facilities as basic as hot running water and that have roaches and insects infesting walls and mattresses; displaced individuals who wander the streets looking for hot-air vents in winter to keep warm or abandoned cars in which to sleep or to die.

While these tragic human conditions may produce social unrest and violence in our society, I believe there is another form of violence that is far more dangerous and far-reaching. That is the violence of indifference. It is the indifference of our institutions to human need, the indifference of individuals to the problems we face in this regard and the indifference to acting with compassion when the circumstances demand.

In what we hope will not be a witchhunt, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) has indicated he is going to undertake a review of the province's welfare system, the cost of which is $1.6 billion. We look forward to participating in the ensuing discussion. However, this review has been under way since last October and the minister has not indicated when it will be completed. We believe the minister must attend to the plight of the homeless and to the issue of the lack of affordable housing for low-income singles and others. In the Metropolitan Toronto area alone, there are approximately 10,000 homeless individuals.

On February 25, 1986, a coroner's jury in Toronto issued its verdict concerning Drina Joubert. While Ms. Jourbert's circumstance is not reflective of the total group of individuals who fall under the umbrella of social assistance, it is indicative of a condition which exists and to which all of us must respond so others will not suffer the same peril.

The coroner's report listed exposure as the cause of death. The report cites the cause in one simple sentence: "Accident caused by alcoholism, mental illness and homelessness, and the failure of our support system to deal with these problems." It is important that our perspective in this case be not one of trying to analyse the personal characteristics of the individual which led to this end but rather how we as a society and as legislators can best prevent such circumstances from occurring in the future.

We have yet to hear what the follow-up has been to this report. Let us hope the minister has the courage to address this matter for the benefit of others.

In the final analysis, we must ensure that our attitude towards those who are less fortunate or those who are displaced and require assistance is not one that suggests they are second-class citizens in our society. We must redouble our efforts to eradicate the stigma of social assistance. We must begin with a proper orientation of attitude that recognizes these individuals are an integral part of our society.

I find it ironic that at the most recent meeting of the Liberal Party in Ontario, resolution 3.22 stated: "Be it resolved that a 25 per cent increase in provincial and federal funding be provided immediately for the creation and operation of transition houses, rape crisis centres, support and follow-up services." While its own party drafts resolutions of good intentions, the current administration remains quiet in the speech from the throne on what it intends to do in this important subject. It is a sad commentary on this administration when there is more commitment to be found in the membership of its party than in its leadership which represents them in this legislature.

Incidents of child abuse and sexual abuse are becoming more common and widespread in our communities. The federal government's Badgley report, which was released in 1984, found that there is a high incidence of child sexual abuse; that present laws are inadequate in protecting children from abuse; that services of public agencies are inadequate to treat and rehabilitate victims, family members and perpetrators of abuse; that there is a lack of co-ordination and collaboration between services, and, perhaps most important, that immediate action on behalf of all governments is required to deal with these circumstances. This issue must be addressed.

The speech from the throne makes modest passing comments on programs to assist victims of crime and physical abuse and to sensitize staff in crown attorneys' offices to deal with these matters. It will require more than a few paragraphs in the speech from the throne to instil confidence that these issues are a matter of personal priority.

5 p.m.

In closing, I would like to make a few comments with regard to my own riding, York Centre, which is probably the fastest-growing riding in our province. We have seen the signs of growth that are causing problems of great concern to the people of our community. I question where the government leadership is in not doing more to address the needs for roads and transportation systems.

Highway 407 was at least mentioned in the speech from the throne last year, but it is totally absent from the speech this year. Transportation systems to provide commuter service through GO Transit are an imperative and must be provided. We are seeing the whole social infrastructure of a community pushed to overcapacity by the number of people in our community. I challenge this government to begin to do something to build hospital beds, schools and those services so our community can continue to be strong.

In Ontario, we should be immensely proud of the services that are available for our citizens. However, the quality of life in this province goes far beyond an array of government programs. It encompasses respect for the individual and recognition of the need for independence and initiative. It also includes respect and diversity.

In the words of our former Premier, William Davis: "Ontarians have always expected more from us. They have always expected that extra bit of tolerance, that extra bit of understanding, that extra mile in defence of minority rights and civility. They have expected that extra measure of pragmatism and decency."

This is the proud heritage of our party and of our province. But while it is a proud heritage, it is not a heritage that is self-sustaining. The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, under the leadership of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) and with the collective strength of its caucus, will never let the issues which I have raised today become trivialized by an administration created out of expediency or by an administration that seeks to resolve issues by intimidation or force.

In the final analysis, when the current administration has run its course of expediency, the people of this province will choose the path of substance over style and a Progressive Conservative Party that has the experience to confront fundamental issues in a balanced and sensitive way.

Mr. Foulds: First of all, I want to compliment my friend for giving this House one of the finest examples of sanctimonious puffery that I have ever heard in my 15 years in this place.

The honourable member talked about a fair and open process. I ask him to tell me what fair and open process took place under the previous administration, of which he was a member, when one of his own colleagues, the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz), who was universally respected in this House as Deputy Speaker, was dropped by the former Premier? What kind of consultation took place with the members of his own caucus or with the members of the House as a whole?

What fair and open process took place under the previous administration when appointments were made to boards, agencies and commissions? When Tom Campbell was selected as chairman of Ontario Hydro, was that brought before the select committee on energy?

What fair and open process took place when the previous administration deep-sixed -- in other words, terminated -- the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs, chaired by a former leader of this party, Donald MacDonald? When the member indicates how much is spent on institutional care and how much is spent on community care for seniors, which government and which party made the decisions about that in the budget?

Finally, I ask the member to answer this question. When he talks about new transit systems for the province, which party and which government cancelled the advanced light rail transit project and caused the problems he is talking about and the loss of jobs in Kingston and Thunder Bay at the Urban Transportation Development Corp.?

