Journal des débats 1986-mai-07 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Barlow: It gives me great pleasure to bring to the attention of this assembly the outstanding example of corporate citizenship displayed by Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc. at its official ground-breaking ceremony held in Cambridge yesterday.

Shoichiro Toyoda, president of Toyota Motor Corp., and Eiji Toyoda, chairman of the board, invited officials of the city of Cambridge, the regional municipality of Waterloo, the government of Ontario and the government of Canada to join them in turning the first shovels of soil to inaugurate the building of a $400-million assembly plant and to receive Toyota's gift to the city of a $600,000 donation towards the establishment of a local museum.

This is most welcome news for Cambridge residents who have for the past several years been working towards enhancing and preserving their historical and heritage culture. It is with a great sense of pride as the member for Cambridge that I welcome Toyota to our fine city. I thank them for their generosity. We look forward to their participation in our community and to the untold employment opportunities they bring with them. We are excited about the effects that will undoubtedly filter into our economy and allow small businesses to flourish, and we hope all Ontarians will one day benefit from our good fortune.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Foulds: The economy of northern Ontario has been besieged these past months by massive layoffs and plant closures. Northern Ontario has been victimized by corporate giants such as Great Lakes Forest Products, Kimberly-Clark, Inco, Algoma Steel, Canadian Pacific and now the government of Ontario itself.

In his deal to sell off the Urban Transportation Development Corp., the Premier (Mr. Peterson), by his statements and especially by the prolonged negotiations with Lavalin, has prevented UTDC from signing contracts. Thus, the government has failed its workers in Kingston and Thunder Bay. It has also failed to ensure the continuance of made-in-Ontario, world-class technologies for which UTDC is world renowned.

Tomorrow, in the standing committee on public accounts, the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) and I will introduce a motion that the committee re-examine the UTDC sale process in the light of the conclusion of the Office of the Provincial Auditor that the Wood Gundy valuation of UTDC was overly conservative and overly pessimistic.

The Premier must face the fact that the private sector is interested in public enterprises only if it can get them at rock-bottom, fire-sale prices. The government must abandon its misplaced zeal to give away UTDC for crass political reasons and must retain full public ownership and control of the UTDC.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Andrewes: I wish to draw to the attention of all honourable members a matter of some significance to the current discussions between the Ontario Medical Association and the government through the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

Members will recall that during the committee hearings on Bill 94, the OMA offered to prohibit extra billing for emergency services, senior citizens and those people who are receiving social assistance. Although the Liberal and New Democratic Party members scoffed at this proposal, I want members to understand that this prohibition would extend to approximately 50 per cent of the services that are currently rendered by doctors in Ontario.

It has been suggested by government that the OMA proposal was nothing new. The significance of this proposal in going halfway to resolving the extra billing issue deserves acknowledgement and response. Our concern remains that this government is not negotiating in good faith.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Wildman: I would like to quote from a presentation made by Stanley Black, the vice-president of the Algoma Central Railway, in his presentation to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) in Sault Ste. Marie yesterday:

"It is readily evident that the outlook for the communities of Sault Ste. Marie, Wawa and Hawk Junction is bleak. The combination of the Algoma Ore division reducing or discontinuing operations and the cessation of the ACR passenger excursions could have a disastrous effect on the entire region. Shutting down AOD operations would destroy the town of Wawa and impair Hawk Junction. Discontinuing ACR tour trains would destroy the hospitality industry throughout the entire region. Operating AOD at its maximum capacity would provide the lowest-cost opportunity for delivering sinter to Sault Ste. Marie. Upgrading passenger cars in Sault Ste. Marie would create employment opportunities and provide equipment for the continuing of the excursion trains."

It is not only New Democrats and other politicians but also leading members of the community and industry who recognize the potential disaster that is facing Algoma district because of the announcement of the Algoma Steel Corp. on down-sizing its operations. This would have a widespread effect, and it is important that the government respond to ensure that adequate provision is made for employment development in the district.

JANUS AWARD

Mr. Brandt: In keeping with the very orderly demonstrations that are happening on the front lawn at Queen's Park, I have a rather unique and first-time award to present today. The award is presented by the Lambton County Medical Society, which has created the Janus Award and selected the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) to be its first recipient.

The Janus Award is to be presented annually to the politician who, by his own individual effort, has made the most significant impact on the health care system of Ontario, either for its benefit or to its detriment. The award is named quite appropriately after the Roman deity Janus, who quite appropriately had two faces, as does this plaque.

Unlike most awards that are presented in recognition of deeds already accomplished, this unique award is given in advance, while its recipient still has the option of making his contribution advance or retard the health care system. History will judge which side of this plaque is applicable in the case of the Minister of Health.

Side one says, "Presented by the Lambton County Medical Society to the Honourable Murray Elston in recognition of his tireless efforts in promoting Bill 94, which has contributed more than any other single factor to the demise of the current excellent health care system of Ontario."

Side two says, "Presented by the Lambton County Medical Society to the Honourable Murray Elston who, by his withdrawal of support of Bill 94 in the face of overwhelming political pressure, has given a new lease on life to the health care system of Ontario."

PAPER MILL

Mr. Pouliot: The present crisis at Kimberly-Clark threatens the jobs of 2,000 people in my riding and puts into jeopardy the economic survival of the towns of Terrace Bay, Nakina and Longlac. The situation presents a serious challenge for the government. It reminds us of the frailties associated with survival in the north and the difficulties in our attempt to survive and compete in 1986.

What must be recognized by the government is that it is becoming very difficult to survive without incentives, proper planning and programming. We are no longer the only kids on the block. As we strive to survive, electricity rates in northern Ontario are 40 per cent higher than they are in northern Manitoba and between 25 per cent and 30 per cent higher than in Quebec.

The government needs to realize that we have an overcapacity in the north and that we must use the resources of Ontario Hydro to attract and retain people and industries in our part of the province. We do not need the recycling of an outmoded, old, rhetorical economic theory that belonged to 1930. We must eliminate sales tax on the goods produced and manufactured in the north and become innovative and imaginative.

SOVIET REACTOR

Mr. Shymko: Tonight on the steps of the Legislative Building, Canadians of all backgrounds will pay tribute to the countless and nameless victims of the Chernobyl nuclear explosion in the Ukraine. I invite all honourable members to attend and address this meeting.

Notwithstanding the solemnity of this tragic event, the rally will demonstrate our citizens' condemnation of a regime which for 36 hours exposed some 50,000 citizens to such doses of radiation that today they have a mere 50 per cent chance of survival.

2:11 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CENSUS OF ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Hon. Ms. Caplan: In the speech from the throne, the government set out its intention to act immediately to broaden the opportunity for all Ontario residents to share in the future growth and progress of this province.

As a major employer, with more than 80,000 public servants, the government is committed to equal employment opportunity for all groups in the Ontario public service. I am pleased to announce therefore that the government, consistent with its commitment to equal employment opportunity for all, will undertake a census of the 80,000 employees within the Ontario public service. This government-wide census will be conducted through the Human Resources Secretariat and will provide comprehensive information on the relative levels of representation of men and women, native people, racial minorities, francophones and persons with disabilities within our public service.

The employment census has been prepared with the assistance of a steering committee whose membership includes representatives from the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Ministry of the Attorney General, the secretariat for disabled persons, the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the cabinet committee on race relations. Advice on the census was also provided by representatives of many community organizations.

I am inviting each member of the Ontario public service to participate in this census and assist us by completing a voluntary and confidential questionnaire. On June 18, every employee of our ministries and schedule 1 agencies will receive a census kit, which will include a letter of endorsement from the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the questionnaire and a confidential return envelope.

The theme of the census is "I Count for Equality in Employment." I believe that phrase effectively expresses the philosophy and objective of this government. The "I Count" census is the first government-wide survey to be conducted in Ontario and will provide us with a strong statistical basis for effective human resource planning, both now and in the future. Similar surveys have been conducted in other jurisdictions, including the federal civil service, the city of Toronto, the United States and Britain.

I wish to emphasize that this employment census is entirely voluntary and is strictly confidential. Every effort has been made to ensure that the census and the use of the information which will be collected conforms with the requirements of the Human Rights Code and the freedom of information and protection of privacy legislation which is currently before this House.

The individual questionnaires will be destroyed within three months. Further, information on individuals will not be given out except to that individual. However, an employee can request that his or her own information be deleted from the data bank.

In conclusion, I invite each member of our public service to participate. I look forward to their valuable assistance and co-operation. I will be pleased to report back to the members on the progress of this important initiative.

Mr. McCague: We welcome the statement from the Chairman of Management Board today. The statement says a survey will be conducted. Even though the statement says at the beginning that they will act immediately to broaden opportunity for all Ontario residents, "immediately" is a little strong, even though it said so in the speech from the throne, because it is going to take some time to conduct this survey, which I endorse.

I would ask the minister if she would consider giving to the members of this House a copy of that survey a day or so after it is released to the civil service.

Mr. Philip: New Democrats have argued for many years for equal employment opportunities for all. Thus, we greet with approval the statement by the Chairman of Management Board (Ms. Caplan) that a study will be done to find out just how much inequality exists.

The fact that the database study is now being conducted is an abominable condemnation of the previous government and of the present government, which has taken so long to find out the kind of research that is needed to take any kind of action.

While the minister talks about equality for all --

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired. I am sorry to interrupt, but I am sure he will have a chance to continue tomorrow.

SHELTERED WORKSHOPS

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am pleased to inform the House today that the government is moving on two important fronts to provide fairer treatment of disabled people in sheltered workshops and other rehabilitation settings that are connected with work. One initiative concerns greater equity with regard to pay; the other concerns legal protection with regard to occupational health and safety.

First, the pay question. As honourable members may know, section 24 of the Employment Standards Act sets out a procedure for authorizing the payment to employed handicapped people of wages that are below the minimum wage. It is the view of the government that this section, which has been in force since 1947, is arbitrary and unfair and may well violate Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The government will therefore introduce an amendment to the Employment Standards Act to repeal section 24. This will entitle handicapped persons who are in a true employment relationship to be paid the minimum wage, regardless of whether they work in a sheltered workshop or elsewhere.

I would point out that not all participants in sheltered workshops are in a true employment relationship. Some, for example, are in training and assessment programs. I understand the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) will soon be announcing a clarification of the types of assistance available to participants in sheltered workshops and the roles of these workshops. The repeal of section 24, however, will entitle those who are in a true employment relationship to at least the minimum wage.

I would like to address the question of legal protection of the occupational health and safety of disabled people who participate in work or rehabilitation programs. As honourable members may know, the section of the Occupational Health and Safety Act in this area excludes from the protection of the act those who participate in work or rehabilitation programs in psychiatric institutions, mental health centres or rehabilitation facilities. It is the government's judgement that this is unfair and may be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Therefore, the government will table an amendment to the Occupational Health and Safety Act to repeal the offending section. As a result, disabled persons in these programs will enjoy the same protections as all workers under the act.

Mr. Mackenzie: I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Labour and the government on moving on the equality provisions for disabled people in the province. It is a move that is long overdue and one that we have been after for a long time. It is a move we could not get from the previous government.

It is important to add my comments and to thank my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) for her amendment. The minister does not need to move the amendment he mentioned on page 2. It has already been moved during the equality rights debate and passed. It would be wrong if I did not mention as well the efforts of the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped in this regard.

There are two points I want to leave with the minister. First, I want to encourage him to use as generous an interpretation as he can of the legislation. Otherwise, there is a grave danger that large numbers of disabled people might get caught in the training and assessment procedures. The second thing that cannot be left unsaid at this time is that almost 85 per cent of the people who are disabled or handicapped in the province are still not employed. That is our real challenge in this province.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I have a second statement. I would like to refer briefly to an article that appeared in today's Toronto Star headed "Safety Inspectors Said Undermined by Labour Ministry." I will not take the time of the House to review the entire contents of the article except to say it makes two serious allegations against the ministry.

Allegation number one is that the ministry has undermined the recommendation of an inspector that a prosecution be launched against the Ministry of Transportation and Communications in respect of a fatality. Allegation number two is that the ministry, having issued orders in respect of this incident, attempted to hold mediation efforts with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications without the knowledge or participation of union representatives.

Both allegations are totally false. In essence, these assertions against the ministry, if believed, are tantamount to saying that responsible senior officials within the ministry are corrupt and that they are deliberately engaged in attempts to avoid the application of the laws of the province against those in a sister ministry who may have contravened them. I cannot think of allegations against public officials that are more damaging and, if true, more reprehensible.

Normally, to protect the integrity of the prosecution process, I would not make a definitive statement about prosecution proceedings before informations are sworn and served on the accused. However, in this instance, having regard to the very serious misstatements contained in the article, I feel obliged to advise the House of the true facts.

A considerable amount of time has been spent on the question of prosecution by ministry officials. Several weeks ago, after a request for advice from the ministry's director of legal services, the crown law office recommended that prosecutions proceed. The delay in processing them has been occasioned only by the necessity to ensure that the officials to be charged are properly identified.

Before I leave the question of prosecution, I would observe that the reporter involved asked whether prosecutions would be launched and was told correctly by the director of the industrial health and safety branch that the matter was before the legal services branch of the ministry. I would note that this relevant fact was regrettably not included in the newspaper report.

Turning to the second allegation -- namely, that the ministry was engaged in unilateral, improper mediation efforts without the knowledge of the trade union -- I would advise the House that this is also totally incorrect. The ministry issued certain orders following its investigation of the incident. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications appealed these orders, as it is entitled to do under the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

In appeals, the Ministry of Labour attempts to resolve the disputed matters through mediation. In this case, both the employer and the appropriate worker representatives were notified of the intended mediation. Moreover, when the union's health and safety co-ordinator telephoned to indicate that he wished to be involved in the mediation meetings, he was invited to be present. Subsequently, the employer withdrew its appeals and consequently there was no further need for mediation. Therefore, it is quite incorrect to suggest that the mediation was either clandestine or carried out without the knowledge of the union.

Finally, this is a statement that I very much regret having to make. The ministry is not without its faults, nor is the occupational health and safety division of the ministry; however, when false allegations which suggest corruption are made, I have a duty and an obligation to correct the public record.

I have with me a memorandum from the deputy minister which I received this morning dealing with the chronology of events surrounding the prosecution issue. I am going to share this memorandum with my colleagues the occupational health and safety critics in the opposition parties on the understanding that they will treat it with confidence in order that the prosecution process will not be impaired or interfered with in any way.

Mr. Gillies: With regard to the latter statement made by the Minister of Labour, I will be interested in reviewing the documentation of the cases to which he has made reference. I will not be making further comment on the specifics of those cases until we see them. I think the minister's statement begs a number of questions in which members in this House would have some interest.

First, by the minister's own admission, the incidence of accidents and lost time in the work place has increased fairly dramatically in the last year. We have heard a number of responses from the minister with regard to this. I would say, perhaps uncharitably, that he has tried to dump this problem in the laps of the safety associations. He has made allegations about the operations of the Construction Safety Association and its effectiveness, and similarly about the safety officials working in the industrial area. This is not good enough. He made a statement in this House in November and in subsequent statements he has repeated that he has a new get-tough policy, that orders are not going to be reissued against work places and that he is going to launch some all-out war in these very critical questions of work-place safety.

Quite apart from the statements made by the minister, where is the action? Subsequent to November, he did reissue orders for a number of months and we have it documented in one company in Hamilton. He has in recent days, in the month of March, been approached by representatives of the safety inspectors themselves, who have said to him on the record that they lack the training to do the kinds of work he has directed them to do.

Mr. Keith Rothney, spokesman for Ontario's 200 occupational health and safety inspectors, said: "We do not have the training to recognize potential hazards. We often have no idea what type of protective equipment must be used against toxic chemicals." He told the minister that in March. I understand from Mr. Rothney that they have waited for some response as to what is going to be done to put some teeth into the kind of blanket statements the minister has been making, and still they wait.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: It is not worth the breath to respond. They put them there, and now that they are not doing their job they have nothing to say about it.

The official opposition will want to review the particulars of the cases the minister has brought forward. We will also want to review the particulars of his operation in this area. I want the minister to know that the members of the official opposition consider the increase in work-place accidents to be unacceptable. We also consider his response to date to be inadequate. It is not enough to look for a scapegoat; the responsibility is the minister's and his alone.

Mr. Martel: I want to the respond to the Minister of Labour's second statement. I am sorry I cannot congratulate him. His own inspectors call 400 University Avenue the swamp -- everything gets fed in and sinks below the surface in the quagmire down there. Back in December, I raised the particular case he has before us. I have the orders and the inquest proceedings, which point to the fact that the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) violated the construction safety regulations under sections 35, 36 and 37.