Mr. McClellan: I would like to continue in the same vein. The honourable member has put a lot of effort into his speech, ignoring the reality that his government was in power for the past 42 years. I would have been more impressed if he had been able to answer a number of questions which I will put to him now. He can answer them in his summation.

If the member is concerned about the shortage of chronic care beds, can he explain to us why his ministry had a freeze on nonprofit nursing home beds between 1976 and 1983? If he is concerned about the problems in our welfare system, can he explain why there are differential rates between general welfare assistance, family benefits, the guaranteed annual income system for the aged and the guaranteed annual income system for the disabled?

If he is concerned about the plight of people with special education problems, can he explain why under Frank Drea, during the Conservative government, vocational rehabilitation services were withdrawn from children with learning disabilities? If he is concerned about child care facilities, can he explain why day care is still provided as a welfare service instead of as a universal service on an affordable basis accessible to everybody who requires it?

If the member is concerned about care for the elderly, can he explain why the Grossman task force -- does his leader never give any credit to the critics? -- which was set up in 1986, is dealing with problems that were created in the 1970s when this government tried and failed to develop a home support service for the elderly? My friend the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor) will remember the government's attempts to develop a comprehensive service. It could not resolve the jurisdictional dispute between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. That dispute still has not been solved. Perhaps the member can answer the question "Why not?"

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order. Your time is over.

Mr. Cureatz: By my understanding of the revised standing orders of the Legislative Assembly, I am entitled to the opportunity to participate in and make comments on the member's speech.

First, I thank the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) for what I think were complimentary comments in terms of the few humble years I served in the august position in which you, Mr. Speaker, currently serve. We like to think that from time to time our decisions were more than judicious.

I compliment my colleague the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) on his speech. In a lot of ways he brought forward some of his special concerns as critic in regard to the responsibilities we now have as members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. I would particularly like to bring to everyone's attention his concerns about the transportation system that is currently taking place in Ontario; as he indicated well, it is not taking place.

I know my learned friend and colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) agrees with me that in recent times we have had some concerns about the Liberal government's commitment to the transportation policies that were brought forward so well under the previous Conservative administration. There was a commitment by the Conservative government to the extension of the GO rail policy east of Pickering into Oshawa under our former and great Minister of Transportation and Communications, Jim Snow and the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague). After the change in government and what we shall call the unhappy union of the Liberal and New Democratic Party coalition, what policy do we have now? Do the members know what the policy is? There is no policy.

Mr McClellan: More of the same old bad stuff we had before.

Mr Cureatz: That is right; more of the same bad stuff from the NDP and Liberal coalition.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Your time is up.

Hon Mr. Curling: I want to add to the list of the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan). Perhaps the member for York Centre will answer these questions in his comments. What has happened to that Progressive Conservative thinking if we have today in Ontario 25 per cent who are functionally illiterate? Perhaps the honourable member can also explain what has happened to the appointments that should have gone to visible minorities and to women. Why were they not included in all the great appointments they had in their time? These are only two things, and I have thousands more, but I know the member for Bellwoods has given him many to respond to. I would like the member for York Centre to include these two in his response.

5: 10 p.m.

Mr. Cureatz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Have the 10 minutes been totally used up now?

Mr. Foulds: He gets to reply.

Mr. Cureatz: I know he gets a reply, but in case --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cousens: I am honoured by the fact that the members of the third party were listening. I appreciate the fact that there is a question from my friend the member for York North (Mr. Sorbara).

As we look at ourselves in opposition, we remember with pride the points of leadership that were there in the past. There was leadership in day care, leadership for the elderly and leadership in the Enterprise Ontario program of last year, which showed the commitment of our party and its leaders to the people of Ontario.

The member can say, "You did not do everything," but this province has been ahead of all the other provinces in this country in doing things for people, and that is what counts. I challenge this government today to do the same thing, because people need the support of the government to maintain --

Mr McClellan: It is doing exactly the same thing.

Mr Cousens: No. It is not happening; we are not seeing it. There is no commitment to the roads. There is no commitment to senior citizens. The member is talking about a report that does not exist, and we are concerned. The member is talking about a speech from the throne that is empty and void. It has not shown direction.

I thank the member for Durham East for his support. I too have always respected his leadership in the House. It is great to see him stand up.

The member for Scarborough North (Mr. Curling) asked what we did when we were in government to recommend and support people of different minority groups. There are many examples, and they start with the Ombudsman, who is more than an example; he is the epitome of what makes up our society, the best of what it is all about. There are many examples of where we have shown that kind of leadership in the past. I can say with honest and integrity that we as a party are going to be loyal to the truths that have made us strong in the past, and that is what will make us strong in the future.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to have the opportunity to reply to the throne speech. As the critic for the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, I will start by making particular reference to the thrust of the speech, which is in terms of technology, a word that is used only a few times less often in the speech than the words "world-class." The problem with the initiative in technology is that it is extremely vague. It requires some substance so we know what the intentions of this government are in its technological initiatives.

The throne speech talks about where the government sees the province going in the 21st century, but there is a lack of focus on what is happening in Ontario today and on what we can do in the next year, in the next session of government, in terms of specific action on technology.

Early in the statement the government says its initiative "outlines some of the steps Ontario must take over the next decade to ensure its place as the world-class society of the 21st century." Unfortunately, we have much more serious problems today, and we have to worry about where the province is going to be next month and next year, given the lack of specific initiatives in this throne speech. I hope the budget coming from the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) next week will be much more specific and will include some initiatives that will benefit the people of this province.

The initiative in the area of technology talks about a $1-billion commitment. The problem is that it is over 10 years and only half of it is new money. What the government is talking about is only a new $50 million per year. It is something that sounds good to the press. It makes a lot better headlines when the government says it has a $1-billion program, but there is not much of substance even in this particular initiative.

More specifically, we need to have the government's attention focused on what the impacts of technological development and changing technology will be on the work place and on our communities in the year and years to come. We have to develop mechanisms that will permit adjustment to changing technology, work places and industries in our province.

There is no doubt that technology is vitally important to set up a framework whereby the province can continue to progress and maintain the competitiveness of our industries and the development of technological initiatives that are a vital part of any government intent on establishing an industrial strategy. I hope the initiative in the area of technology will be part of a major government strategy for the direction in which we are going with industry in this province and for ensuring that we have an economy that is sensibly planned on the basis of the needs, jobs, economic growth and stability. Such a strategy would also ensure that we utilize to the best of our ability the talents of the people and training we have in this province and the resources that can be better used in producing manufactured goods to a greater finished degree, putting more added value into the product of this province and creating the jobs we all need so desperately here.

As a northern member and as the member for Saint Ste. Marie, I have to be particularly concerned about the direction in which this speech from the throne is headed as compared to what the needs are of northern Ontario. Reading and listening to the speech from the throne, one definitely gets the perspective that the government is talking about southern Ontario, the Golden Horseshoe, and its vision for the expanding metropolis centred on Toronto for the decades to come. There is a desperate lack of understanding of the other areas of this province and a lack of recognition of the needs for a balanced economy, jobs and a growth in economic activity in areas outside the Golden Horseshoe. This speech from the throne is woefully lacking in terms of recognition of the problems in northern Ontario and proposals for action for the north.

I would like go through this quite lengthy speech from the throne very briefly. There are only four or five paragraphs that make reference to northern Ontario and to initiatives of direct relevance to the north. Perhaps we can look at the intentions of this government.

The first reference has to do with farming: "A special program will be put in place to provide marketing assistance to northern Ontario farmers and widen consumer choice in that region." This is an area of concern to a number of farmers in the north, but it is not a major part of the northern economy in comparison to a number of other industries and resource sectors which are not mentioned at all.

5: 20 p.m.

The second area that is mentioned relevant to northern Ontario has to do with tourism: "Immediate initiatives will include additional funding for a northern Ontario tourism development program to take advantage of new business opportunities in the north." That commitment does not say anything to me. There have been innumerable initiatives with regard to tourism promotion in northern Ontario, and to announce that this government is going to promote tourism in the north is nothing new whatsoever.

The third initiative has to do with Ontario Hydro: "To ensure responsiveness to northern needs, a northern advisory board for Ontario Hydro will be established. The board will be given a mandate to pursue policies that increase the corporation's contribution to northern social and economic development."

It sounds good, but I do not know what forming an advisory board for Ontario Hydro is going to do for northern Ontario. If anything, Ontario Hydro is moving out of the north and continues its emphasis on further development of nuclear power, with all its investment going into Darlington. There is no evidence that this government is going to take any action to stop that massive waste of investment and to redirect some of that investment into alternative energy sources, many of which might be able to be developed in the north.

Finally, with regard to education, there is only one other major initiative: "A high school of science and technology, located in northern Ontario and accessible to students from the region, will be established and linked to local research, college or university facilities. A major project in northern Ontario will be undertaken to expand the use of new technologies in delivering distance education to remote communities."

While southern Ontario continues to get the vast majority of university funding, the north is woefully underrepresented in terms of educational facilities, and a proposal from this government is to build a high school. In fact, even that high school, as I understand it, will be basically a grade 13 program only, a one-year program for several hundred students. It can hardly be considered a major initiative for northern Ontario in relation to the educational, training and research facilities that are desperately needed in the north -- facilities that would be related to the industries already in the north and would encourage the further development of secondary industry related to the resource sector in northern Ontario.

I do not know what the government means when it talks about "delivering distance education to remote communities." Again, it is a very vague statement. The real problem here is, where is the focus on the real economy of northern Ontario and the real problems of the north? There is no recognition in the throne speech of the major industries in northern Ontario. There is no reference whatsoever to the resource sector. There is no mention of forestry, the lumber industry, the paper industry, other related wood products industries or of the need for encouraging new technologies and the development of secondary manufacturing in that sector.

There is no mention of mining anywhere in this major address, the throne speech. There is no reference to the need to insist on mineral processing here in Ontario in a case such as Falconbridge. There is no mention of the need to encourage resource machinery to be produced here in the province. We could be producing mining machinery and forest machinery in secondary industry in the north that could be used in northern Ontario, instead of importing something like 90 per cent of the machinery we use in northern Ontario.

There is no mention of the steel industry, which is so important to Sault Ste. Marie, an industry that is in serious crisis in my home community right now. There is no mention whatsoever of the very serious problem of single-industry communities or of the fact that almost every community in northern Ontario is dependent on one major industry. When the lifeblood of an individual community severely reduces its work force or when a decision is made to shut down, with the decision generally made in southern Ontario or the United States, the community is completely vulnerable. We are seeing today in northern Ontario a lot of the effects of those kinds of decisions. There is a complete lack of recognition of the reality of northern Ontario. Instead, the throne speech focused on the glorious, pie-in-the-sky 21st century that this government envisions as the Ontario of tomorrow.

In the light of the emergency debate we held in the Legislature last week, I hope this government will take a closer look at the concerns of northern Ontario and particularly at the case of my home community. I am pleased that the debate went forward and that the standing committee on resources development is looking at the situation facing Algoma Steel and the communities of Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa. I hope it will deal very seriously with the concerns of my community and the related concerns of other communities in northern Ontario about the consequence of actions that are being taken today by a major corporation.

This is of vital importance to northern Ontario. These actions were not recognized in the throne speech. I hope they will come forward in the budget we will hear one week from today. I hope there will be some major initiatives to help stimulate the economy in northern Ontario. The unemployment rate in the north is increasing in marked contrast to the situation in southern Ontario where, from all indications, the economy is continuing to expand, and even in the area of the types of people who are unemployed. In southern Ontario, most government programs continue to be focused on youth from the ages of 18 to 24. In the north we need programs that are focused on older workers, workers at all stages of their careers and their work lives.