The minister's inspector recommended that charges be laid. I have never heard of a pre-appeal hearing. God only knows what that monster is. A pre-appeal hearing is where one asks the inspector to come in and one tries to entice him to withdraw his recommendations for charges. This is a prime example of what happens in the ministry continually. The minister should have invited the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, the official body, to be with the inspector at that time. I spoke to OPSEU representatives twice today and they said they did not know they were invited.

The inquest supports that something was going to happen and that the act was violated. In a fatality where the Ministry of Transportation and Communications did not provide a lifejacket or a backup worker, and where a 61-year-old man -- I think he was 61 -- fell into a culvert and drowned, without adequate equipment under the construction regulations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, I cannot understand why charges are not being laid. Once again, the legal branch of the ministry has suggested that charges not be laid.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member is wrong.

Mr. Martel: I may be wrong, but we will find out when the minister gives an answer on yet another fatality later today. His ministry will not enforce even in cases of the most hideous act of violence that occurs to workers in the work place, the loss of their lives. In this case, if the provisions of the act had been followed, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications would have had a lifejacket there for that man to wear; it would have had belts there for him to fasten to; it would have had a boat there to ensure that safety measures could be taken.

Once again, that all went down to the minister's office and it got sunk in the quagmire. It sank below the surface and it stayed there. It is only when people continue to raise these issues and embarrass this minister that something is going to be done to enforce the act. Unless there is a housecleaning down at 400 University Avenue, nothing is going to happen to protect the lives of the workers and their safety in this province.

PROVISION OF STATEMENTS

Mr. Harris: In regard to the three statements we heard today, I want to comment briefly on the process and say to the honourable government House leader that today was the first day that the best intentions, as settled among all three parties, towards providing statements at an early opportunity have come through. I want to congratulate him on that.

It has been 10, 11 or 12 days since this best-effort deal was struck, and we were beginning to lose faith in what was alluded to or construed as best efforts. I want to congratulate the government House leader on having the statements ready. I appreciate it; it means something to us.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Time has expired.

2:32 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Grossman: In view of the absence of the "former" Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), my question is of the Premier. On April 22, Mrs. Margaret Sheppard died, not in her room but in the hall of the Barrie hospital, simply because no room was available for her to die in dignity with her family at her side.

Given the Premier's professed concern for accessibility to the health care system, can he tell us when his government will be prepared to follow through on the year-and-a-half-old commitment to provide funding to build a new hospital in Barrie, so that this does not happen again?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am very sorry. I am not familiar with the case the member raises, but I will ask for a report from the hospital and report back to him on any circumstances surrounding that.

As he knows, with respect to the second question, the minister is working on a capital program. I cannot give a specific date, but it will be announced in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Grossman: The minister is not working on a capital program today. He is hiding from the rally out front while the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson) has the courage to go out and state his convictions before the people in front of this House.

I did not ask the Premier for a report on those circumstances. They were reported by the daughter of the deceased to my colleague the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Rowe). Therefore, my question does not ask the Premier to tell us what happened. We know what happened.

The question is this: If he is as committed to accessibility as he alleges he is, why is it that on a commitment to provide enough beds and a new hospital for the people in Barrie, his minister has not replied to the district health council report of a year ago? The minister has not replied to a letter written by the board on February 24, and nothing has been done to ensure that more people do not die in the hall of the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot speak right now to the specifics the member raises. I do know that some of the facts he raises are wrong, again. In fairness, when he raises people's names in this House, presumably to make a political point, he would want to make sure he is completely accurate about these things.

I remind him that the minister was not invited to the rally today. I want to correct the record so that the member does not continually spread misinformation about the facts that are going on in this province at the present time.

With respect to the particular situation, as I said, I am not sure of commitments the minister made.

Mr. Davis: The Premier was invited. Where was he?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member did not ask me; he asked about the minister, but he is not here. I will inquire about the specific facts and get back to the member.

Mr. Grossman: I wish to apologize to the "former" Minister of Health. The Premier is right; the "former" Minister of Health was not invited to speak at the rally. However, we thought the Premier, having decided to duck out of the opportunity, might have nominated his Minister of Health, or perhaps the acting Minister of Health, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) or any member of cabinet, to have the decency to go out in front of the building and address the province's doctors. I apologize to the Minister of Health. I forgot he was a puppet.

My final supplementary to the Premier is this --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can be very patient. There is a certain length of time for question period.

Mr. Grossman: In January, the Royal Vic Hospital in Barrie received a letter from the minister in response to its request about what had happened to the long-standing commitment to proceed with the hospital. It received a letter from the minister acknowledging to the board that he had been in Barrie in November. The board will be relieved to know that the Minister of Health also said it was doing a good job.

The board subsequently had to write another letter, and this time hand delivered it on May 6 -- just yesterday -- because it believed that its previous letter might have been lost by the minister, who has totally ignored the request of the people in Barrie.

Given the huge budgetary surplus that the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has, is the Premier going to commit to the people of Barrie that no more people need die in the halls instead of in the privacy of a private room?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I must say a couple of things by way of preamble. I do think the honourable member is somewhat loose in his casting about of blame and involving people's names in these kinds of discussions in the House. I regret very much the degree of personal venom that has come into his kind of discussion in this House on these issues.

Mr. Grossman: Be specific.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is dripping.

I will inquire into the circumstances of the hospital in Barrie. I will get a complete report. The minister will get back to the member. I do not know about letters the minister sent or letters that were hand delivered, but the member is certainly entitled to a full explanation. We will get back to him as soon as we can gather that information.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier does not know about that because he is busy spewing venom on the doctors of this province, whom he does not have the courage to go out and talk to.

2:40 p.m.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Treasurer. Given that by his own admission his government is in the fortunate position of having extensive millions of dollars because of windfalls and other fortunate circumstances, is he still firm in his contention, as he outlined recently, that he cannot follow through on his party's promise to implement a $100-million job creation program because he does not have the money?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Next Tuesday at four o'clock in the afternoon, I intend to present a budget that will see the allocation of the resources of Ontario to a variety of programs. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to respond to a specific question of that nature this close to the time of the presentation of the budget.

I hope the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) and his colleagues are not suffering any misapprehension that resources that have accrued have not been reasonably committed to the expanding programs required by the community. My responsibility is to see that the programs established by the predecessor government and by this government are adequately funded and permitted to expand in step with the needs of the community.

I have been giving extensive thought to and consulting a good deal on the preparation of the budget. I would be glad if the Leader of the Opposition would listen to it next Tuesday. I am sure he will give me his views at that time.

Mr. Grossman: I will be sharing my views with the Treasurer at that time.

We understand the Treasurer cannot and would not announce programs today that will be contained in the budget next Tuesday; however, his party made a commitment during the election campaign to provide a $100-million job creation program. Last month, the Treasurer indicated he could no longer afford that program. In fairness, it is reasonable for us to suggest, having read in the papers that he anticipates a lot --

Mr. Speaker: Or ask.

Mr. Grossman: It is reasonable for us to ask, in view of the fact that he has acknowledged he faces a serendipitous situation where he has extra money available, whether the Treasurer stands by his party's election commitment or whether his contention of last week that he cannot afford to stand by that election commitment still stands.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: As far as the job creation policies of this government are concerned, we have been fortunate indeed that the expanding economy has provided a substantial number of new jobs this year, to the point that the unemployment level in Ontario, while still unacceptably high, is substantially below seven per cent and better than in the rest of Canada. The rate of job creation has been higher here than in the rest of Canada.

While the Leader of the Opposition may say this is the result of the views of the federal government in budget creation, we can accept as much acclaim for our leadership in the months since we have taken office as anyone can. We are very pleased that our initiatives and those of the business and resource community of Ontario have been such that real growth is expanding. Unemployment is as low as it has been in a decade. Inflation is relatively low and dropping. Interest rates are not as low as I would like, but relatively low and dropping. The confidence of the business community in general is returning to this jurisdiction. We are very proud that this has been accomplished during the months of our administration.

Mr. Gordon: Not in the north.

Mr. Wildman: The Treasurer should go north of the French River once in a while.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: John Bulloch will laugh when he hears about and reads the Treasurer's last statement that the confidence of the business community is returning.

We understand that if unemployment had been up this year, it would have been the fault of the previous government.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: The Treasurer arrogantly suggests unemployment is down as a result of this government's six months in office.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Breaugh: Time for the daily cheap shot.

Mr. Grossman: The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) can defend his friends when he gets the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: You do not defend your colleagues, never mind your friends.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: They did not even respect you in the morning, did they?

Mr. Foulds: No one respects you in the afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: In his answer to the supplementary question, the Treasurer pointed out how many jobs have been created in this province in the past year. He also said he is not sure he can afford the promised $100-million job creation program. Was his answer meant to indicate to this House that he stands by his contention that he cannot afford the promised $100-million job creation program?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is our intention to fulfil the commitments made in the election campaign when we feel we can do so. It is important to realize that the changing requirements of the community have to be met by this government, just as our predecessors tried to do when they had the responsibility. We are looking at these changes. While we are aware of the buoyancy and stability of the economy, we are also aware that many communities and sectors in the economy are not sharing in that buoyancy.

It is the responsibility of myself and my colleagues to see that our programs relate to the commitments made on an electoral basis and to meet the needs of the economy as we see them at this time. I hope that when the member examines the budget of the province next Tuesday, he will agree that we have accomplished that and will see his way clear to give us his support.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Labour about his statement today. He has put us in a very difficult position because, having presented us with some information, he now says we cannot talk about it because it will endanger the prosecution process. He made a statement that was extremely argumentative and, if I may put it as charitably as possible, at considerable variance with the facts as we understand them to be.

I am going to put this statement to the minister. He said, "The delay in processing them" -- meaning the charges -- "has been occasioned only by the necessity to ensure that the officials to be charged are properly identified." How can the minister write that and stand in his place and say that when he knows perfectly well that Alan Brown was killed on September 6, 1985, and it was not until March 3, 1986, that an opinion was sought from the crown law officers with respect to this case? How can he say that when he knows the delay was caused by something else?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am going to try to follow my own rules in not talking about the specifics. In making that comment, I was alluding to the fact that since that time -- looking at the statement it is safe to say that a positive recommendation was made and a positive decision reached in the month of March -- the delay from then until this date, since the information has not been sworn, is as a result of identifying the proper people. I will be alluding to this in an answer to a question from my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). I am not happy, not necessarily with the result but with the length of time it takes in all these cases before a decision is reached.

Mr. Wildman: About a year.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: In some cases, it is that long. In this case, the matter has run for several months; I acknowledge that. Looking at the details of this case, it has been a fairly complex matter. A number of decisions had to be taken. The point is that these matters are carefully considered. My friend the leader of the third party, who is a lawyer, knows that legal people often reach differing conclusions based on the same evidence.

Mr. Rae: With great respect to the minister, that is complete and utter rubbish. This charge wandered around his ministry for seven months. People are killed in many parts of this province in traffic accidents and in many other circumstances, and in most cases families and others do not have to wait seven months for a decision to be made with respect to a prosecution. We all know that.

Why should people who are killed in industrial accidents receive a standard of justice that is so significantly different, that is lower and crummier, from the standard expected by most of us as citizens? There is no reason at all. When is he going to clear up that swamp in his ministry and deal with delays that take months and leave the survivors and their families out in the dark, not knowing what the hell is going on?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I see that my friend the leader of the third party has picked up the rhetoric of his seatmate to his left.

I repeat to the honourable member and to the members of the House that I have indicated very clearly to my officials that where charges will be laid in cases of fatalities, obviously the most extreme area, we are to proceed with those matters on an urgent and priority basis. This minister is no happier than is any member of the House when these matters are delayed and not brought forward in a timely manner. I will be monitoring this very closely. I remind my friend that perhaps the road has been too long, but at the end of the road the fact is that a prosecution will be commenced.

Mr. Martel: I am sorry my rhetoric offends the minister. I cannot help it that his ministry is called a swamp; that is what his inspectors call it.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union contacted the Ministry of Labour on October 15, wanting to know why Bruce Gibbs, a former health and safety representative, was being invited and not the union that represents these people. They want to know, as I do, what a mediation process meeting was all about when discussing the possibility of prosecution. Can the minister tell me why his ministry ignored OPSEU in totality and what in God's name was the purpose of this silly mediation process when it was obvious charges should be laid?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: My friend is confused about the mediation. The mediation never had anything to do with the prosecution; it had everything to do with the orders. I will have to double-check whether Mr. Gibbs was the former health and safety representative. He is a member of Local 443 of OPSEU. He was advised of the upcoming mediation after the appeal was launched, as I am sure my friend understands it is proper to do.

He got in touch with Mr. DeMatteo, who on October 10 advised the director of the industrial health and safety branch that he wished to be involved in the meeting. Since a meeting date had already been set, it had to be reset because Mr. DeMatteo was not available. At the end of the day, the ministry, at its choice, withdrew the appeal and of course that ended the matter. The orders completely stand.

PAPER MILL

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier with respect to the tremendously difficult circumstances facing northern Ontario today. I am sure he is aware that a total of 4,500 jobs in northern Ontario have been lost or threatened by various statements or announcements with respect to either actual decisions or decisions that threaten to be made. I remind the Premier that this is 1.3 per cent of the entire work force in northern Ontario and that this is in one month alone.

My question is specifically with respect to the Kimberly-Clark situation, which I am sure the Premier knows represents 1,000 jobs in the plant and 1,000 jobs in the woodland. I wonder whether the Premier has some sort of response to the statement by the president of the company, who last week came to the communities in the north, some four or five weeks after he had made announcements in the United States, saying, "I cannot in good conscience pass along to the next generation of Kimberly-Clark management the Terrace Bay problems which all of us now face."

What is the Premier going to do to make sure that the Georgia-based president of this company, in making his decisions, does not simply make decisions that pass on to the next generation of northerners, to the next generation of residents in the north, the problems all of us now face?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The facts the honourable member brings to this House are accurate. It is not just this situation; there are others as well. At the moment there is no more troublesome problem for this government or indeed for this entire province. The minister has been there in the past couple of days. A number of deputies are there. We are aware of the ongoing discussions. I do not have anything specific to tell the member, but I can tell him this government will spare no efforts to keep the Terrace Bay Kimberly-Clark operation going. I cannot report on the resolution of that question today, but we are working on it.

Mr. Rae: Can the Premier tell us something specific the government is going to do for the people of Terrace Bay, Schreiber and Longlac, whose economic existence depends on the future of that plant? Literally tens of millions of dollars, many of them publicly subsidized dollars, have gone into the improvement of that operation. What specific steps is the Premier going to take to protect the investment of those workers and of Ontario in a healthy industry in the north?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I wish I could respond with a specific solution to the problem today. Unfortunately, I cannot. The problem is receiving the best efforts of this government, which is working on it. We are chatting with the union and the management. This government is not above using its powers to keep that plant open, but I cannot tell the member what the specific result will be.

Mr. Bernier: The Premier knew the answers a year ago.

Mr. Gillies: He had all the answers during the election and he has none of them now.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Would the members stop yapping.

Mr. Rae: In the light of the Premier's answer, surely chatting is not the answer. This is not a question of going around the north chatting with people. This is a crisis that affects town after town. What specific plan is the Premier prepared to announce today? Or if not today, when is he prepared to announce a specific plan for capital investment in the north, for public encouragement of private investment in the north, that will protect the jobs in our basic industries? Otherwise, we will have two economies: in the north, an economy that is sliding downhill, and in the south, an economy that is strong. The Premier surely does not want to see two Ontarios in the province in 1986.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member is quite right. As the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) said today, in spite of a buoyant economy it is not buoyant in a number of areas of northern Ontario. We are very aware of those pressures.

Members have seen in the throne speech, as they will see in the near future, initiatives that are specifically addressed to broadening the economic base of northern Ontario. At the same time, our immediate priority is to try to keep those jobs in the existing mills.

Mr. Foulds: He did not even talk about the north; in the resource sector he talked about agriculture.

Mr. Gillies: We raised it two weeks ago, he has done nothing.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is easy to rail about these situations when in opposition. I understand it.

We are working on each of those specific problems in consultation with the various people involved. We are seeking a solution. I think those things are possible. That being said, we have a long-term job of broadening the economic base.

WATER QUALITY

Ms. Fish: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday the Toronto Board of Health received some very alarming allegations from Dr. Joseph Cummins, a very well known and respected geneticist at the University of Western Ontario. Specifically, Dr. Cummins alleges that cancer-causing polyaromatic hydrocarbons have been found in or near the drinking water of Metropolitan Toronto.