Today at Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie, before the company institutes its planned downsizing with the loss of 1,500 permanent jobs, to hold a labour position at the steel mill one requires more than 17 years of seniority at that mill. Workers with up to 17 years are out of work today, and that will increase in the months to come.

Last week, the tube mill announced that later this month it is going to shut down completely at the steel mill. That program is separate from the major announcement of the 1,500 permanent jobs that are to be lost. That mill was operating at 20 turns per week, which means 20 eight-hour shifts of operation out of the 21 possible as late as last December. By March, it had dropped to five turns per week of operation because of the drastic reduction in world oil prices and the suspension of orders for casings for oil well drilling. That mill is down to five turns and will be shutting down for an indefinite period of time within the next month. Basically, every union employee in that mill will be put out of work.

5: 30 p.m.

The tube mill has a separate union from the major United Steelworkers union at Algoma Steel because it is a remnant of the German company that used to operate the tube mill. That work force had as many as 800 workers operating at 20 turns per week last December. It is now down to about 350 workers. By the end of this month, all those workers will be out of a job on an indefinite basis.

This means that workers who go back to the startup of that mill 29 years ago, in 1957, will be laid off and they do not know for how long. They have no rights to jobs in other parts of the steel mill because, as I said, that is a separate operation. This is an example of the serious unemployment problems we are facing when workers who cover the complete spectrum of seniority and age are being put out of work in such a major industry.

I have serious concerns about Sault Ste. Marie, and the people of Sault Ste. Marie are seriously concerned about the long-term viability of Algoma Steel and the actions being taken by Canadian Pacific in the down-sizing program it announced in the last month.

The company continues to maintain five major product lines. In a down-sized operation, it may have greater difficulty in maintaining competitiveness and its force as a competitor in each of those markets. In comparison, Dofasco, for example, serves only one of those five major product lines and is able to concentrate much more specifically on the one area it can be very good at, which is sheet and strip.

As well as producing sheet and strip, Algoma is also a major producer of plate, seamless tubes, rails and heavy structurals. There is a serious question of losing the efficiency in its scale of operation from its down-sizing program. A lot of people in Sault Ste. Marie are concerned about the future of the company. They do not want to see the company turn into the Sysco of Ontario.

A major component of its down-sizing is the elimination of ingot production at the mill. Ingot production accounted for about one third of the output in 1985. The shutdown of ingot production will mean massive mill shutdowns and the permanent dislocation of jobs from the mill. These will include the shutting down of the soaking pits, of the 45-inch mill, the 46-inch mill and the 25-inch mill, the ingot mould foundry, the mould yard, the ingot pouring in the number two basic oxygen steel plant and the stripper building.

Significant numbers of people in each of those facilities will be dislocated based on seniority. They may be able to hang on to some jobs, but the result will be the loss of more than 1,000 permanent jobs in Sault Ste. Marie. The loss of 1,500 jobs is the total loss between Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa. There have to be major concerns in Wawa about what may happen there, particularly if the company decides to take action that would mean the eventual phasing out of the Wawa iron ore operation.

The impact of the steel plant job losses on Saint Ste. Marie can be recognized by looking at what has happened in the past six months since the steel plant lost somewhere between 700 and 1,000 jobs because of market reasons. This was predominantly because of the tube mill situation. If one looks at the data, the number of unemployed who were registered at the local unemployment office in Sault Ste. Marie back in October was 5,216. By mid-April, the number of unemployed in Sault Ste. Marie had increased to 8,020 workers. This means the number of individuals collecting unemployment insurance in Sault Ste. Marie and environs had increased by 2,800 during a six-month period. That is the spinoff of the reduction of 700 to 1,000 jobs at Algoma Steel for market reasons.

All of this is before we get the complete shutdown of the tube mill, which means another 350 jobs, and before the permanent shutdown of major facilities, which will result in the loss of another 1,500 jobs. I hope that the tube mill situation will be an interim one based on market conditions and that we can get some of this operation back, but the multiplier effect on the 1,500 jobs is likely as well to result in a total increase of at least 4,000 or 5,000 unemployed in the Sault area. The unemployment rate in the area today is a little more than 20 per cent; it could well go up to close to 30 per cent by the middle of 1987 under the current scenario.

In terms of impact on the community, there has to be concern both for small businesses and small operations that are supplying Algoma Steel with products they use in their process and, more serious perhaps, for consumer spending. With the withdrawal of just the 1,500 permanent jobs, we are looking at the loss of $40 million to $50 million in wages that would have been paid in the Saint Ste. Marie area. That means a direct loss of consumer spending in Sault Ste. Marie, and that business will be taken away from the small businesses that are dependent on Algoma Steel for providing the consumers who can buy their products.

Obviously, there is going to be difficulty in attracting new businesses to the Sault. There are going to be growing demands on social services. There is a serious concern about a decline in the population, something that has not been seen in Saint Ste. Marie to this point. While some communities in the north have seen declining populations, the Sault has had a stable population. Since at least 1960 there was a steady, gradual increase in population up to the peak years of the steel mill in the early 1980s. From 1979 until the start of 1982 were very good years, during which 12,000 to 13,000 workers were employed by Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa. There were about 12,000 in Sault Ste. Marie.

Since that time, the population has remained relatively stable. There has not been a major outflow of population to this point, probably because there have not been sufficient job opportunities in southern Ontario until very recently and because some of the young people who had gone out to Alberta and British Columbia ended up moving back to the Sault in the past several years when the jobs dried up out there as well. That is a problem we still have to face.

What is going on in the Sault at Algoma Steel also impacts Wawa very definitely, because there is the potential that the iron ore mine there could be shut down. This would have disastrous consequences for the community, where most of the employment is dependent on the Algoma Ore division.

5: 40 p.m.