Can the minister tell this House what testing his ministry has done on the quality of the water that is taken by all the residents of Metropolitan Toronto and whether any such materials have been found as a result of those tests?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I have heard Dr. Cummins on a number of occasions in different locations in Ontario indicating his concerns, which are probably genuine, about drinking water across the province. The member will know our ministry has been doing extensive testing across Ontario under our drinking water surveillance program, including the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. As soon as the results are forthcoming, we will reveal them. We will announce them, indicate what has been found and what the parameters are.

3 p.m.

Our latest testing indicates that no dioxin has been found in the drinking water of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Because of other findings across Ontario, there was some concern that could happen in the specific case of Toronto. We have not found that.

The member will also know we are striving to improve drinking water quality at all times in this province through a number of methods. The first important thing is to establish a significant base from which to determine what the problems might be and then from that base to take abatement action. I have announced in the House many times a full --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Ms. Fish: In my initial question I made specific reference to Dr. Cummins's very serious allegations. As the minister is aware, they were not allegations about the presence of dioxin but about the position of the hydrocarbons. He specifically noted them as being very serious agents causing cancer and possibly leading to diseases and disorders related to or similar to acquired immune deficiency syndrome, which is his area of concern.

Given the population that is here, given the fact that water is drawn from Lake Ontario, given the concerns about the numbers of materials --

Mr. Speaker: Given the fact that it is question period, please ask your question.

Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, you may be amused about the materials. I am not and I do not think Dr. Cummins is.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Ms. Fish: Will the minister indicate to this House the date and findings of the testing that has been done and what specific steps he is taking to ensure that the drinking water in Metropolitan Toronto is safe?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will undertake to read precisely what Dr. Cummins did say. I only heard a news report of what he had to say. I will certainly undertake to determine precisely the statement he did make and respond to that by indicating what our tests have been and what they have revealed as compared to the information Dr. Cummins has revealed to us.

Having been Minister of the Environment for a period of time and having her predecessor sitting next to her, the member will know there is much need in this province to undertake the kind of activity that gets at the source of any of these problems, the kind of activity that would be involved in the development of a very tough water regulation.

If the member has followed this since she got back from her trip, for instance, she will have read the clippings indicating that the toxic rain that has been talked about can have an adverse impact not only on the soil but also on the water of Lake Ontario from which --

[Applause]

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I was not aware that the Conservative Party was as unconcerned about --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Recognizing that there were already 46,000 people unemployed in northern Ontario as of February 1986, that in the northeast the average unemployment is 48 per cent higher and in the northwest it is 57 per cent higher than the provincial average and that there is great potential in the north for better utilization of resources and diversification of the economy which would benefit the whole province, can the minister indicate what he is doing to co-ordinate the approach of the various provincial ministries in response to the problems of towns like Wawa?

Specifically, is he preparing a rescue package for that community as suggested by the town council, and is he prepared to provide matching provincial funding for the community initiatives as part of the federal community futures program?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: When I was in Wawa last week, I discussed this problem with the town council. I decided that we will send an economist there to work with the town and its people to find new industry. I know the council was talking about a bigger potential for thermomechanical pulp or waferboard, and we are going to look into that. We are going to look at the other mining that is going around.

I ordered the northern Ontario resources transportation committee to be sure all the roads and the road connections are there to create this circle with the small gold mine, going around this area plus Mishibishu Lake. I gave an order to give the money to that company if we can make an agreement with Algoma Central Railway to cross its land. On mining, there should be some co-operation there.

Second, I will direct my efforts toward Wawa. My deputy minister and other deputy ministers are there today to assess the situation and will report to me and to cabinet this week.

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the answer of the minister, but I want to point out to him that the town council is not there today. I am not sure with whom his deputies are meeting.

Can the minister indicate what steps he has taken to fully involve the Ministry of Natural Resources in this process to ensure it will allocate the timber, the birch and poplar, that is available for a TMP plant, and that funds will be made available for a gold processing mill as well as a tourism strategy and perhaps the development of better transportation facilities, such as the Michipicoten Harbour? What is he doing to ensure these specific programs are brought on stream, as well as meeting with the council to discuss them, as he has done?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First, I assure my friend that mine is the lead ministry among the five or six concerned with Wawa. I will make sure everything to help the town or the people is researched to see whether it is feasible to have a TMP plant there. Maybe it is not feasible.

This idea of TMP came from Hearst a couple of years ago and we chose Wawa because of the strategic area. Apparently, it was chosen for a pulp mill 25 years ago. The other people found that was not the place and they put it someplace else. I will meet the mayor on Friday night in Parry Sound and will discuss what we hear from the deputy minister tomorrow.

We will make an effort not only for Wawa but also for the Wawa area.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE TELEVISION SERVICE

Mr. Poirier: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. I would like her to report on the status of TVOntario's French-language network, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Munro: This ministry strongly supports the implementation of the new French-language television programming network at TVOntario.

We are in constant dialogue not only with the federal officials but also through our own ministry and TVOntario. I hope we will see some concrete results in terms of signing the agreements this year so that the service will start in January 1987, but negotiations are still in progress.

Mr. Poirier: As a Franco-Ontarian, I am very interested in getting the answers and I thank the minister.

I would like the minister to report on the progress of the relationship with the federal government pertaining to TVOntario. There are rumours that there are problems or delays with the federal government and I want to know.

Hon. Ms. Munro: As the member may not be aware, the agreements were started as a result of initiatives by the previous government. We continued those negotiations and made an announcement with the present Minister of Communications, Mr. Masse, in September 1985, and we have continued to work on those negotiations, not only at the staff level but also on a personal level.

3:10 p.m.

It is true that the expectations of people who value their French language and culture are very high. This government, this ministry and also some of my colleague ministers, including the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) and the minister responsible for francophone affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), as well as back-bench members, are working on impressing on the federal government that we need the necessary dollars and other resources to make this dream come true.

REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEES

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Last October, when he announced a $100-million development program for northern Ontario, the minister said he was going to set up nine development councils and these councils would be established by December 1985.

The municipalities in northern Ontario received a letter in April asking them to suggest names of people to be on these councils. Today's Sudbury Star says these councils could be established by June. Is the minister serious about northern development? In nine months, nothing has happened.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I do not know where my friend has been for nine months. Maybe he has been sleeping. I did not say the councils would be established before Christmas; I had to follow the budget. I told the Municipal Advisory Committee the councils would be in place on March 31. I got my okay from Management Board about March, and I made a statement here.

Then I started the process of consultation. I could have named all those people myself, but I did not want to do that. I consulted on the appointments, which will be announced starting next week. Some will be announced each week until the end of May, when all the people will be in place.

Mr. Gordon: As the chairman of the northern caucus of our party, I take my responsibilities seriously when I talk about northern matters. We have heard in the House today that as many as 4,500 jobs are going to be lost across the north. We know 1,500 jobs are being lost in Sault Ste. Marie. We know that more than 3,000 people are on welfare in Sudbury, two thirds of them employable. We have a haemorrhage of jobs in northern Ontario, and the minister has done nothing for nine months. When is he going to start speaking for his constituents, the people of northern Ontario? How can he go back to the north?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I have made 68 trips to the north and I am still alive. Nobody has killed me yet, so I must be doing something right. Otherwise, I would not be here today. The only places I have not covered yet are Pickle Lake and Southern Lake, and I am going there this week or next week.

I am well received in every community because I am trying. This erosion of jobs did not start this year; it started in 1978. The Conservatives did nothing about it. They did not bring any new industry to the north after the war. They just waited to get our forestry money and did not bring any new industry to the north, except mining, sawmills and pulp mills.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Premier, who will be aware of the report of the Provincial Auditor on the Wood Gundy valuation of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. The Premier will also be aware that this report indicates the Wood Gundy valuation is "overly pessimistic and overly conservative." In view of this, has the Premier asked his chief negotiator with Lavalin to enhance the low-end bid scale to reflect the real value of UTDC, or, as he is quoted by the papers, is he still trying to "skin a cat" and to "glue something together" by selling it off cheaply?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are trying to salvage everything we possibly can from the situation. I am aware of the report. As the member knows, bookkeeping is not a precise science. There are various interpretations of the book. We have the Wood Gundy report and we have had accountants and the Provincial Auditor looking at the situation. I welcome all those different views.

As the member knows, there are a number of things that are subject to different interpretations. Ultimately, a company is worth what one can get for it, as is anything else. We are in the position that we are trying to accomplish the following aims. We want to keep that company operating and growing. We want to cut any losses to the taxpayer; that is, to maximize every single return we possibly can. This is the intention of our discussions. Believe me, we are not in the position of wanting to give anything away.

The dilemma we are in is not unlike the one with Suncor where the previous government paid $650 million for a company that is not worth that today. I am sure the member and the Provincial Auditor would probably agree. When one does a deal of this complexity, one takes the very best advice one can possibly find. We take it from a wide range of sources, one of which is the Provincial Auditor. We are very happy to have his advice, and the member's advice, on this matter.

Mr. Foulds: Given the government's spoken, if not acted upon, pledges to enhance high-tech development and to secure jobs in northern Ontario, why is the Premier acting like Canadian Pacific by withdrawing capital from northern Ontario and thus threatening jobs in both northern and southern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I want to be very fair because when the member asks me that question, the implications are that he does not understand what is going on.

Mr. Foulds: I do understand.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are not withdrawing capital. There is a commitment for that company to stay in Thunder Bay and other places. Part of the discussions are a recommitment of capital to bring up those plants to more productive levels. The member knows and I know the historic problems with Can-Car. He knows it will need an infusion of capital to make it more competitive. I am sure the member agrees with that. That is one of the things we are talking about. We are talking about doing that type of thing.

Mr. Foulds: You are saying that your shareholders cannot afford it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member has heard a lot of suggestions in the newspapers about the profitability of that company. There are other interpretations of that, as well as different views of the situation.

Everything we do will be open to public scrutiny. The member for one will look at it, as will anyone else. I have absolutely no hesitation about sharing the facts as they exist and getting the interpretation of the member and others. Please do not force me to be in a position where I have to say things that jeopardize the value of that company. We are trying to increase its value.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of Labour has a response to a question previously asked by some member.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: On Monday, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) raised a number of questions regarding a fatality which occurred in September 1985 at Stanleigh mine in Elliot Lake. First, he asked why no charges had been laid under the act against the employer. I want to inform the member in the House that the case is under active review. A decision on this matter will be made very shortly. I add, in passing, that this matter has taken a long time and, in the judgement of the minister, too long.

The second question the member raised concerned a request by the United Steelworkers local to provide it with a copy of the ministry accident investigation report. I can confirm the union made such a request. The director of the mining health and safety branch exercised his discretion in not releasing the report. It is our judgement that release of the information at this time could prejudice a fair trial if any charges are laid in this matter.

Finally, the member suggested that the deceased individual, Mr. Perron, had reported a malfunctioning gate to his superior four times. Again, because the matter of prosecution is under active review, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that allegation which has been part of the investigation into the fatality. Once a decision concerning prosecution has been formed, I will inform the member on that matter.

Mr. Martel: As he talked earlier about my rhetoric, maybe the minister will tell me why it took so long for that information to come out of the swamp. That is where it has been buried since this man's death in the early part of September. What took the branch so long to come to the fore with this, if it is not a swamp?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I just want to share this with my friend and he can see it in the other matter. The recommendation to prosecute or not, which comes from the investigating officer or from an inspector, goes through a number of stages. I am willing to take a look to see whether we have too many. I rather suspect we do not.

However, in this case, a quite unacceptably long time went by before the matter was moved from one stage to the next. I want to facilitate these things, but we have to be very careful -- because we are talking about prosecutions here -- that investigation reports and findings are thoroughly and carefully reviewed by officials, especially in the case of fatalities.

I reiterate that we want to get on with the job as expeditiously as possible, and I give the member a commitment that we will look at speeding up the process.

LOW-ALCOHOL PRODUCTS

Mr. Turner: In response to a question on December 20, 1985, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations assured me he would take appropriate steps to ensure that low-alcohol beverage products such as Sarasoda would not be available to young schoolchildren. Will the minister please advise this House what steps he has taken to carry out this assurance?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Members will remember that the product in question has less than one per cent alcohol and is not covered under the Liquor Control Board of Ontario regulations. As a result of the concerns raised by the member, I contacted both the manufacturer and the LCBO, and we are trying to get voluntary compliance. There is no regulation that I can apply, because it does not come under the regulations.

Mr. Turner: I point out that there was a big advertisement in the Toronto Star in which the manufacturer took the responsibility of saying, "Sarasoda, the sparkling citrus cooler for adults." In view of that, what am I to tell parents such as Mrs. Reynolds, who lives in the Orchard Park-Eglinton area? Her 10-year-old son went to a Becker's store, bought a bottle innocently -- not knowing what the content was -- and brought it home. I understand this youngster is asthmatic and is on medication for the problem. He was unaware, as were his parents, of the consequences, if any, of mixing the alcohol, low as it is, with the medication. I ask --

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, I am sure the honourable member realizes very much how questions should be asked. I understand he asked the minister what he is supposed to tell the parents; so I am quite sure the minister is ready to answer that.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member quotes from a paper, and that is one of the responses the industry accepted, that it would put into all its publicity the caution that this was meant for adults.

I should also point out that I am concerned about the problem, but the member has to understand there are many beneficial aspects to this product. For those people who are driving, it is an extremely low-alcohol product and it serves a beneficial role in that area. It is something that is of concern, but it is not widespread, and we are addressing the problem.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I understand the minister was in Sault Ste. Marie yesterday with his deputy minister and officials from several other ministries. I am surprised the minister does not have a statement to make with regard to the type of action the minister and his government intend to take in the Sault situation.

Can the minister let us know what happened in his meetings yesterday, what conclusions he has come to with regard to the problems facing Sault Ste. Marie and what action this government will be taking?

Mr. Gordon: Can the minister get his act together?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: My act is better than that member's, for sure. He will not be in Sudbury for very long.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a period for questions and responses. I ask all members to refrain from making interjections. If interjections are made, I hope all others will disregard them.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: In answer to my honourable friend from Sault Ste. Marie, first of all, my officials met with Algoma yesterday. I met with the town and with other people in the town.

Mr. Wildman: Did the minister meet with the union?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: The union? We met with them last week. Today there will be other meetings in the area with the union and the company.

We are working on that together and there will be some announcements in time. I have to have those reports from the deputy minister, who was there, and I have to discuss this with the Premier (Mr. Peterson). I will report to the member shortly.

Mr. Morin-Strom: One of the concerns in the Sault has to be whether it is a city or whether it will be a town in the future, as the minister referred to it.

In the area of jobs, can the minister state that the policy he will be working towards will be the bringing of jobs to the north rather than the bringing of the people of the north to the south to find the jobs that are going down here? What is his intention? Is it to bring jobs to people or to bring the people down here to the jobs?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First of all, I am a married man. I have young kids in Hearst, and I want to show the member for Sault Ste. Marie that I want our children to stay in the north and to live there. Our policy from now on is that we will try to have an economic strategy and a tourist strategy to have those jobs in the north. We have waited 42 years for all those friends who were dead over there, and they never came to the north. Now we are going to have to have a new direction. We are going to do it together.

Yesterday I got a good agenda from the chamber of commerce, from the economic committee and from the town, and we are going to work at it together.

TAX BURDEN

Miss Stephenson: My question is for the Minister of Economics. Since this government today will enjoy the fruits of approximately $3 billion of windfall revenue, primarily because of the sound fiscal management of the previous government, and since $700 million of that is as a result of the pain of the tax bite he put on the citizens of the province last October, I wonder whether the Treasurer, with his magnanimity intact, might demonstrate that he is a generous man, remove his iniquitous gasoline tax and replace it with the ad valorem tax, which would immediately reduce the price of gasoline by about three cents a litre, to the benefit of all citizens of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member will recall that this matter was debated extensively in the previous session. She will also remember that there was some indication of an even greater increase, which the wisdom of the Legislature rolled back. I regretted that at the time, because it reduced the revenues I had been planning on.

Even at that, Ontario taxes gasoline and other fuels at the lowest level of any taxing jurisdiction in Canada except Alberta. For that reason I think it is more appropriate, although we do not earmark the revenues, to be sure that our provincial roads and our various communication lines and transportation facilities are brought up to the mark after having been let go over a number of years, I suppose as an economy measure.

In this regard, I am not prepared to prejudge or even to indicate what the budget might hold next week, but if I were the honourable member, I would not hold my breath.

3:30 p.m.

Miss Stephenson: I am delighted to have that clinical recommendation from the Treasurer free. That is what it is worth as well.

The Treasurer will be aware, I am sure, that the size of his windfall this year has nothing to do with what this government has done. It is as a result of the growing economy in the United States, the growing Canadian economy, the sound foundation that was in place in this province and the increased employment that was predicted last June. The Treasurer decided last June that our figures might be wrong. He has now had to eat crow. Is that not a shame?

Mr. Speaker: Would the honourable member take a breath and ask a question, please.

Miss Stephenson: Thank you for that advice too, Mr. Speaker. I have now had it from both of you. I will take a breath.

If this Treasurer is not willing to demonstrate that he has at least one scintilla of generosity for the taxpayers of this province in the gasoline tax area, will he seriously consider rolling back this additional personal income tax bite, which is going to be very painful for the citizens of this province come January 1987 when they consider paying their income tax and find there has been a considerable increase in that which has been levied by Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I want to make it clear that while I indicated the policies of this government have been advantageous to the economy of the province, we by no means take all the credit. There has to be some left for Mr. Mulroney, who indicates he is the person who has done it all. Politicians spend a lot of time, or let us say even waste a lot of time, trying to get credit or to take credit away. If the member will not worry about it, I will not worry about it.

We are in the last stages of the arduous work of the preparation of the budget after extensive consultation geographically and with many interested groups, professional and otherwise. Labour unions, farmers and teachers -- all of these people are interested in advising the government of the day where these dollars should be placed for the benefit of all. The member will simply have to contain herself until next Tuesday at 4 p.m.

NUMBER OF QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: If I could have the attention of the members, I have taken particular note during this question period that only nine members' questions plus the leaders' questions were asked in the hour today. Yesterday, there were 17 questions in addition to the leaders' questions. I have also noted that many of the questions were repeated during the presentation. Sometimes there were two-, three- and four-part questions, with considerable editorial comment. Tomorrow I will start reminding all members that it is question period and one question should be put and one answer should be given.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Harris: I have a couple of points of order, Mr. Speaker. They go along with the point that you have brought to our attention.

I accept what you have said to us. It is something which we on all sides have to pay attention to. I ask you to consider the case when questions are taken under advisement and answers are given. I refer you to the question of May 5 in Hansard, if you could check it at your leisure. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) asked two pretty short, very pointed and good questions. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) took twice as much time as the member in answering and then at the end of it said, "I will take it under advisement and get back to you." We then had a four-page statement today. Either it is going to be taken under advisement and brought back as a short answer or the question is going to be answered, not both. I ask you to look at that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for his comments. I appreciate that in the standing orders it does say that if there is a lengthy response by a minister it should be done during ministerial statements. I will also look at the other matter to which you referred at the moment.

Mr. Harris: On another point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Which standing order would this be under?

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

Mr. Harris: I am not sure whether it is standing order 10(3) or 13(4). There were several people at Queen's Park today. I would like to know who under this "no walls, no barriers" policy, and you will see the empty galleries here, instructed that the doctors were not to be allowed in the Legislature if they were wearing their doctor coats, which is what doctors wear. Can you let us know under whose authority that instruction was given?

Mr. Speaker: I had not received any request. Requests for demonstrators to come into the precincts of the House generally come to the Speaker's attention. I had no such request. However, I will review it.

Mr. Harris: It was not demonstrators; it was only two doctors who wanted to come in, and they were told they could not.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I do not feel this is the time to debate this; however, I will review it.

PETITIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Polsinelli: I have a petition signed by 203 senior citizens. It was presented to me by the Federation of Italian-Canadian Seniors and reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, wish to show our support for the government's proposed Health Care Accessibility Act. We believe that only with the complete ban of extra billing will there be universal access to first-class medical care in Ontario. It is clear that many people in Ontario have found it necessary to forgo essential needed medical care because of the added unmanageable expense of extra billing by physicians. It has been shown in reputable independent studies that extra billing by physicians is a hardship for senior citizens."

Mr. Cordiano: I have a petition on behalf of the Federation of Italian-Canadian Seniors. There are 229 signatures:

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Reville from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills with certain amendments:

Bill 54, An Act to Authorize and Regulate the Payment by the Minister to Specified Persons on Behalf of Specified Classes of Persons for the Dispensing of Specified Drugs, and Bill 55, An Act to provide for the Protection of the Public in respect of the Cost of Certain Prescription Drugs.

Mr. Treleaven: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a motion on the floor.

Mr. Treleaven: That is correct. I have a point of order on the motion.

Mr. Speaker: When I place the motion, you can stand.

Shall the report be received and adopted?

Mr. Treleaven: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: New standing order 66(b) -- 59(b) under the old standing orders -- says: "When a bill has been amended in any committee" -- and Bill 54 has been -- "it shall be reprinted as the Clerk of the House directs, amendments being indicated, and shall not be further proceeded with until it has been reprinted and marked REPRINTED on the Orders and Notices paper."

It has not so been ordered reprinted on the Orders and Notices paper. Moreover, it certainly is being proceeded with. This is under routine proceedings under new standing order 26. It cannot be proceeded with today in the House.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: Surely the member realizes that the bill is simply being reported out of the committee to the House and that it will not be proceeded with in the committee of the whole House until it has been reprinted and placed on the Orders and Notices paper. I do not know what could be plainer than that.

Mr. Treleaven: It says it will not be proceeded with, and this is a proceeding.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do any other members have comments? It cannot be proceeded with and it cannot be reprinted until it is reported back to the House. The honourable member does not have a point of order, because it is just being reported. It will be printed and it is up to the House to decide where it will be considered next. I hope that is a satisfactory explanation.

Mr. McClellan: Of course it is. That is what we always do.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I said that. Shall the report be received and adopted?

Mr. Treleaven: No.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bills ordered for committee of the whole House.

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. Dean: I was part-way through my brief remarks last evening when the bell tolled. Those who were listening attentively, which may not include many more than you, Mr. Speaker, will recall that I addressed the speech from the throne in three areas: care for the elderly, health promotion and the impact of economic change. In each instance, I pointed out some things that were positive in the speech from the throne, but I also tried to outline some positive suggestions for improvement of the government's policies as enunciated. I did this mostly in the area of deficiencies that were apparent from a close reading of the speech.

I will continue with the rest of my remarks.

Under the heading of drinking and driving, I welcome eagerly the strong statement in the speech as follows: "Those who drink and drive will be vigorously prosecuted. Building on Ontario's record in traffic safety and efforts to combat drunk driving, funds will be provided to expand the Ontario Provincial Police reduce impaired driving everywhere program."

I am also pleased the government has recognized the strong program our Progressive Conservative government had in this area in the past. I hope its resolve to follow our lead -- after the statement by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) today, I wonder what resolve there is when he is advocating an alcohol-based drink as beneficial for drivers. I trust that was a slip of the tongue.

In any case, I hope the government's resolve to follow our lead does not take place in 10 years, as so many of its other distant programs seem to be scheduled. I strongly urge the government to leave no gap in the vigorous prosecution of those who drink and then drive. Such irresponsibility on the part of some members of the public must not be allowed to continue. In the past few years, we have been making headway in our determination to make our highways and roads safer for us all, especially for the great majority who do not try to drive after drinking alcohol.

This good item that appears in the speech, however, is sadly neutralized by a very inconsistent pledge, which we find on page 10, where the government states that for the benefit of consumers it will "introduce legislation to permit the distribution of beer and wine in independent grocery stores." That is absolutely ridiculous. Whom does the government think it is kidding?

Our Progressive Conservative task force on this subject found an almost unanimous feeling in the community that such a move would be very hazardous, especially for our young people. The alleged benefits would be more than offset by increased problems of crime, further availability of alcohol, which is already plentifully available, and probably decreased opportunities for the employment of young people in corner stores.

I am for the government backing off in this ill-conceived program. I do not see a single member of the executive council in the Legislature at this time, but I hope this message will get through to at least one of them, perhaps the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), because he seems to be sympathetic to some amenable statements.

Turning from that, I would like to make a brief comment on nonsmoking action. The same emphasis that is put on curbing drunk driving should also be shown by the government in controlling indiscriminate smoking in public places.

In one part of the speech from the throne, reference is made to the government's intention to commit greater resources for cancer treatment and care, and there is a slight emphasis on preventive medicine. Those are good aims, which we can all laud and support, but those aims could be met very effectively in one area by following the lead of the federal government, which is moving to ban smoking in many public places, beginning with airlines and other transportation systems.

This campaign has received its recent impetus from a decision about a month ago by Air Canada to introduce completely smoke-free flights on some major routes for a three-month test period. The airline said if the test is popular among customers, nonsmoking flights will be extended on other short-haul routes. I commend Air Canada for becoming the first major North American airline to introduce nonsmoking flights. Since that time, some others have indicated they will follow the lead of Air Canada.

At the federal level, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Transport have followed this announcement by saying they support it fully and will move independently to prohibit smoking in airlines and other commercial transportation if the carriers do not do it voluntarily.

Here is a golden opportunity for the government of Ontario to co-operate with the federal government in a move that will protect the health of thousands and perhaps millions of Canadians. At the same time, it will have a dramatic effect on health care costs, which are rising in such an uncontrollable fashion in Ontario. This kind of commitment would make a very good addition to the throne speech. Why is it not there?

To atone for that sin of omission, the members of the government may very well decide to support a private members' bill drafted by the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling), Bill Pr71, An Act to protect the Public Health and Comfort and the Environment by Prohibiting and Controlling Smoking in Public Places. When it comes before the committee and the Legislature, I strongly urge the members of the government to support that very worthwhile bill.

The last point on which I wish to make some comments is GO Transit, which has been a runaway success in Ontario since it was begun by our government about 20 years ago. The latest phase was to reach Oshawa and the Burlington-Hamilton area with extended service as soon as necessary rolling stock and track were available. I will not steal the thunder of the members from the Oshawa area by commenting on what is happening there. However, I wish to comment on what seems to be an absolute stall on the part of the government concerning extension in a westerly direction.

3:50 p.m.

The councils of Hamilton and the Hamilton-Wentworth region have made their decision as to where the route should enter Hamilton. Since then, there has been a loud silence from the provincial government as to its role in all this. There is also not a peep about GO Transit to Hamilton, or any other place, in the speech from the throne. This looks to me as though the government is backing off from its commitment, which had reaffirmed the previous Conservative government's commitment to proceed at once with the extension of this very important service to the Hamilton-Wentworth region.

As in other parts of Ontario, frequent, dependable, convenient rail commuter service will be a boon to Hamilton-Wentworth and will be a necessary ingredient to enable our area to cope with changing economic emphases. Was the omission of reference to this expanded program an oversight in the speech from the throne, or is it simply that the government does not believe it is important enough to include? Whichever it is, I believe it is a disgraceful omission and a worrisome indication of neglect by the present government of the important features for the economic growth and health of areas west of Toronto. We will just chalk it up as another deficiency in the speech from the throne.

In conclusion, as a result of the many deficiencies I have described, it will come as no surprise to the members that I will not be able to support the adoption of the speech from the throne.

Some hon. members: Aw.

Mr. Dean: Is that not sad?

Mr. Epp: Oh, Gordon.

Mr. Dean: The parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer, the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), is almost weeping tears over there at that realization.

Mr. Epp: I am saddened to no end.

Mr. Dean: Perhaps I might refer to him the suggestions I have made for improvement. If the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer could persuade his minister or the rest of the cabinet to carry out some of the things I have pointed out as deficiencies, I would be in a position to vote with him on this.

Mr. Epp: The problem is that the member is going back two speeches from the throne rather than the immediate one. His is going back by two or three of them and mixing this up with the original speech from the throne.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dean: I do not think the comment made by the member for Waterloo North --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the honourable member will wait. There is a proper time for questions and comments by other members.

Mr. Dean: Yes. I do not think the comment that I am in the wrong speech from the throne is correct. Perhaps the government is in the wrong speech from the throne.

As a result of the many deficiencies, instead of supporting the adoption of that speech from the throne, I will be supporting the amendment that has been moved by the leader of my party, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), outlining those areas in which the speech from the throne did not come up to the high standards to which we are accustomed. I urge the other members of the assembly to vote for that same amendment so we may improve the "vision of the future," as it has been called, which seems to be strangely clouded in many areas of the speech from the throne.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any questions or comments to the member who has just spoken? If not, the member for Hamilton West.

Mr. Allen: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to see you are no longer confusing me with the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie).

I rise to speak in support of the speech from the throne, but not because it has changed in any respect, quite frankly, with regard to the standards of speeches from the throne we have heard in the past. The speaker who just sat down may be under some illusions about how the quality of this speech from the throne differs in any respect from the ones his own party as a governing party provided to this House.

From my perspective, it rings with much of the same sort of visionary rhetoric but with relatively little detail or substance with which to gauge whether the rhetoric has any substance. That is the way with speeches from the throne these days: one has to wait for a budget which will tell us more precisely how a government will move.

I rise to support the speech, quite simply and frankly, because our party has concluded an agreement with the Liberal Party to provide a stable government to this province for a minimum of two years. As part of that, we have agreed not to move fundamental motions of confidence, and therefore we are prepared to support this speech from the throne in very general terms.

That does not say, Mr. Speaker -- or Mr. Alternative Speaker or Assistant Speaker, however I may address you, sir, in all your colourful glory. Your presence in the chair this afternoon is very dramatic. I am not sure whether I would exactly applaud the Speaker wearing a tartan gown. None the less, it is a pleasure to see your colours in full display. Long may your clan flourish.

Mr. Philip: It is contrary to the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Mr. Allen: I am sorry. If it is contrary to that act, I take back all of my remarks.

I want to address the elements of the speech from the throne which relate to matters of elementary, secondary and university education, but there are other items in the speech which attract me.

I am extremely interested in the fund of $100 million a year -- $50 million of new money each year for 10 years -- that the government appears to be proposing, and in the Premier's council on technology and industrial research, which is new. It is a long time since a Premier (Mr. Peterson) has engaged himself directly in an enterprise of spurring the technological development of our economy and the basic research that is necessary to accomplish that.

The public may view $1 billion over 10 years as a lot of money. In terms of the task at hand, it is a relatively small amount of money. I note that $50 million a year as new money only meets the requirements suggested by the Bovey Commission on the Future Development of the Universities of Ontario as being needed by the universities alone to meet the provincial obligations to fund the overhead costs of research in the universities, quite apart from moving into the support of private sector research or new research projects. The money itself is not a huge amount, and it may not be adequate to accomplish the high objectives that the throne speech lays out for us.

I am also interested in the reference to the facilitation of employee participation and employee ownership in industry. It is long since past the time when we should be moving towards the creation of a third sector of industrial activities in this province. On the one hand, we have non-union, centralized, paternalistically structured industrial companies in which the authoritarian line of command is very clear and unimpeded. On the other hand, we have unionized firms in which a step forward has been taken in industrial relations. One would hope that we would be able to field a third tier of industrial operations in this province in which working people own and operate their own plants, assume the full capacities and apply their energies and talents in a co-operative way to produce the necessary goods for our society.

I do not want to dwell on those issues. Each one could detain us for more than one response to a speech from the throne. I want to turn to the overarching character and theme that seems to be developing with regard to education in Ontario, if one can read the throne speech correctly.

4 p.m.

For example, one notes that threaded through all the references to elementary, secondary and post-secondary education is the theme of championing entrepreneurship and innovation across the province. There is the persistent repetition of the word "entrepreneur" and variants of it. There is a constant repetition of the need to further science study and to develop graduates who can be innovative in business, marketing skills and entrepreneurship. There is constant reference to the need to develop a sensitivity towards technology through the school system. There is a litany or refrain with the periodic appearance of the words "entrepreneur," "entrepreneurialism," "entrepreneurial," "entrepreneurship" and so on. I suggest the throne speech, in particular this part of it, was dreamt up in the Elysian fields where entrepreneurial heroes suspect they will go after their demise. I say "suspect" because there are other people who suspect the entrepreneurial ethic, particularly some manifestations of it, leads in other directions.

When one applies this thrust to the educational system, there are some very disturbing questions one must ask. The first is with respect to the potential distortion of what education is all about. It is not that trade and industry and science and technology are in any respect strangers to education or that education is a stranger to them, but one suspects that the theme of the speech from the throne, in particular this section on education, is intended to draw something of a veil across what really needs to be done.

One suspects that the note that is struck and the words that are used are for a certain political purpose: to attract the attention of a certain part of the community to the government so that instead of being pilloried as it was during the past 12 months for moving into such sectors as equal pay for work of equal value, first-contract legislation and reducing medical entrepreneurialism, which we heard lauded so much on the front lawn this afternoon, the government thereby attracts the support of groups which the government is beginning to be concerned feel somewhat alienated from this administration.

If that is the tactic that is intended in this speech from the throne, if that is the message and the purpose of the rhetoric, then the use of the educational system as a vehicle for getting that message across is a tragic choice and an unfortunate mistake. If there is one part of our society that ought to be dealt with straightforwardly in terms of its problems and in terms of the needs of that profession and that activity without the interference of political rhetoric, remedies and intrusions, it is the field of education.