Related to that is the question of the Algoma Central Railway. The Algoma Central is a relatively small railway that not a lot of people know about. It runs between Sault Ste. Marie and Hearst. It is very dependent on the iron ore it carries for Algoma Steel, which accounts for approximately two thirds of the freight carried by the railway. if it were to lose that freight, it would lose the base of its operation and would have a very difficult time surviving.

The head of the rail division of Algoma Central Railway stated that he believes the railway could not continue as a viable financial entity without the ongoing tonnage of sinter from Wawa. That would impact some 400 people in Sault Ste. Marie who work for Algoma Central Railway as well as a number of the communities along the line between Sault Ste. Marie and Hearst in terms of availability of rail transport. A number of forest operations along that line, particularly lumber mills, would lose their capability for lowest-possible transportation costs.

The number one attraction for Sault Ste. Marie is tourism, which many proclaim to be the saviour of northern Ontario. Although I do not believe it is the saviour, it is an important part of the northern economy and can continue to be a growing part.

Undoubtedly, the Agawa tour train would be shut down if the ACR had to shut down its freight operation. The tour train attracts approximately 100,000 visitors a year to Sault Ste. Marie. During the peak late summer and fall seasons, it carries more than 1,000 passengers a day, almost all of whom are from the United States. That is a major portion of our tourist business which we would not be able to attract to the Sault. It is estimated that attraction alone accounts for approximately $40 million in tourist spending in Sault Ste. Marie as a result of those 100,000 visitors to the area every year.

One of the concerns shared by all from northern Ontario is the role of the multinational corporations, the corporate centres either on Bay Street in downtown Toronto or on Wall Street in New York. In many cases, the decisions that affect the workers and communities in northern Ontario are not being made there. As well as Algoma, we have the most recent example of Kimberly-Clark making a decision somewhere in Georgia about whether it should continue to operate its mill in Terrace Bay. A decision is being made about the shutdown of the waferboard plant at Great Lakes Forest Products, a company controlled by Canadian Pacific Enterprises.

A decision is being made by Canadian Pacific on Algoma Steel in my area. There has to be very strong concern about the role Canadian Pacific plays in having the controlling interest of that corporation, the lack of local input on where the corporation is going, and whether other actions could be taken to preserve more of the local jobs by keeping many of these facilities in operation that are planned to be shut down.

There certainly is a case of misuse of one of Algoma Steel's major holdings, the shares of AMCA International Ltd. AMCA International is the successor of Dominion Bridge, and Algoma Steel owns 34 per cent of the shares of AMCA International, an ownership that has no benefit to Algoma Steel. There is no synergy in terms of interconnection of operation between AMCA and Algoma Steel. AMCA stopped paying dividends in 1985, so there are no revenues coming in from that ownership.

The only benefit of the ownership is that it is the major portion of Canadian Pacific's holding of AMCA shares and allows CP to control that major corporation. Canadian Pacific Enterprises separately holds 17 per cent of the shares of AMCA, which, together with the 34 per cent from Algoma, gives it 51 per cent control of AMCA.

AMCA is a very large conglomerate based in the United States, about twice the size of Algoma Steel. It has sales of about $2 billion a year. Algoma has sales on the order of $1 billion a year. In effect, Algoma has the paper that says it owns one third of a company twice its size, but it is getting no benefits for that ownership; in fact, it is paying dearly in terms of its profitability for that ownership, because the market value of that 34 per cent share of AMCA today is more than $200 million.

That alone would be enough to eliminate one third of Algoma Steel's debt. At the interest rates being paid last year, the corporation could have saved approximately $25 million in interest expense and would have been in a profit-making position last year, because its net earnings for the year were only something under a $4-million loss.

I certainly have serious questions about CP's involvement in Algoma Steel. I have serious questions about some of the decisions that have been made by Algoma Steel and about what CP is doing at Great Lakes Forest in Thunder Bay, and I have serious concerns about Kimberly-Clark in Terrace Bay and about what has happened to the Ear Falls mining operation.

These are just new examples of the same problem that we faced back in the late 1970s, when Inco underwent a similar major downsizing, which affected the Sudbury area so dramatically at that time.

I hope we will see something tangible from this government to address the problems of northern Ontario. We urgently need some action on the situation facing Sault Ste. Marie in the months to come. I am not looking for magic solutions, nor do I think the solution lies in waiting for each crisis to occur and then reacting after the fact. We need to introduce programs that will be ongoing and that will provide financial assistance to northern communities to help balance their economy and stimulate new economic development.

5: 50 p.m.

We need more smaller secondary industry. We rely too much on the one large plant in a community. We need several smaller secondary industries that are more appropriately related to the products in the resource sector today and that would be used to put more value added into those products and produce some finished goods in the north instead of shipping so much of that raw material for final processing to southern Ontario in many cases or, perhaps in more cases, to the United States, where most of the jobs are.

We need programs that will encourage these types of activities in the north that will ensure investment is directed at northern Ontario, and that will show we have a government committed to implementing those programs. I hope that this government will seriously look at my concerns and that we will hear something more promising and more tangible in the budget to come.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I will start my comments in reply to the speech from the throne by making a few comments in response to my friend the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom). I share and understand a number of the concerns he raised about the north. He admitted that a great number of those concerns were addressed in the speech from the throne itself.

While there are pockets of problems in this province -- and the speech does not deny that -- we have to address those pockets of problems. It looks as if the government is not ignoring the north at all when it speaks of primary industries, tourism, hydro and expanded education in the north. Those matters are not to be lost on the member for Sault Ste. Marie. I am sure he is aware of them.

I was curious when he said there was a lack of focus in the proposals of this government for high technology. What could be a greater focus than to state that our government will move immediately to achieve that goal and that in developing those areas, it will establish a Premier's council to steer Ontario into the forefront of economic leadership and technological innovation?