The first step down the road with regard to the elementary and secondary education reforms that are intended according to this speech from the throne was taken a week ago by the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway), who said he was going to provide some untargeted and unspecified moneys to assist boards in their relationship with the world of industry and business in their communities. Apparently there is no plan, program or substantial concept as to how that is to be done. The second step was the creation of a couple of courses in entrepreneurialism in the latter years of the secondary school system. The third was a computerization of job search skills, presumably to make use of the computer an attraction to students in developing their job search skills. The centrepiece seemed to be courses in entrepreneurship.

As I heard those remarks, I wondered why the ministry was moving in entrepreneurship. Have there been any studies -- there are none I am aware of -- that the ministry has undertaken to suggest that the fundamental problem in the education system in its interface with the business world is the need to produce more entrepreneurs?

My sense of what is happening in the economy is that there are entrepreneurial spirits out there who are having a lot of trouble with a lot of problems in applying their entrepreneurialism. However, I do not have any sense and I have not seen any studies that tell me there is a shortage of people with entrepreneurial energies, characteristics or spirit ready to move into that domain. Neither have I seen any studies that tell me the way to increase the number of entrepreneurs in the system is to establish a couple of courses in grade 11 and grade 12 in the high school system.

I do not have any objection to the notion of an entrepreneurial course per se or to the injection of entrepreneurial skills into the business courses and electives of the secondary school system. I have no doubt that our economy -- indeed, all sectors of organized life in the Ontario community -- require enterprising people, but I repeat: I do not know of any study that tells me our bank or stock of that type of person is significantly increased by the establishment of two courses in the latter years of high school.

I am aware there are boards in Ontario that have explored and in some cases set up labour studies programs that were intended to provide a broad introduction to the world of labour that all of us, both entrepreneurs and working people in industrial production, experience as part of our daily lives. The broad and full ramifications of the world of work in all its aspects certainly need to be explored in our school system.

Why focus suddenly on entrepreneurialism and entrepreneurs rather than on the broad world of work or on the whole history of labour? Why not focus on the development of the work ethic in our society or on the forces that militate against the application of the work ethic and against living out the work ethic in our society and economy? Why should we not have courses that lead to a greater appreciation of the world of collective bargaining and industrial relations? Why not have courses on the difficulties, problems and issues that working people of all kinds experience, whether at the management level or at the assembly-line level? That would be a creative step in the school system. Targeting entrepreneurs and entrepreneurialism for special treatment seems to be unfounded in terms of any research that tells us such courses are necessary, useful or effective. These courses do not address the broader problems of the students in our schools.

My exploration of the problems of local business in Hamilton has led me to draw some other conclusions on why there is a frustration of the spirit of entrepreneurialism in many of our communities. For example, there is a lack of institutional readiness to assist budding entrepreneurs to develop their products, to find the money for feasibility studies or to secure ready and ongoing credit in their developmental period. There is a lack of policy at the provincial and federal level with regard to import replacement and a lack of necessary information defining the products we might replace from our own productive apparatus. At the federal level, there is a lack of Canadian content legislation. There are no programs to support community venture capital undertakings. There are no technology brokerage arrangements in this province whereby individuals would be compensated for matching new technology and entrepreneurs so that we can get new businesses. There are no structures or provisions of that kind in Ontario. That is where the problem of entrepreneurial frustration lies.

I suspect the two courses in question, whether or not they attract interest from students, will be relatively unimportant in the grand scenario the throne speech lays out before us. Therefore, they appear to be pretty irrelevant.

4:10 p.m.

When I ask myself how we might better harness the energies and interests of high school students and produce the excellence of which the throne speech speaks, I am led to think of other problems, such as the fact that for a whole host of reasons the drop-out rate, especially among general-level and basic-level students, is phenomenally high in this province and is increasing despite the school reforms of recent years and the attention the problem was given.

From 1980-81 to 1984-85, the drop-out rate climbed steadily, especially in grades 11 and 12. It went up by almost two percentage points for grade 11 students, from 13.2 per cent in 1980-81 to 15.1 per cent in 1984-85. For grade 12 students, it went from 16.1 per cent to 20.2 per cent, an increase of more than four full percentage points. Overall, 62,209 students dropped out of our school system and did not go beyond grade 12. About 60 per cent of the general-level students drop out and do not secure high school graduation diplomas.

There are other problems. There is the problem of the drift to a more élite high school curriculum in the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions program, with very little attention being given to special enhancement of general-level studies, for example. As a result, the general-level student finds his chances of making it through high school, into college and through a college program are one out of every 25 general-level students who began in grade 9. There is a failure to address the drift of low-income and ethnic students from general-level down to basic-level courses and the degree to which they are negatively streamed lower and lower in the school system. There is a continuing alienation of the parents of such children, who find it exceedingly difficult to communicate with teachers and vice versa and with the educational administrations they should be in contact with.

Against this major background is the issue of persistent functional illiteracy in our system. About 20 per cent of adults in this province are functionally illiterate. If one looks at particular communities in Ontario, such as the francophone community, the rate is double that. That is an appalling tragedy. Even having to observe that is a real travesty on our education system, but these are products of our school system. Those percentages do not reflect the problems that new arrivals of other language groups experience in this country. Overall, they are the products of the system we have, and that needs to alarm us.

If one wants to strive for excellence in the school system, one has to try to overcome those problems and undertake a strategy for family and community involvement in the school system on a number of points. For example, the following might address some of those persistent and dramatic points of failure of the system as it exists.

In the first place, if we are to move in on the problem of drop-out rates, it is absolutely crucial that the Minister of Education establish clear targets to aim for, year by year, in their reduction and create an emergency action unit within the ministry that will move in on that problem in a vigorous and effective way, in tandem with boards of education.

In my view, the minister should also mandate the creation of school community relations departments in boards across this province, modelled on the recent school community relations department of the Toronto Board of the Education, which has been gutted so viciously by a counter-revolutionary group -- if I can call it that -- in the board of education following the last municipal school board election. That was a very effective unit. It worked actively with parents, brought them into contact with the schools and the teachers and vice versa. It opened up the avenues of communication, became very intimately involved with the parents and established the kind of rapport that is necessary for their children to succeed in the school system.

Given the fact that in many of our cities we have so many newcomers to our communities who are not familiar with our institutions and who do not feel comfortable accessing them and approaching those in authority, including the teacher in the classroom, and who often have difficulties in language and culture in bridging those gaps, a school community relations department that actively pursues this role would be a godsend to the education system of this province if it were mandated across the province.

Third, heritage language instruction should be permitted to take place within the legal school day. It has been conclusively demonstrated that when newly arrived children in our communities learn in their own language, their progress in all fields of their study, including their progress in English, is dramatically improved. Part of the reason for that is by learning in their own language, students can be helped at home by their parents, and their parents are able to understand their programs of study. One is able to get the family unit providing the kind of moral support that is so critical to progress at school.

Fourth, I suggest the immediate establishment of a working group to tackle the problem of low-streaming of ethnic and low-income students. This has been a concern for some time in the city of Toronto. The evidence that has been accumulated by a board of education study there makes it plain that the issue must be more widespread than just in that one board.

The problem one meets in that respect is pretty dramatic. For example, what are the results of the streaming system as far as those particular groups of low-income and recently arrived ethnic students are concerned? It was discovered that in elementary schools, English-speaking, Canadian-born students who had difficulties were most often found in perceptual programs, learning centres, home instruction programs or hospital centres. In other words, special attention was paid to them to give them the kind of remediation they needed.

However, if a student from a newly immigrant and non-English-speaking family was having some difficulty in school, that student would most frequently find himself in special classes for slow learners, those with behaviour problems or for language development. The problem of such a student, by being placed in those settings, was frequently compounded because he had the additional burden of being placed in a group that was there for other purposes than his own problem.

In the secondary schools, it was discovered that Canadian-born students with English as the language of the home were most likely to be in advanced-level programs, whereas foreign-born, non-English-speaking students were the least likely to be in advanced-level programs.

With respect to social class, in general the study discovered that students from lower socioeconomic classes are in special education classes more frequently than those from other socioeconomic classes. As we move up the economic ladder of occupations for the parents, we find fewer students in special education classes, although the real incidence of intelligence and capacity is demonstrably not different.

4:20 p.m.

Children from families in the lowest job groups were 20 times more likely to be in slow learner classes than children from families in the highest job groups. Surely this is an immense distortion of reality with respect to the latent and real capacities of the students concerned. Children from low-status groups also stayed longer in special education classes than did those from upper-status groups.

Students from higher social classes had a 90 per cent chance of entering advanced-level streams in secondary school, but students from lower social classes had a 50 per cent chance of entering advanced-level streams in secondary school. When compared with all other elementary students, those from inner-city schools were the most likely to be in all types of special education classes.

That is a disastrous set of circumstances in a province that embraces the concept of equal opportunity yet allows that kind of invidious influence of immigrant, language and economic status to pervade the system and to distort its promised goals. In that connection, one has to refer again to the drop-out problem, because the whole problem of low-streaming militates against the ambition of any student to stay in school longer.

As a parenthesis in regard to what we are doing with separate schools, it is very interesting that at the point where the separate school system ends, namely, grades 10 and 11, the drop-out rate is far higher for the students in that system than it is for those in the public school system. At those grade levels, 13.62 per cent of the separate school students leave their schools, whereas among the public school children it is only 8.27 per cent across the board. This means there are real educational reasons for completing the separate school system and making it a continuous-flow system. The holding power of the schools to keep children engaged in their studies is that much more enhanced.

I have another suggestion in regard to this program of rehabilitating, if you like, the school system to deal with the problem of drop-out, low-stream children that occurs as a result of the interface of a school system with the groups in question. I had the opportunity last week to speak at some length with some visitors from Britain who were instrumental in establishing a new interfaith, multifaith, secular religious education program in British schools in recent years.

An interesting thing that has happened with respect to that program, which is established across the board at all the grade levels in the entire system as a compulsory program of study, is that when people approach a given school district and ask what is being done for cultural and ethnic groups there, they are almost automatically referred to the program of religious studies as the one that is most obviously and vigorously engaged in relating to the now very varied ethnic communities, particularly in the major cities.

A recent report in Britain, the Swan report, which looked at the major problems in education from a broadly secular point of view, said the most important thing in making the new cultural groups in British society feel they were a part of the educational system was the establishment and development in the boards of this kind of interfaith program of studies. When one stops and thinks about it, after all, religious study is so closely involved with cultural existence and cultural groups of all kinds that it makes a great deal of sense. It provides a natural vehicle for involving those groups in the school system.

Some time I want to address that subject at greater length and in greater detail, but I think it is significant. It would be significant for the ethnic groups, for example, in this large city of Toronto to be able to find in their schools that Caribbean religious groups and traditions found some recognition, that central African religious traditions found some reflection and interest and that south Asian students found their religious traditions were of interest. They would feel much more at home as a result of that. At the same time, we would make the school system a much more universal and comprehensive place for all children to study. We would also bring it much more closely into rapport with the real, live communities that exist in our varied and pluralistic society.

In short, the direction the throne speech takes with regard to elementary and secondary education is essentially a nonstarter and an ineffective approach to achieving the objectives the speech sets out for us. If one wants to accomplish the excellence in the school system that by all means we all want to achieve, we must undertake more fundamental things than creating computerized job search programs and showpiece entrepreneurial courses in grades 11 and 12.

I want to make a few remarks about the throne speech in relation to the university sector. There is not a great deal spelled out in detail in the throne speech, and I understand that. Some of what is got at is quite legitimate. It is true that the universities are in need of much greater support for their research activities. It is important to create specialized chairs in fields such as the sciences, with distinguished chairs for outstanding scientists and even for people in entrepreneurial studies.

I am concerned that the balance is weighted so heavily in a particular direction. When the Premier was asked about this subject, the report was, "Mr. Peterson was reluctant to acknowledge at a news conference that liberal arts in universities may soon be playing second fiddle to commerce and technology, but he did say that Ontario is no longer able to be `all things to all people.'" What does this mean? Does it mean we are saying we want our universities to become specialized scientific research institutions, nothing more and nothing less?

"The humanities, he said, play an important role in developing `a more critical, more thoughtful, more gentle, more civilized society...on the other hand, this is a tough, cold world.'" One is left with the impression that somehow there is something soft about the humanities and social sciences that relates to a gentle tradition in our social life and that on the other hand, business and science are hard and tough and will meet the hard and tough realities.

The interesting thing in this respect is that the Premier apparently has not heard the business community which, reports tell us, increasingly finds that the people who are best able to function within the corporate structures in preparing reports, analysing situations and providing leadership skills are students who have come through humanities and social science programs. They have a breadth of understanding. They have been trained in research skills. Their literacy and communication skills are well developed. In the choice of most business persons, they now rank considerably ahead of masters of business administration in terms of the preferred graduates the business community is looking for. They rank in the top three, along with science graduates and engineering and technology graduates, as the preferred graduates business wants.

When the throne speech addresses the universities issue, it misses the point. The Premier's dichotomized world of a gentle side and a hard, tough side, with one part of the university speaking to one and another part of the university speaking to the other, is so far from reality as to be almost laughable. It is bound to generate a very distorted response to the university sector.

4:30 p.m.

For example, if one wants people who are able to understand and respond to that tough, hard world out there, then one can reasonably argue that those graduates with a broad training in the humanities that explores all aspects of human society and the human past, or the social scientist who understands the interplay of groups, interests and economic forces as well as other social and cultural factors, all of which make it difficult to cope with the reality around us, whether it be economic or otherwise, will be prized, as they are by the business community.

The throne speech makes some reference to maintaining the level of support for the core programs in the liberal arts and in the undergraduate science program. If the objective is to maintain that level, this province and this throne speech are saying that standing ninth out of 10 provinces in the funding levels of those core programs through its operational grants is good enough.

When one looks at the dollars that are necessary to move this province to the national average level of expenditure per student in the country, one sees it will be necessary to spend not just as much as the province is proposing to spend annually on this research and technological development program that is the centrepiece of the throne speech; in point of fact, it will cost almost twice as much as that.

That will be necessary to do what the representatives of such successful corporations as Northern Telecom tell us will be necessary to maintain the flow of scientific personnel into our business community. They have had to go abroad to look for the graduates they need. They find that the supply is not adequate here in Ontario. If one asks the National Research Council specialists who work in this field, they too will say we have barely enough graduating science students at this time to feed the economic system of this province at the level at which it is currently performing.

In other words, if the throne speech program is going to be effective in producing some elevation of economic activity, then one fundamental fact stands out hard and clear: this government is going to have to fund the fundamental core programs in our universities at a significantly higher level simply to provide the number of science graduates we will need to keep abreast of the economic growth that is expected.

If we do not do that, we can have all the fancy funding of advanced research projects and university and private sector projects, and they will only be frustrated in the long run by a shortage of personnel to keep them going. We will end up hiring specialists from the United States and elsewhere, if they are available -- and they may not be. In other words, we will be back to the old game we have always played in this country, and that is to rely on imports of expertise, whether it is critical trade skills or high-level research scientists, finally to top off our national strategic objectives.

That should not be necessary. We have the resources in this country and in this province to produce our own in those respects, and it is time we focused ourselves in such a way as to make certain the foundations are there in the core programs of study and in the financing of them. We can thereafter do the building that is necessary for the economic future of this province as well as for that gentler social future, which I must admit is very attractive to me, as I am sure it is to all other members of this Legislature. There would be no objective for us if we were to gain the world of economic prowess but our communities disintegrated or if we felt the quality of our life together as a society was dramatically impaired. That would surely be to shoot ourselves in the head, and that is not what we want to do either in this province or elsewhere in this country.

I want to reserve further remarks on these subjects until I see the hard figures the Treasurer will be bringing before us in about a week. I understand he will be wanting to tell us about some $2 billion in unanticipated revenue. We will be looking with great interest to see precisely how he is going to dispose of those moneys. I hope they will be spent wisely, actively and energetically in sectors that will make a dramatic difference to the future of elementary, secondary and post-secondary education and as a future potential both in terms of the economy of the province and the quality of our life together.

I conclude my remarks on the speech from the throne by expressing the hope that the perspective that is opened up in the speech will be effective. I have some serious reservations about the emphases that have been laid in the speech with respect to the education sector, but I hope we will be able to work our way around them and secure a little more realism, and perhaps a bit more effectiveness down the road, from the gentlemen opposite.

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: I am truly honoured to rise in support of this historic throne speech, the first Liberal throne speech in Ontario in almost 43 years. It also is a pleasure to come before the House today as the first minister in Canada to have been made responsible for seniors' affairs.

Before I get into the main thrust of my comments, which relate to seniors, I want to recognize the citizens of London North who tell me that they applaud this throne speech. These very discerning people in London North understand what we are about in this new Liberal government. I am proud to serve them. London is a beautiful community. We have an almost perfect balance of socioeconomic circumstances. We have the finest education system that one can find anywhere in Ontario. We are blessed with an abundance of excellent medical service. We have very active cultural and religious communities. In total, I can say that I am very fortunate to come from that community and to be able to represent it. I am truly proud to be able to do so.

4:40 p.m.

I want to direct the majority of my remarks to Ontario's senior citizens and the milestones that have been reached in this throne speech with respect to the care for the elderly of this province. Over the next 15 years, the number of Ontario senior citizens will balloon by some 55 per cent, going from the present approximate 900,000 to 1.4 million by the year 2001. The reasons for this growth are many. Our society's scientific and medical advances have allowed people to live longer and healthier lives. The result is an increasingly active and vocal senior citizenry. These people receive service and assistance from many provincial ministries that have evolved with all good intention but, I am sorry to say, with no overall game plan.

Members will recall that the main thrust of the throne speech, in the section that addressed itself to independent living for seniors, reflected the determination of our government to assist seniors to remain in their own homes within their community for as long as possible. I want to repeat some of the main comments in the throne speech just to make us mindful of that main thrust.

It was indicated that our government is committed to improving the quality of life of the elderly and to supporting their desire to live fully independent lives. We are committed to marshalling the resources of all relevant ministries to implement needed steps, and we intend to do this in the immediate future. We are going to place a greater emphasis on programs to allow seniors to live independently in their own communities. Community services will be co-ordinated to ensure that senior citizens who require assistance are properly assessed and obtain the necessary services with a minimum of inconvenience and delay.

Regional geriatric units will be created. A multidisciplinary department of geriatrics will be established at an Ontario university as part of a major commitment to improve teaching in the area of geriatric care. Our government will also undertake efforts to assure the quality of life of nursing home residents and support community organizations in the development of recreational services and activities for the retired.

That has been the philosophy of our party. That is the intent of our actions as we proceed to move from this throne speech into the budget and the activities of our government that follow the throne speech and the budget.

I want to go back to some of our activities in the latter part of the summer, the time at which we became government and I first became minister, to review some of the activities that have led me, our Premier and my cabinet and caucus colleagues to the point that we are now at with our services for seniors.

When I first became minister in the early part of July 1985, I chose to meet with the executive of the 14 major organizations in Ontario that direct their activities to seniors. These organizations were the Association of Jewish Seniors, the Canadian Council of Retirees, the Canadian Institute of Religion and Gerontology, Canadian Pensioners' Concerned Inc., the Ontario Social Development Council, the Older Adult Centres' Association of Ontario, the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens, the Ontario Association of Residents' Councils, the Senior Talent Bank Association of Ontario, Senior Volunteers in Service, Superannuated Teachers of Ontario, the Third Age Learning Association and the United Senior Citizens of Ontario.

When I met with these folks, the very first thing they said was that they were delighted to be able to meet not only me but also the other people in the room. Here were 14 major organizations, all striving to assist seniors, that up to that point had never got together to share their views, to examine their goals and objectives and perhaps to try to improve the various services they provide for seniors.

That was followed by a series of consultation meetings in cities and towns across Ontario. As my method of operation, I tried to meet both the providers and the users of service. I tried not to direct them, but rather to listen to them to see what their problems are. In other words, as I was reviewing the programs and services the province offers, I wanted to find out where the problems were and what people thought would be good solutions. I also wanted to find out where there were gaps and where there were overlaps.

In a span of six weeks, I visited 18 communities across all parts of Ontario and heard from more than 650 people. One of the most pleasant aspects of all these meetings was the genuine happiness that people expressed when we met, saying simply that they were glad they had a government that was listening.

As we went on with the process, it became very clear to me that the task was so large that if I were to examine all aspects of services to seniors, I would probably not finish it within a year. As I indicated a few moments ago, there are many different ministries that provide services to seniors. The major two are the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, but there are others. The Ministry of Revenue is involved with property tax rebates, sales tax rebates and the guaranteed annual income system. The Ministry of the Attorney General becomes involved with trusteeship and guardianship. Transportation and housing issues affect seniors, and the list goes on.

As I was learning and going about the task of sorting things out, I determined to break it into two parts. The first part concentrated on the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and the Ministry of Health. I am pleased to say that by October 15, I was able to turn over to the Premier a very complete report with recommendations on those two ministries. The Premier was so impressed with the document that he chose to send it through the process of committees of cabinet.

Members who were former cabinet ministers realize this is a necessary part of the government process; that is, reports can either be received and shelved or they can be put to the scrutiny of the caucus and cabinet and dealt with accordingly. That is what the Premier chose to do because it has been a long-standing determination of his, both as Premier and when he was Leader of the Opposition, to direct attention to the affairs of senior citizens.

This report, which was completed October 15, has gone through the various stages of committee review. It has been examined, re-examined and will be ready for public scrutiny very shortly in the form of a white paper. I anticipate that white paper will be out before this session is completed, if not within the very few weeks to follow.

As that work is being completed, we are now in the process of the other phase; that is, reviewing the various services provided through the Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of Revenue. When this report comes out, I urge all members to examine it with a critical eye, and yet with a sympathetic eye.

Having heard the speeches, particularly of the past couple of days and that of the member for --

Mr. Cureatz: York Centre.

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: The member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) was the most recent speaker to concentrate on seniors' activities. Yesterday, the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) also concentrated his comments on that theme, and I add parenthetically that he left the impression that perhaps there was no such thing as a white paper. I will be delighted to prove him a touch inaccurate in that observation.

4:50 p.m.

As I was saying, I urge all members to take a look at this both critically and sympathetically. When we put our political stripes aside, I am sure we all agree that the seniors of this province deserve every consideration. Moreover, the government needs to come up with an overall game plan, and that is what I hope it will see in the white paper. We will be making decisions for the long haul in that process. That is why I was particularly pleased to see the speech from the throne making strides in that direction, which are indicative of long-term planning.

Again, I point out one or two examples of evidence already before us that indicate our sincerity in that direction. A multidisciplinary department of geriatrics will be established at an Ontario university as part of our major commitment to improve teaching in the area of geriatric care.

We must be mindful too of some earlier evidence of our sincerity in this area. That evidence was provided on January 28 by my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) and myself. We made a pair of statements to reflect the determination and concern we have to improve community service and home service for seniors.

The Minister of Community and Social Services spoke at length about the integrated homemaker plan, whereas I indicated we would extend the community support services for such things as Meals on Wheels, escorted transportation and home help. The budget allotment for that improvement was $2 million. I also indicated $750,000 would be earmarked for the additional 50 elderly persons centres in Ontario.

We indicated there would be a $40,000 commitment to senior volunteers and service programs. We also indicated that seniors talent banks, which have been established in some areas of the province, would be added to by setting up $60,000 worth of new seniors talent banks in the province. We talked about community development officers who would be hired to go into isolated communities where they would organize and develop community support for elderly people who live there and who need such assistance. There would be $750,000 for that program. There was evidence.

By the way, I do not want to forget the $1 million we identified for day care and relief services for families who have a person in the family suffering from Alzheimer's disease. This is a very clear indication of the sincerity and determination we have as a government to improve services for seniors.

As I said a moment ago, we should put away our political stripes and forget this business of saying: "You are not doing anything. You are really missing the mark." We should forget that type of partisanship and remember that the goal of all honourable members should be that of improving the circumstance of the elderly in our province.

I want to spend a moment reflecting again on the theme of seniors and home service and home support. These programs would not succeed if we did not recognize the role of volunteers in our community. They give so freely of their time to ensure that the lives of seniors are more meaningful.

I am happy to report that the enthusiasm of volunteers will not go unrecognized. June 1986 will be Senior Citizens' Month. In this month, a special ceremony will be hosted by the government at which the Premier will present achievement awards to outstanding senior citizens from across this province. It is a time when we should all take off our hats to our seniors.

We will be rewarding these seniors who have made an outstanding contribution to the citizens of Ontario during their retirement years. I would like, again parenthetically, to thank the members present who have submitted nomination forms to a nomination committee, which is made up of a member from the New Democratic Party, one from the Progressive Conservative Party and one from the Liberal Party. It is a combined team effort to go through these nomination forms and select the outstanding volunteers in this province of ours. They will all be recognized in June.

I believe Senior Citizens' Month will be memorable. I hope members will encourage in his or her riding any local activity that may be going on to promote seniors and volunteers in their own areas.

Along with the Senior Achievement Awards, seniors will be able to look forward to the white paper I indicated a moment ago. I hope too that, along with members as their representatives, they will look at the paper in a sympathetic and yet critical way, because we must get on with the job; we must make sure that our intent is met.

Lastly, I want to leave these comments with a quotation which I consider an appropriate reflection on my thoughts so far. It was made by an official who works in a similar capacity in the Republic of France. He said: "I do not have two policies regarding seniors -- that of institutions and that of deinstitutionalization -- but rather only one: global. Its objective is to allow the ageing the freedom to choose as long as possible their way of life and to fulfil their existence with dignity."

That is my aim. That is my government's aim. I think it is truly reflected in this throne speech.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. Cureatz: I have some questions or comments. It is my understanding that we have a very brief two minutes. It will be very difficult, especially in view of the fact that from time to time I do like to make some long and lengthy comments.

First, as we have a minute and 46 seconds and counting -- I feel as though we are at blast-off time -- let me congratulate the minister for participating in the debate on the speech from the throne. In the times when I have been on House duty, I have noticed other ministers have participated.

In my humble experience when at a particular time the Conservative Party formed the government, I cannot actually remember a minister, or ministers, so actively taking part in the throne speech debate. It is a little refreshing to see, notwithstanding the fact that the government probably is short of members and is looking desperately to get speakers to fill in the time. I can understand that, but it is interesting to watch and participate.

More specifically, I congratulate the minister who just spoke. From time to time, we have got along very well. I can say honestly that he is a person who sets aside partisan political comments from time to time and just tries to do what I think I do, the job of representing one's constituency.

To comment briefly about the seniors' concerns that we all have, I am very happy the minister has taken the initiative. It is a large package to try to get a handle on in terms of the difficulties we encounter.

I spoke with the minister yesterday about a situation we had in Orono with our senior citizens' residence where the nonprofit board had increased the rent by 24 per cent. That increase for those seniors who are currently renting at what is actually a very fine establishment in Orono has made them a little hard pressed. Unfortunately, the board had misjudged its calculations in over five years and probably should have increased the rent a little higher. The minister will be curious about one question.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time is up.

Mr. Cureatz: Does he anticipate whether the nonprofit organization regarding seniors will be limited to renting?

The Acting Speaker: Order. Does the minister wish to reply?

5 p.m.

Mr. Cureatz: On a point of order: We have another colleague of ours who wants to make some comments with regard to this issue.

Mr. Guindon: I would like to congratulate the Minister without Portfolio, the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), for his sincerity; it shows in his work. I did not hear anything in the speech from the throne about French-speaking senior citizens. What does the speech from the throne do for these people?

The Acting Speaker: Minister, you have two minutes.

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: Very briefly, the question put to me by the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) is one that I cannot reply to right now and will have to take under advisement. Housing is part of the second main paper, which we are just starting to work on. I will not wait until we get into that, but rather will ask that his question be looked into by staff immediately. I will try to work along with them because, quite frankly, I have to learn too as I go through the exercise. I will get into that one as quickly as I can.

In so far as the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon) is concerned, the white paper was completed in English last week. On my very small staff of nine people, I have one person who is very fluently bilingual. I asked her to take the French translation, which we just received, and go through it to make sure the language was what we intended. As my friend knows, there are some literal translations that lose their meaning.

I do not know whether I am expressing this correctly, but we want to make sure the language is not what a PhD would pick up and read, but rather what a layperson such as myself or perhaps the member would understand. It is to be finished by this weekend; that is, just the mechanics of presentation.

The white paper will be available in both languages. There is reference in it to the services and the things we talk about being available in remote communities in the north, many of which are practically all French-speaking. It is intended to apply to both the francophone and native populations.

Mr. Taylor: I appreciate this opportunity to participate in the throne speech debate. It is not the first time, but it is certainly the first time I have participated in a debate on a throne speech that was concocted -- if I may use that word -- by a Liberal government. I know it was written by the Lieutenant Governor (Mr. Alexander), who is a very fine gentleman. However, I suspect there might have been some influence in his scribblings from the Liberal Party and, in particular, the Premier. I hope I do not offend the Lieutenant Governor when I comment in a constructive but positively critical way with regard to some of the aspects. In others, I believe in being constructive; we have to think positively.

I commend the speech in its development of a framework which has some perspective. I like the concept of century 21. We are approaching that century, some of us more swiftly than others, I suppose. As we age, time seems to fly by more quickly, and century 21 does not seem that far away. As we approach the 21st century, we have to look to see where we are going and what we want to accomplish.

The speech from the throne attempts to develop some kind of perspective in that regard. That perspective is focused primarily on the economies of the nation and the province and on the welfare of the people who are so dependent upon a prosperous economy. The perspective strikes me as one from the writings of Buckminster Fuller. Some members may remember him. Years ago, when I was first elected in 1971, there was that great Spadina ditch and the ban the Spadina campaign. It was Premier Davis who brought in Buckminster Fuller to develop a concept to utilize that Spadina right of way. He conjured up in his imagination -- and what an imagination -- some neo-Egyptian development along that grade throughout the route. Some members may remember that. I see some nodding of heads.

That same Buckminster Fuller also had another notion, which was later developed by Barbara Ward. Some members may remember her writings as an economist. The members with a socialist leaning may remember her as a left-leaning British economist. There is nothing wrong with that; I do not mean to offend anyone. She was a very bright person and a kind lady. She wrote a little book called Spaceship Earth. Do members remember that? It looked at the planet Earth as a spaceship with all systems contained. It immediately brought to mind the need to be so careful of our surroundings, of our environment, of our interdependency and of the need for peace and care.

That concept struck me because it is so true. With the space age now, and the shots we get from outer space in which we can look at our globe and see how small it is -- it fits into the television screen -- we realize in some respects how insignificant we may be as individuals but how important and how precious this planet Earth is.

As I take that concept to Canada and Ontario, I see events such as the speculated meltdown of a reactor in the Soviet Union, an event in another nation in some other part of the globe that affects us, with a nuclear cloud or fallout and the pollution of our air, our soil and our water. It is so important to work together to ensure that we have a good, safe environment.

This is also important for a riding such as mine, and now I am becoming very parochial. The world as a whole has become most generous in its development of the understanding of other nations. If we look at the province, it is so cosmopolitan now; Metropolitan Toronto is so cosmopolitan. The makeup of our community and our peoples is interesting. We have a population of about nine million in Ontario, two and a half million of whom were not born in Canada. How the province has been enriched by the mix that is taking place.

5:10 p.m.

Let me come now to a little part of Ontario that I represent, the riding of Prince Edward-Lennox. Mr. Speaker, you will know better than anyone that Prince Edward county is a veritable jewel nestled in Lake Ontario. It is a magnificent piece of geography dependent on the farm community, tourism and small industry. It is such a precious place.

It is important that the province, with the new government, carry on the fine work of the Conservative tradition of ensuring that everything possible is done to clean up our waterways, to handle the industrial waste. I know it is early yet -- it is May 7 today -- but living on the Bay of Quinte, I see the thick algae forming already. The water is so cold, but the algae is so green and so thick for this time of year. I wonder where the nutrients are coming from.

We have the fishermen out now. We have had them all winter. At one time we did not have the fishermen. Many of these waterways were veritable open sewage systems, a shame for a prosperous nation and a prosperous province. We had that situation, but as it was cleaned up, the fish came back. At first the lack of fish was blamed on the commercial fishermen. We get all the political answers. No matter which party is in power, we get the political answers. When the fish came back, it was because of the fine work of government in restoring the environment that should have been there before.

Now that the fish are back, the commercial fishermen are having other problems because of government buyout policies. We have a member opposite who is aware of the commercial fishing industry in his riding and of the difficult times commercial fishermen are having. This livelihood has succeeded generation after generation, with the same families going back more than 100 years. It is a tremendous tradition that is a part of the seascape. It is important that occupations and industries in Ontario, such as the fishing industry, be given more consideration than they are being given now.

Tourism is another area. I was somewhat amused when I saw the specifics of the throne speech: the toilets on the freeways -- the comfort stations on the highways of the nation -- and beer and wine in the corner stores. Those were the specifics of the throne speech. I do not know whether they were intentionally inserted to create a little humour, but seriously, it is a good idea to develop our freeways as communication centres as well as transportation corridors.