The high-level council will be chaired by the Premier. How could we have more focus than by having the Premier himself chair the council? As active participants, it will include several cabinet ministers and leaders of business, labour and post-secondary education. There is no doubt that there is interest and excitement in this government for some of the plans that will be available for this province in the future.

Unfortunately, after having heard the speech from the throne, I cannot help but be aware of the apparent results of high-tech activity having gone wrong. The errors that resulted at the reactor in the Soviet Union perhaps brought us down to earth to some extent to be aware that we should not be completely dependent on high technology by presuming that all our problems can be solved by more and more knowledge.

One can compare it to the growth of awareness of environmental concerns on a neighbourhood basis. I think of neighbourhoods in my own riding in Kitchener where we have a number of industries that are cheek by jowl with the homes that for half a century have housed the workers who worked in those industries. For half a century, that seemed like a great idea to those workers. Now that they have a little more awareness of some of the pollution problems that do and can occur, they are more concerned and they are reacting.

Despite the knowledge we are accumulating in this modern world, it seems to me that every time we take a step towards progress we have to contemplate the fact that there may well be some detriment down the road. It is hard to counter the argument for progress when you do not know what the detriment will be. For instance, it is obvious that at the time of early nuclear testing in the 1940s and 1950s, we did not know the sort of reaction that apparently can occur. It is the downside, if you will, of all progress. We cannot make the argument for the downside because usually we do not know what the downside will be. We either have to stagnate or take that leap forward to the extent we can.

This morning I had the opportunity to be present when the Premier and officials from the Toyota Motor Manufacturing Co. Inc., as it is going to be called, were turning the sod for the new plant that is to be built in Cambridge. The officials from Toyota were there, on a very pretty site; it has a stream close by and a small wood. It is good farm land, and yet it is a site that is in close proximity to large residential areas. I do not mean close proximity in the way I was speaking a moment ago.

It is an exciting site to the people of my neighbourhood, in Kitchener and in Cambridge, because it opens so many possibilities for employment and for spinoff industries in the future. We do not know what the downsides will be, if there are downsides. We have to accept that it is good. It seems to be good for the people at Toyota and for ourselves, the people of Ontario, both those who will be benefiting from the Waterloo region and those who will be coming into our area from other regions for employment.

With each step that is taken, we have to take care to ensure that the damage to the environment is minimal. Those decisions have to be taken if we are to have progress.

We do not know where that company will lead us. We know we want it; we want to build its cars.

As well, we know that computer chips, to the tune of six or eight, are found in cars today. By 1994, the number will be more like 24 per car. The decisions about what those chips will involve and how they will go into those cars are perhaps not going to be made in the Waterloo region or even in Ontario. However, we are delighted that Toyota has chosen to come to our area to build cars. We live in faith that in the long run we shall benefit from the technology and the knowledge it will bring to the area. I suppose that is what was called "world-class competition" a number of times in the throne speech. We have them here; yet we must learn to compete with them.

6 p.m.

I am told the number of components in a silicon chip has doubled annually for the past 20 years. One has to stop and think for a moment what that means in geometric terms.

We have a changing society. We have to be aware of the changing roles of government, industry, labour and education, and of how we can take those resources and utilize them efficiently and effectively. Ontario tends to be the leader in Canada in research and development. It has been in the past and it is the intention of this government that it will continue to be in the future. It is our intention that this be encouraged.

Ontario is one of the great traders in the world. If Ontario were looked on as a separate jurisdiction, it would be the greatest per capita exporter in the world, perhaps with the exception of Holland, exporting more than $6,500 per person, compared with about $4,800 for Canada as a whole, $2,000 for Japan and about $1,200 for the United States.

We have to be aware of some of the trading issues besetting us. While discussions are going on with the US, this government has indicated consistently that it is interested in monitoring those discussions as closely as possible for the purpose of making certain that Ontario's best interests are looked after.

At the same time, this speech mentioned the need to look to the Pacific Rim and other parts of the world that are growing quickly, to establish contact with Tokyo, Seoul and China, to implement a graduate exchange program and to make certain all our eggs are not in one basket. I applaud the government vigorously for that.

The trading role of the province and of Canada as a whole in technology matters, however, is not one about which we have a great deal to be proud in so far as the past is concerned. The development of technology in this country has lagged behind that in the six other countries meeting in Tokyo at this time, perhaps because there has not been a defined goal to the extent that there has been in other countries, with government playing a role in that goal. By that, I refer to the cosier relationship between government and industry that seems to exist in Japan and to the use of the defence industry in the US as a tool that permits a great deal of tax money to be spent on technology, which has permitted research and development to outstrip that which exists in this country.

If we are going to be a world-class economy, we have to make some decisions about the extent to which we are prepared to put the muscle of government into the development of technology to make certain the province continues to move ahead with low unemployment figures and high growth figures, some of which we have heard about in the press even since the throne speech. In doing this sort of thing, it is important that we not forget some of the problems that still exist at home. In my community -- and I know the problem is at least as great in Toronto and perhaps greater -- there is a crisis in affordable low-income housing. I am happy to see the Minister of Housing is taking steps to come to grips with that problem.

In the whole province, we have to accept that child care services are no longer a novelty but are an essential part of the needs of a family, with both parents working in so many families. I am delighted to hear the Minister of Community and Social Services is taking very positive steps not only to increase the number of day care facilities that are available but also to increase the profile of day care so that it is no longer a welfare issue but a public service issue.

Health care is a huge problem. It seems to be a problem that may have been created in part by technology outstripping itself. With the progress in new procedures, we instruct our health care assistants and our doctors to make certain that no stone is left unturned to find the cure for someone who is ill. If we have a loved one who is ill, we want that to happen. The result is that it takes out more and more of our budget. As the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) well knows, it now takes up to 31 per cent of our budget simply to facilitate the hospitals and the nursing homes to cope with our growing ageing population.

The solution to that problem will not be an easy one. I do not have the solution to that problem, and I do not know whether anybody has. It is perhaps not the fairest thing to leave it up to the doctor to make sure that every hospital has a computerized axial tomography scanner and that it is always used in every possible case where there might be some need, however slight, to use it. It is an extremely difficult moral question that we currently leave to the patient, the family and the doctor, and it is costing us more and more of our tax dollars.

These are some of the problems which we face in 1986 and which the government looked at carefully in putting together a very sensitive and thought-provoking speech. I suggest to the government that it take the big steps it needs to take and that it be brave, but that it always be careful, wherever possible, to count the costs. I know the Treasurer is responding as one might expect, but I do not mean just the present costs that we can see; I mean the costs we are not yet aware of that might come upon us down the road.

6: 10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: If there are no questions or comments, the member for Wentworth is next.

[Applause]

Mr. Dean: I can see I am already in trouble because the Treasurer applauded me.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It was just in anticipation.

Mr. Dean: It makes me nervous.

I am pleased to continue representing the people of my riding, which I know you know is Wentworth, Mr. Speaker, but the others who are listening or watching -- I hope there are one or two -- may not know that. The riding includes the township of Glanbrook, the city of Stoney Creek and a piece of the city of Hamilton. They are all in the beautiful area known as Hamilton-Wentworth, which is not far from Brant, Lincoln, Haldimand-Norfolk, Halton and other good places.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The jewel in the crown.

Mr. Dean: Thank you. It could not have been put better by Rudyard Kipling himself.

This is the sixth year I have been privileged to take part in a throne speech debate. I welcome the opportunity to consider this speech from the throne in four principal areas: (1) care for the elderly, (2) the impact of economic change, (3) measures to counter drinking and driving and smoking in public places, (4) GO Transit, particularly as it affects Hamilton-Wentworth.

Under the topic of care for the elderly I regret to say, but it is truthful, that the speech contains nothing new. It has merely restated policies that had already been put in place by the government in the last session or that had been advocated by other parties. There is nothing wrong with retreading something if one does not have anything new to say. As in other areas, the throne speech does say a great deal about the future; for example, 10-year programs. I quote "the throne speech of the decade" from some source; I do not believe it is in the text of this one. This means we will not know what it is like and whether anything happened until the end of the decade.

On care for the elderly, as one member of our party's task force on the elderly and as our party's critic for senior citizens' affairs, I remind the members of the discussion paper our caucus has prepared and issued called Care for the Elderly. It was released about the middle of April and contains many forward-looking suggestions on which we expect a lot of public discussion. I welcome the comments of any members of the House on that paper.

In the speech from the throne is the promise that the Minister without Portfolio responsible for seniors' affairs (Mr. Van Horne) will be releasing his white paper shortly. We have been anxiously awaiting this paper ever since last fall, when the minister told the media it was completed, was sitting on the desk of the Premier and would be released in a couple of weeks. On May 2, I raised a question in the House with the minister about the whereabouts of his report and elicited only that it is coming some time soon, having passed through all the necessary hurdles. We are left with the inescapable conclusion that either there was a great deal of resistance by his colleagues in the party and in cabinet or that the Premier just could not get around to dealing with it.

This throne speech is very deficient in not alluding to anything more definite with respect to this long-awaited paper on care for the elderly. We are told in the speech that the government will put greater emphasis on programs to allow seniors to live independently. That is a very nice promise, but we remember it also was announced two or three times last session when the government announced and reannounced its $11-million home care program.

This speech should have contained more details on how such an emphasis is going to be shown in specific programs. For example, knowing the need for it, I can recount the story of a woman in her mid-senior years who lives independently and is proud to be able to do it. She is quite able to look after herself in the home. However, she needs access to somebody like a plumber, a painter or someone to perform minor repairs in her house without charging her the moon, which she has found to be the case. She cannot find anybody to do this kind of work for less than $14 or $15 an hour. That is a pretty steep cost for somebody on a limited income.

We know there are many local programs and many good Samaritans who will provide this kind of service for some people in our communities, but if the government is looking for an area to use a little of our good tax money to promote a lot of satisfaction and independence among our seniors, encouragement of volunteers and qualified, independent tradesmen would be a wonderful place to start. The speech from the throne seems to be so far up in the clouds and in the future that it tends to forget our seniors might happen to have a leaky faucet or a malfunctioning switch today. Pie in the sky is not very nourishing.

In another section, the speech from the throne speaks of the government's intention to create what it terms "regional geriatric units" in selected community hospitals and a multidisciplinary department of geriatrics at an Ontario university. Those are excellent ideas. I can say that with conviction because they were suggested by our caucus in our discussion paper on care for the elderly, in which we specifically suggested that a department of geriatrics be established and generally stressed the need for health care that was targeted on the basis of professional geriatric studies. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then the Progressive Conservative Party in this Legislature should feel very flattered that the government has grown tired of borrowing the New Democratic Party's jaded policies and is now turning to use ours.

It is most apparent that the multidisciplinary department of geriatrics to which the speech refers could and should be located at McMaster University in Hamilton. Some of the five health science centres in Ontario, at Toronto, Hamilton, London, Kingston and Ottawa, have various programs in this field, although none has a full-fledged department.

At McMaster, the dean of health sciences, Dr. George Flight, has pointed out that the faculty of health sciences there has pioneered the development of the multidisciplinary approach to education, research and health services in a wide variety of disciplines. Its program on geriatrics was established in 1973, and it included the raising of about $1 million from private donations to support research personnel.

In 1979, the university established an office on ageing to co-ordinate educational and research activities in gerontology. Last year this was expanded to become the office of gerontological studies. McMaster has established the first undergraduate degree program in gerontology in all of Canada and will be admitting its first students this fall. Furthermore, the faculty of health sciences at McMaster has also established the R. Samuel McLaughlin Centre for Gerontological Health Research, which took place in 1984. It has supported five researchers in medicine and nursing since that time.