We need more information centres. We need more of the signing that promotes the province. Lennox, in my riding of Prince Edward-Lennox, is a delightful piece of landscape with wonderful pastoral settings and magnificent vistas. Some members go there. As a matter of fact, I believe one member was born in the delightful town of Napanee.

When we have an asset such as this that is dependent upon tourism to some degree -- certainly it is a very important industry in our area -- then I think the province must look at and exploit every possible avenue to help promote the industry, not through fancy advertising alone, but through proper signing.

We must be given the signs we require to let people know where we are. The travelling public does not have to bypass us on these throughways. In the information centres and the little rest stops we should inform people where they can admire the landscape, so they will say, "Yes, I would like to visit Picton, Napanee, Cherry Valley, Bloomfield or Wellington." I implore the government to do something more, to think positively, to assist us and to get behind us.

For example, we have two fairly new bridges. One is the Skyway bridge, which joins Prince Edward county to Hastings on the mainland as one goes off Highway 401 to Picton. That bridge is a beautiful sight in itself, well designed and engineered to accommodate the navigation. It has a large span, probably a quarter of a mile in length. There are more than 30 light standards that seem to blossom at night. They are so helpful on bad winter nights. What has happened? They leave two or three light standards on now and the rest of them are blacked out. We as a province cannot afford to light the Skyway bridge.

A new bridge called the Bay bridge was built from Belleville to Rossmore in Ameliasburgh township. It is brand-new, not three years old, a $14-million structure. There is not a light. What a delightful sight that would be if one can imagine that span. It is almost poetic, if one can envisage this delightful structure over the Bay of Quinte. But at night it is just a piece of barren highway, confined on either side by a concrete rail, with no lighting. On a stormy day, in bad weather, again it has no lighting.

I speak to my Liberal friends over there. If they want to make some inroads, do some of these little things for the little people. Give us the electricity to light these magnificent highways, these entrances to areas such as ours. I am not blaming their government for that, because that was done by the previous government. I want to be honest. I am not here to lecture the Liberals for bad deeds; I am here to implore them to help areas such as ours by doing these little things that would be so helpful.

Another thing I ask the government to consider is greater assistance to the education system, the system we have now, the public school system. This is something for which I can fault the Liberal government. This year, provincial assistance to the Prince Edward County Board of Education has dropped from 65 per cent to 63 per cent, a drop of two percentage points. Two percentage points does not sound like very much, but it translates into a 20 per cent tax increase to the people of Prince Edward county. Imagine that.

Here we have a government that is bragging about windfall revenues resulting from an upsurge in the economy. Without being partisan, Mr. Speaker -- you know I am never partisan -- that was probably fuelled and inflamed by the previous government, and now the Liberals have reaped that windfall. If they can take credit for something they did not do, more power to them. They might as well take the credit; they are politicians.

Mr. Haggerty: The Conservatives have done that for years.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Taylor: If the member wants some lessons, I am sure some of my colleagues can help him even in that regard.

The fact remains that it is under this government that we have had this cut, which impacts so severely on the taxpayers of Prince Edward county.

If I may, I would like to read excerpts from a few newspaper clippings. This one is from The Intelligencer, a daily newspaper in Belleville. My friend the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil), who is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, will be very aware of this. The headline is "Education Costs Alarming." There is an interview with some of the municipal leaders, the reeves and wardens in the county. "Wellington Reeve Bill Greer told councillors that in the village of Wellington, the board's new budget will bring an increase of $45,000 or 24 per cent in the local levy." Imagine that. That is a 24 per cent increase in the local tax levy because of this. That is in just one village.

The reeve of Sophiasburgh, Eleanor Lindsay, is a very fine and intelligent person, a wonderful reeve.

Mr. Haggerty: She must be a relative.

Mr. Taylor: She is a relative of yours, which indicates something. As a good Liberal, the member should want to help her. She says that in her municipality, "the residential mill rate will rise 4.6 mills and the commercial rate 5.2 mills. Cutbacks in some township programs will be required because of the raise. She predicted the county will become a really depressed area because of the problems local farmers are now facing." I will be speaking about farmers in a moment.

Bill Bonter, the deputy reeve of Ameliasburgh, probably the most populated township in the county, told councillors: "We have got to change the system before the system destroys us. You are going to have a tax rebellion like they did in California." Those are pretty strong words; they are pretty upset people.

This is another newspaper clipping from the Picton Gazette. The headline reads, "Budget Increases Disturb School Board Despite Cost Slashes." Let me read a little:

"`The problem that has to be solved is how to generate money so that students will not be penalized for living in Prince Edward county,' commented trustee Rutter. `Our ability to pay is being squeezed.' Three of the five per cent increase in the board's budget is due to capital projects totalling $435,000. This includes $210,000 for roofing at two schools and $205,000 for stairwells needed to meet fire inspection recommendations at the high school." There is only one high school in the whole county. Fire regulations require this improvement, and that improvement is a matter of affordability for that school board.

It is somewhat ironic. A news release was put out by the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway). This is pretty good, because they did not involve me. It is in my county, but I understand the politics. It is not the Minister of Education and the member for Prince Edward-Lennox; it is the Minister of Education and the MPP next door, the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil), who make the release.

Interjection.

Mr. Taylor: The member knows that is not fair.

Mr. Barlow: I do not believe that would happen.

Mr. Taylor: To be honest, I am delighted they did not include me when they announced the grant for these roof and stairwell improvements to meet the lire regulations. One has to have a roof and the fire regulations have to be complied with. The two projects are valued at $210,000. The problem is that we have to put up the other half, which we cannot afford.

It is like giving us a Cadillac at half price. One cannot afford one of those little foreign imports, a Hyundai Pony or something like that, and they want to give us all this. Anyway, at this juncture I am not going to get into the automotive business. I will probably have something to say about that if I have time when I speak on the trade issue, which is a very important piece of the speech from the throne. We have this announcement, which does not help us very much. All it does is incur further costs that the board cannot afford.

A piece from the Kingston Whig-Standard states that Prince Edward Collegiate Institute has been allocated $115,000 and Sophiasburgh Central public school $95,000 for roof replacement. This is the article on the announcement and the problem of affordability. I will not dwell on that any more, but I will say that for a government that has money, hundreds of millions or billions of dollars for other things, surely it should be able to come up with a few dollars to help a community with a very weak tax base, which has difficulty replacing a roof on a school and making improvements to the stairwell to meet fire regulations. It has to face increases of about 20 per cent in taxes because of the lack of provincial funding.

The trustees put it to me, and again, the chairman of the board, who is a good Liberal -- if the government wants to make inroads into my riding, it should be working with these people to try to solve some of these problems and take the credit for it.

Mr. Cureatz: The member should not help the government.

Mr. Taylor: I am elected to serve the people, not to serve myself. If the government can serve the people in some other way, fine. Here we have the chairman of the school board -- as a matter of fact, he has run for the Liberal Party at the federal level -- having to come with cap in hand to the Minister of Education to try to get a few dollars to help the school board and, at the same time, putting it to me:

"How come you can spend all this money on separate school funding? How come you can have all these special education programs, French language services and all the changes in the teachers' superannuation that will further impact on our ability to raise money, and not have $500,000 to pull Prince Edward county out of a hole and give those taxpayers some relief?"

I put that to the government because it is a very sound question. I cannot understand why this government cannot address those anomalies in a fair and evenhanded way.

5:30 p.m.

Let us talk about some of these people who will have to pay these taxes. We heard a bit in the speech from the throne about farming -- not very much, but there is a mention. I do not have to tell members who are from rural communities or who are farmers -- and we have some here today -- what the farming industry is going through in Ontario. We are in bad shape, and we do not know what is happening.

We know what the United States is doing and what its response is with respect to the $20 billion or so it is pouring in to support its grain growers so it can dump its grain on the marketplace. "We have to do this," they say, "because of the unfair trade practices and what is happening in terms of subsidies in the European Community." That could impact and reduce our prices by as much as 25 per cent.

The victims, who are my constituents, are being asked to pay for tax increases they just cannot afford to pay.

At one time, we were great processors. Think of the canning industry we had; one could not believe the cash crops we canned. Before that we had all the cheese factories. It is sickening to see what has been happening.

I would like to mention one or two other problems we are facing, because I do not think the government understands what we are going through. If it does and is not doing anything, then I say shame on it. If it does not, I want to read an excerpt or two from some of the local papers.

Here is an article from the Kingston Whig-Standard; it is headlined "Last of Prince Edward Pea Processors May Stop Canning this Year." The article states:

"Prince Edward county farmers may find it impossible to obtain contracts for peas for processing this year.

"Waupoos Canning is the only canning factory still processing green peas in the area and proprietor Jay Hepburn says it has become increasingly difficult to compete with Quebec and maritime producers.

"Hepburn says Quebec producers can deliver peas to their processors for nine per cent less than in Ontario, while maritime prices are 16 per cent lower.

"He places the blame for the difference on the Ontario marketing boards which, he says, have kept increasing prices for produce until Ontario has become uncompetitive with other provinces.

"Hepburn said the pea crop in Prince Edward county is not a major one but, since it is possible to process a high volume of peas with low labour costs, the canning of peas helps reduce plant overheads.

"Last year, about 2,500 acres of peas were grown in Prince Edward county.

"Hepburn said Baxter Canning Co. in Bloomfield no longer processes peas and Hyatt Canning of Cherry Valley closed out its plant following last year's harvest.

"Hepburn said the company will have to make a decision well before the end of April, when peas are planted, whether the produce can be processed this year.

"Tomatoes are by far the major canning crop for Waupoos Canning but even here, Hepburn said, the industry is facing serious competition from whole canned tomatoes imported from Spain, Italy and other countries, imports that are highly subsidized, he said."

We had dozens of canning factories, but now we have one.

I have an article here from the Picton Gazette, and I will read a few lines from it. "County Pea Business is Done" is the headline.

"`As far as I am concerned, the pea business in Prince Edward county is done,' says local farmer John Anderson of RR 8, Picton, in the wake of news that county processors may not sign contracts for any peas this year because of a surplus of peas left over from last year's bumper crop.

"Baxter Canning of Bloomfield, the county's largest food processor, has decided not to process peas this year, though company president Roy McDannold has told the Gazette that the decision is not firm. Baxter Canning had contracts last year with 35 local growers, some of whom used tomatoes or pumpkins as well as peas. Last fall, Hyatt Canning of Cherry Valley closed its doors, ending contracts with about 30 pea growers. Townline Processing Ltd. of RR 2, Bloomfield, processed both corn and peas last year, but will not be canning peas this year. Harrison Foods Ltd. of RR 4, Picton, processes only corn. Both Townline and Harrison process only their own crops and they have no farmers under contract."

Another headline is: "2,500 Acres of Peas Were Grown Here in `85." The message is that they will not be getting contracts.

We can see the problems there. Mr. Speaker knows something of farming. One gets into peas and has all the equipment. If one is harvesting 2,500 acres, one will need pea harvesters. We are probably talking about something in the area of $200,000 for a pea harvester. It is very expensive. The demands are such that one practically has to process the peas in the field. They do everything but blanch and deep-freeze them because they shell them right in the field now. We have one farmer with five pea harvesters sitting in his yard.

What are we going to do? These are very real problems which have to be addressed. The government has to decide. Does it want a viable farm industry in this province? If it does, then it has to develop some strong, positive, long-term goals and policies.

Mr. D. W. Smith: We need the member's help.

Mr. Taylor: The government will get my help. These are the decisions the government has to make. It should let the farmers know where they stand.

I will go into a farm-related subject. The township of South Fredericksburgh in the county of Lennox and Addington has an official plan that is being revised and updated. They are very intelligent people; they have an extremely intelligent municipal council.

Mr. Breaugh: Loyalist stock.

Mr. Taylor: Yes. Some of them are of Loyalist stock. They are well educated and very knowledgeable. They are mostly farmers who are professionals.

One has to be pretty clever today to survive in farming. At one time, if one could do nothing else, people would say, "One can always go into farming." That is not so today. Farming is not just what one does if one cannot do anything else; it is a very complicated and difficult business. One has to be knowledgeable in so many areas: finance, economics, marketing and so on. One has to know what the world conditions are, something about the Chicago market and so on. It is not easy to be a farmer today.

This council in South Fredericksburgh in late fall 1985 -- we have had an election since -- was struggling to develop and put in a new plan. The first Planning Act in Ontario came in during 1946. The fundamental basis of municipal planning is the commitment of the local people. The people have to be involved. They know their land best, their surroundings, the mentality of the people and their hopes and aspirations. They know where they are going. The government should involve and listen to the local people. That is fundamental in local self-rule in government.

The word came out to them: "Look, you are not going to do this. You are not going to have any severances permitted." Before, one could sever three parcels without getting into a subdivision. The word came through that there was no way this new government would permit a single severance on any farm land. The council got very excited.

There could be machinery welding, shop assembly, farm supplies or any number of farm-related businesses for which it is necessary to locate in a convenient place to serve the farm community. However, we have the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) -- I do not want to say anything unkind about him; he likes me, I know that, and I would not want to change that relationship --

5:40 p.m.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Taylor: As you can see, Mr. Speaker, he is contentious.

I wrote a letter on November 6, 1985, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) and to the Minister of Agriculture and Food in regard to the official plan of the township of South Fredericksburgh. I said:

"It is with extreme regret that I will be unable to attend your meeting with council and staff of the township of South Fredericksburgh on Friday noon next. However, I do hope that the meeting arranged at the political level will prove fruitful. The planning process in the final analysis is a political process and accountability rests at that level.

"The acceptability of land use planning in Ontario is dependent upon the agreement of the local inhabitants. Local self-determination is the very foundation of municipal government in a democratic society.

"The imposition of autocratic value judgements at the Queen's Park level confiscates the potential for flexibility at the local level. Ontario is a very large piece of geography and regional differences are great. Values vary, as well, from region to region and from city to farm.

"An official plan is a document, general in nature and intended to guide a municipality's development in an orderly and sensible fashion. Its intention never was to impose in a legalistic sense a rigid and inflexible manifesto on the will of local municipal councils and ratepayers.

"There seems to be some concern that the official plan as proposed (and now existing) has the potential to offend Ontario's food land guidelines because farm-oriented commercial uses and commercial uses serving the immediate area might be permitted if suitable zoning (and severances) were granted. For example, a food processing plant to handle a farm's production, or a farm machinery service centre to service a farmer's machinery are viewed by some people within your ministries as undermining the integrity of policies to protect good agricultural land.

"I urge you to understand the rural view in the management of their lives and their lands. I ask you to permit the local people to govern themselves in local planning matters. I do hope you will favourably consider the township's request."

Mr. Mancini: Who wrote that letter?

Mr. Taylor: I wrote that letter. I had representation from my office at that meeting. The township council was there, and there was a meeting that I understand was very confrontational in nature. Without castigating the integrity of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, whom I have already said is a well-meaning although sometimes misdirected member of the Legislature -- I like him very much -- he was most adamant that there was no way the good agricultural land of this province could tolerate the kind of situation where a municipality could be permitted to use a parcel of land for a farm-related or commercial use.

The members of the government party should search their consciences. I see one member who was at the turning of the sod for the new Toyota plant only yesterday. How many acres is it? Is it 350 acres of good farm land?

Mr. G. I. Miller: It is 370 acres.

Mr. Taylor: It is 370 acres of good farm land that supposedly is going to be used for an industrial operation that one day will hire up to 1,000 workers over a five- or 10-year period, and yet the minister will not let a municipal council that has planners and intelligent people on the council draft its own official plan to permit this kind of thing in its own municipality. Where is the sense of judgement? Where is the sense of fairness?

We all believe in the need for the preservation of good agricultural land, but I put it to the government again: Either it is going to develop a policy that is going to support our farm community and ensure a viable industry or farmers will have to start selling off their farms and pieces of their farms. The government has an alternative, but it is not going to have to force the farmer into a position where he has to make his land lie fallow for ever because of so-called policy principles of protecting farm land. Some sensible decisions are needed, and again I urge the government to reconsider some of its policies in regard to severances and the food land guidelines.

We are talking about planning. The mind boggles at the Ministry of Housing and the whole planning process. Some of us around here have sat for years on committees examining a new Planning Act. As a matter of fact, it was about 10 years in the process. I do not fault the members of the new Liberal government for that. I was never an apologist for the Conservative government when it was in power either.

Mr. Cureatz: That is true.

Mr. Taylor: Never; I cannot be accused of that. However, when the government develops a system that sucks everything in and lets nothing come out of the other end, then it is time to take another look. That planning process system is like the Bermuda Triangle: Everything goes in and it disappears. Time frames mean nothing.

Mr. Cureatz: The member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) knows that.