Gerontology has been extended beyond the health sciences to become part of the curriculum in social work, sociology and anthropology. It would make a great deal of sense for the government to select McMaster, with its very modern and progressive medical school, to be the centre for the proposed multidisciplinary department of geriatrics. I will be reminding the minister of the logic and very good economic sense to do this in order that we may have an effective new unit to help in the whole geriatric field.

6:20 p.m.

Still considering the needs of the elderly, I regret to note that the speech from the throne is strangely silent on the need for nursing homes, retirement homes and homes for the aged. All these institutions are struggling with numbers of residents for whom they are not well equipped. The government has been brooding over what to do about the provision of more nursing home beds since last summer.

Prior to the election of a year ago, our government had announced that it was ready to allocate 4,000 additional nursing home beds throughout Ontario, but this proposal was shelved by the present government. While it is still mulling over what to do about the whole continuum of care, it must stop dithering about providing for the immediate needs of many of our seniors who are inappropriately placed in acute and chronic care beds when the proper nursing accommodation would be much better.

Community care groups also suffer. While some fair words have been expressed by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for seniors' affairs and by the Minister of Community and Social Services during the past months, we see no follow-through on the indication that community groups will receive the funding they need to do their part in caring for the elderly.

A critical element is the assessment and placement co-ordination services that can determine what form of care is most suitable for a given person. Again, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will pardon me for referring to the Hamilton-Wentworth area, but it does happen to be a leader in many of these health and seniors' affairs. In the Hamilton-Wentworth area we have such a placement co-ordination service, which has been performing well for many years. If the government had only stopped looking 10 years ahead -- although that is important -- and noticed what was at its feet, we might have expected to see this successful program expanded to all parts of the province. The speech from the throne is deficient in not dealing with this matter.

All in all, while it is difficult to disagree with what we do find in this throne speech with respect to seniors, it is very important to point out that it is very skimpy. Only 10 sentences outline the government's proposals for seniors. It is remarkable and disappointing that there is almost nothing new in the speech in this important area. Everything either has been announced by the government already or has been advocated by the opposition.

I would like to turn now to the subject of health promotion. The absence of much mention of this subject is noticeable. However, in this province and across Canada we need to do more than just combat disease and injury. We must actively promote those actions and practices that will keep us all as healthy as possible in body and mind. To that end, this government should heed what is being said in many quarters about the need to co-ordinate positive health research and to promote good health. I am aware that the Ministry of Health does have an office of health promotion. I believe its impact is in its infancy. It is a good start, but it probably needs more help and support.

A good proposal has been made to the Ministry of Health, but probably not in time to be included in this speech, for the establishment of a joint health promotion resource project. This has been put forth as a co-operative venture by the University of Waterloo and McMaster University and would emphasize the following areas: (1) the establishment of health promotion information services for access by key target groups who try to provide health care in the community, (2) the development of the project as a liaison tying together health promotion information needs with critically evaluated data fresh from the health care field and (3) the interpretation and communication of scientifically valid health promotion information to the target groups.

I feel strongly that such a project would be a real complement to the ministry's office of health promotion. It would help to contribute to the goal of developing effective health promotion in Ontario.

I would like to speak for a few moments on the impact of economic change. On page 5 of the speech from the throne we find the phrase "a world-class competitor." As many of my colleagues have mentioned, "world-class" seems to have become stuck in somebody's electronic typewriter, and it appears regularly throughout the speech. I do not know whether one can term it a world-class speech. I think probably not.

While we all recognize that we live in a new era where we face competition from around the world, in attempting to reach the state of being competitive on a world scale, we must not neglect or forget the people who have worked in our traditional industries for scores of years.

Over the past 10 years, we have had many examples of some of our more traditional industries running into trouble because of the need to compete on a larger scale than simply in Ontario or Canada.

An example from my own riding of Wentworth is Inglis, a manufacturer of electrical appliances. A little more than a year ago, the employees of Inglis, which had operated in Stoney Creek for more than 20 years, were advised that the company would phase out all manufacturing operations within three years. The reason given was that plants owned and operated by the company in other parts of Ontario were in a more productive and therefore more competitive position to meet the challenge of manufacturing on a continent-wide basis.

Although some employees of that firm have been able to transfer to the company's other plants, they are a very small fraction of the total. It has been a devastating experience for many families. What do people do when their job suddenly disappears if they have been with a company for many years, are now perhaps aged 50 or 55 and have invested a great deal of their time and that of their families in their home community? Even if there is another job to go to some distance away, it requires a lot of soul-searching to pull up stakes and go to that new job, leaving behind one's friends and the community.

Now, more than a year later, some employees have been laid off permanently. Others who thought they were laid off permanently have been called back for additional work at the Stoney Creek plant. Company officials now say it is hard to give a firm date for final closure. The acting plant chairman of the union has said: "It makes it very difficult because you feel like you are locked in now. You do not want to give up your severance pay and other benefits and you cannot make any future plans." Another long-term employee says: "I will be 63 years of age in May. I will never get another job. There are a lot of us like that." Early retirement would give him a pension of $170 per month, which is hardly lavish these days.

After many meetings with the employees and the head of the local council, as well as the employer, I met with our then Premier a year ago, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller). He undertook to commit the then Ministry of Industry and Trade to do everything possible to find a replacement industry for the Inglis plant as soon as the company was sure it was closing and the site was available. The present Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology can still help in the same way. The government must do what it can, even though I know government cannot do everything.

The speech from the throne has nothing to say about this type of catastrophe for some of our friends and neighbours. What will the government do to help people and industries caught in changing markets and increased competition from newly industrialized countries? Surely the present government cannot go on ignoring this real human problem even though it talks of world-class competition.

Mr. Speaker, that is the end of all but three or four sections of my speech. Is this an appropriate time to move the adjournment of the debate?

Mr. Speaker: It is.

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

The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.