Mr. Taylor: Sure he knows that. If we want to help the housing stock of this province, we had better start taking a better look at some of the municipalities, the planning process and what they are doing, how they do process, how they extricate unnecessary moneys from persons who want to improve their property or who want to build a house. These things are all being passed on to the home owner.

There are municipalities that are confiscating from a developer as much money in imposts as it would have taken at one time to build a house. That has been going on for a while, and it is getting worse. I urge the government to look into it. As a concerned representative of the citizenry of my constituency, I ask them to look into that, because these moneys --

Interjections.

Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will bring the House to order.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member is having trouble being heard.

Mr. Taylor: It is so important that we not get municipalities that are presumably acting in the public interest in the quickly developing areas. This is where it is happening, not in the little communities like those that some of us represent, where we are glad to have development. We open our arms to someone who wants to build a little business, a little factory or a house; we are anxious to help. But in these rapidly growing communities we have a process that is often tantamount to a skin game: "How much can we take away from you?" It is a quid pro quo.

5:50 p.m.

As a matter of fact, as a lawyer, the member for Brampton, the successor of the past Premier, would know the courts accused one municipality of municipal corporate piracy. That is very strong language for a court to use, but it may be time to look at the processes so that we can get affordable housing into the hands of the people who need it. We have to cut through the red tape and clear the underbrush and the jungle of inconvenience and obstacles that so many emanations of the crown in municipal and other forums engage in before a person can get a simple permit to build a home.

I put that to the members. It is a tremendous avenue of opportunity for this government to explore and to try to simplify, so that we can get Ontario on the march and get people the shelter they need at affordable prices. We must cut the price by cutting these unnecessary imposts that are all factored into the mortgage. One can imagine what a $30,000 impost would be when it is factored into a mortgage for 25 years. These things are making houses unaffordable. The government has an excellent opportunity to do something constructive. It should be trying to win the favour of the people of Ontario. I invite it to do that.

Producing the residential development that is sorely needed in Ontario requires boldness. It requires a plan, some initiative and enterprise and a commitment.

I have been expressing only a few of my concerns. I was going to talk about Ontario Hydro, but I will not today. I will merely mention it. There is opportunity for change. I am concerned about the rural hydro user. The large industrial users negotiate their own prices for electricity in this province. The public utilities commissions of the urban municipalities buy power in bulk and can pass along power at a lower rate than we can in the rural areas. Who do the rural folk have to look after their interests? Who is looking after the sale of electricity from Hydro directly to the rural consumers? Where is the person in between who is an advocate of the rural consumers?

It is too bad the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) is not here, because I would put to him that he should take on the task of seeing that Hydro continues to close the gap between the rate being charged to the city consumers and the rate being charged to the rural consumers. That gap is tremendous. The previous government attempted to do something to narrow the gap, but it has not happened. That is important.

At one time, I suggested an alternative to these ongoing inquiries into Ontario Hydro that sap the strength of that fine organization and its components. The people who run Hydro are top-notch. There is a veritable university of talent. I do not deny that. Some years ago, I suggested to a previous government that, instead of the incessant committees of inquiry, it might better follow the route of outside management audits to assess future needs, the development of future sites and the course Hydro is taking. There is ample illustration of that in jurisdictions south of the border. I will not pursue that in detail today, but I give this government an opportunity to pursue that avenue of accountability for Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Mancini: The member was once the Minister of Energy, was he not?

Mr. Taylor: Yes, I was the Minister of Energy at one time.

Mr. Mancini: I am sorry the member did not do anything about it.

Mr. Taylor: I made some statements. As a matter of fact, I was not very --

Mr. Mancini: The member was fired.

Mr. Taylor: All right. The member throws up some things that I said I was not very happy with.

Mr. G. I. Miller: You were right.

Mr. Taylor: I was right. Indeed, I was right. I was concerned about the government and how it was --

Mr. Cureatz: Let us talk about corridors.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member would speak to the chair and there would not be so many interjections.

Mr. Taylor: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. Now that I am speaking to you, my concern with regard to Ontario Hydro has been raised. We heard about the corridors of power. I am often misquoted, but it was a speech I made some years ago; as a matter of fact, I dug up a copy of it because of something I had read in a synopsis of the Macdonald commission report. I know members have read that multivolume report by the royal commission looking into Canada's economic matters, which is referred to as the Macdonald report; there is a synopsis of it here.

When I was looking at that -- and I am going to touch on trade in a moment -- it struck me that in the foreword, Donald Macdonald stated: "The executive branch" -- and he is talking about the federal executive branch -- "has become too dominant. Power must be returned to Parliament." I looked at that and said, "My God, can you imagine?" When was this thing written, November 1984? I dug up an old speech, and now that the member for Durham East mentions it --

Mr. Cureatz: I remember it very well.

Mr. Taylor: I do not apologize for it, and I will just refresh the members' memories. I said: "Unfortunately, responsive and responsible political power and parliamentary democracy is fast breaking down in this beautiful land of ours. It is all too obvious in Ottawa" -- and that is what brought this to my attention -- "it is becoming more apparent in Ontario.

"Legislative overload and abdication of authority has contributed to the transfer of political power to the bureaucracy. Ministries are manipulated by deputies in clever marionette-like manoeuvres, who in turn are managed by the Premier's mandarins with only the semblance of power at the elected level. The charade becomes more sophisticated as government becomes more involved in the day-to-day lives of the people.

"I say this as a concerned citizen committed to the democratic process who has walked the so-called corridors of power only to be mugged in the back alleys of bureaucracy."

I know something of which I speak, and I do not apologize for what I have said in the past; I reiterate it today for the benefit of the members here.

Mr. Cureatz: The new members.

Mr. Gordon: Members on the other side should take note of that.

Mr. Cureatz: They have fallen into the same trap.

Mr. Taylor: We now have a Liberal-New Democratic Party collective. It is a relationship which may influence the policy of the Liberal Party somewhat, I hope for not too much longer. It is my understanding that the government has discharged most of its mandate forwarded by the New Democratic Party.

6 p.m.

In that regard, I want to finish on the note of free trade. I found it very interesting in this throne speech that we have a government that is developing a posture of opposition to free trade, and encouraging that opposition, while at the same time promoting the development of freer trade between Canada and other nations.

We have a government that has opened a new office in Singapore during its regime. It has announced its intention to become more forceful and aggressive in the United States and to represent Ontario's interests in Washington, if that is at all possible. I suspect there are some diplomatic problems in the province placing a representative in Washington. I suspect there is some flak from Ottawa in that regard. It is too close to home. It is a government that has announced an office in South Korea and a new Agent General for Japan and that is indicating a stronger presence and presumably an office in mainland China.

This is a government that is responding to world conditions. I do not fault it for that. I am not being critical in the sense of being negative. What I do put to it is, "Come on out from behind the barn and say it like it is." Mr. Speaker, you do that. You speak plainly and clearly. I know your government would like to emulate you. It should, because either the government is going to pursue aggressively Canada's role in an international marketplace and do so with the assistance of these foreign offices and with trade missions and by assisting local industry or it is not. If it is, we can see that foremost on the government's mind -- I see it in the speech from the throne -- is the need for this government, this province and industry to be internationally competitive.

We have to be internationally competitive if we are going to survive in an economic sense. The government knows that. It is implicit in the speech from the throne, and I wholeheartedly subscribe to it. It is time that it not carry on with the charade of placating its New Democratic Party colleagues.

Sitting over there is a very fine member who is chairman of the select committee on economic affairs. I had the privilege of serving under that member. An interim report was tabled with this House. I do not have time to go through it, but directionally this report is supportive of a more aggressive and competitive trade policy for Ontario. We have areas of concern, whether they be in farming, agriculture or other areas. We have soft spots in our economy that need special consideration. We have to consider the auto pact and some of these matters. There are special features, but directionally this committee subscribes to enhanced trade, to freer trade and to diminishing trade barriers, the tariff and nontariff barriers.

I was very disappointed with the New Democratic Party's dissenting view. I would like to quote from it, because I was a member of the committee and I felt offended when I read this dissenting view. In part, this is what the NDP said:

"The Liberal and Conservative members of the committee in our view have done a grave disservice not only to the people of Ontario but to the country as a whole. Indeed, it is hard to believe that we all sat in the same rooms and listened to the same evidence and submissions, because the majority has ignored the recommendations of all the labour organizations and many of the industries that appeared before us."

I do not know how one interprets that statement. To me, there is an inference in that statement that the Conservative and Liberal members ignored the preponderance of evidence which was against negotiation. The preponderance of evidence was for negotiation. I think that is being twisted.

We have excellent support staff. This is a summary of 50 major submissions. With regard to the question of whether there should be free trade in those negotiations, 37 of those 50 major submissions said yes, 11 said no and two were undecided. Is that not something? With that, the Conservative and Liberal members of that committee were accused of being oblivious to the representations made to that committee and, presumably, insensitive to the concerns addressed to us by a broad spectrum of people, industry and special interest groups.

Of the 11 that said no, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture was one. What it wanted was a status quo. It was rightly concerned that it might prejudice the supply management in certain of our commodity sectors, so it wanted to leave things the way they were. There were other representatives of the agricultural community who were in favour of free trade. The Ontario Cattlemen's Association, for example, was supportive of free trade.

The United Steelworkers of America said no. The Brewers' Association of Canada said no. The Communist Party of Canada said no. The Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the boxboard industry, said no. The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of Canada said no. The Ontario Federation of Labour and the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association said no. Northern Breweries Ltd. said no. B. F. Goodrich said no. Those all said no. Basically, organized labour and some others were concerned about the fallout from free trade.

What does the New Democratic Party say about this? I do not want to be harsh on the NDP, because I would like to see it stronger. If it is stronger, it will then take the Liberal Party's votes away from it and give us a better chance. Seriously, I am concerned that the NDP and organized labour have a very short view of this situation, which in the long run will impact very severely, very harshly and very adversely on the Canadian community and on Ontario business.

6:10 p.m.

What does it say? What is its answer? It says: "Canada needs an industrial strategy that reduces our dependence on foreign ownership and the exploitation of our resources. Rather than trade liberalization, we should be aiming for greater self-reliance, by focusing on import replacement, greater Canadian content requirements and putting more value added in our resources by manufacturing finished products here in Canada.

"The real issue is jobs. Only through a coherent industrial strategy can we generate the new jobs that Canada needs. A bilateral free trade agreement with the US is not a job strategy.

"We hoped that the committee would treat its mandate seriously." I am reading selectively, I want members to know, because I do not want to read the whole report. "Unfortunately, the ideological biases of our Liberal and Conservative colleagues have got in the way."

Imagine that. Here we have a minority view that I am afraid is quite doctrinaire.

Mr. Foulds: And the majority view of the people of the province.

Mr. Taylor: If I could give the member some advice, his party would do much better if it got away from its ironclad, doctrinaire philosophical views of institutionalized labour and started looking to the interests of the common working man. It should look to the ordinary citizens and not be chained by its strong philosophies; it would do much better.

It is caught there with the institutions and the interests of the labour bosses. It has to get out of the grips of the labour bosses and into the hands of the common people, and then it will relate to the common people's interests, those of the ordinary working man who is striving so hard to put a roof over his head, put a rug on the floor and pay off the mortgage. That is what the New Democratic Party should be thinking about. Never mind getting tied into those fixed positions of doctrinaire socialism.

That is just a gratuitous piece of advice, because that party is going to need it when the next election comes around.

Mr. Foulds: It is worth every cent we are not paying.

Mr. Taylor: They are going to need it.

Mr. Breaugh: Do not stop.

Mr. Taylor: I will not. As a matter of fact, I have a few briefs here from labour, now that they have encouraged me.

This is from the Ontario Federation of Labour. I will read a line or two from each, just to show what I mean. This is a brief dated July 31, 1985, to the select committee on economic affairs. This is current stuff, good stuff. We read on page 5: "Ultimately Canada must reject the game of international competition because it is self-defeating." Here we have the Ontario Federation of Labour saying Canada must reject the game of international competition; do not be an international competitor. Imagine that.

The United Auto Workers -- do members want to hear something?

Mr. Breaugh: The member is really thorough. He read one sentence out of an entire brief.

Mr. Taylor: That is all the time I could give those members. Those people are oppressive.

Mr. Breaugh: He can take all the time he wants.

Mr. Taylor: Let us hear from the United Auto Workers Union of Canada. Here is the same point; I am just talking about the same point:

"We should not be talking about enhanced trade but of enhanced Canadian content to reduce our import dependency....How can we do more research and engineering work? How can we process more of our resources before they are exported? How can we build more of the machinery we use to get access to these resources? How do we develop a manufacturing base?"

Questions, but that is where it leaves it: up in the air. No wonder our support staff who tried to distil this did not know what the result was.

Here is something by the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of Canada. August 26, 1985, is the date of this:

"One consequence of the drive towards international competitiveness is that every gain won by workers in the last 100 years is under attack." This is the concern. It goes on to say: "In the end, all these actions have but one objective, namely, to shift more resources, power and rights to capital at the expense of workers. This is what international competitiveness is all about, a reverse auction in which workers are being asked to compete to see who can give away the most in order to attract business."

In other words, keep fighting the need to be competitive. Do not be competitive. Take in each other's washing for a living. Build a Fortress Canada. Is this the answer for the future of one's country? Does one have no confidence at all in one's country?

Here is another one from the central executive committee of the Communist Party of Canada, July 24, 1985. It is the same thing. We get the same old line. This is their option: "Our option, however, rejects big business as a vehicle for change in Canada, makes the needs of Canada's people and world peace its starting point and proposes measures which will get at the root cause of Canada's problems. These measures must include:

"1. Nationalization under democratic control of Canada's natural resources and the creation and expansion of state-owned secondary industries that will process and manufacture Canada's vast wealth and raw materials in Canada.

"2. Nationalization under democratic control of all transnationals, the banks and other financial institutions.

"3. Stopping the export of capital, whether Canadian or US.

"4. Foreign exchange controls and any other measures that may be necessary to counter foreign, especially US, retaliation."

It is this kind of stuff. The common thread is that we have to protect what we have now. I do not blame people for protecting what they have. Unions have worked hard in this country to elevate the status of the working man to ensure a good living wage. I do not complain. Why would I? That is great. However, we have something other than self-interest.

There is a fear with all these gains, with high wages and benefits and so on in certain selected industries with certain strong and powerful unions -- not the general masses, not the public that puts governments in office -- "We have to look after our membership. What we have gained will be under attack if we have to compete in an international marketplace."

We know the marketplace today is international. We are not talking about a domestic market. Canada has 25 million people. Canada is one of two or three western nations with fewer than 100 million in its domestic market; Australia and New Zealand are the others.

Mr. Foulds: What about Sweden?

Mr. Taylor: I am glad the member raised Sweden. Sweden is one of the most highly developed countries in social programs and has always been a free trader. Look at Sweden; it is a free trader. The member's party opposes free trade.

Mr. Foulds: What is its domestic market?

Mr. Taylor: Its domestic market is about half ours.

The Acting Speaker: Ignore the interjections.

6:20 p.m.

Mr. Taylor: The point I am making is that we have a certain element of self-interest, and that is only human. However, that element of self-interest is going to sacrifice the future of our province and of our country if we do not take a broader view. That is why I commended the throne speech in terms of a broader view.

The other motive may be that the philosophy of the unions, as embraced by the New Democratic Party and to which the New Democratic Party is to some degree enchained and which lessens its chances of election, is to increase state control. It will decrease state control once one gets into the international marketplace and has to compete with other nations.

There are those two propositions. I challenge the members to debate those. They are the propositions that impel them to take that position of Fortress Canada. I think they are missing the boat, because it is vital.

Canada has a domestic market of 25 million. The US has 235 million people, and the European Community has 270 million people. We can include in the European Community the total free trading bloc. Now that Portugal and Spain are coming into the community it will be a trading bloc of 350 million. Japan has more than 100 million people.

Then we have a trading country such as Canada, and Ontario is three times more dependent on trade than is Japan. Look at Canada's gross national product. One half of our gross national product is dependent on exports. In Ontario, 40 per cent of our gross provincial product is dependent on exports. What about the United States? It is a massive country. Exports are important, and look at how they are suffering right now. Only 13 per cent of their gross national product is dependent on exports. We see how vital trade is to this country and to this province of ours.

Trade is a two-way thing. We cannot say, "We are going to keep you people out with all of your commodities, but we are going to export ours." Who is going to buy ours? The New Democratic Party says -- I do not want to be unkind to the members -- that at the same as we export, we should not have a goal of being internationally competitive. How can we do that? That is a problem that faces this country.

The world is diminishing; post-war experience has contracted the globe. There is the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other world institutions. There is the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the United Nations. There are now so many world organizations, and with our system of transportation and communications, we have created a single global marketplace. Nothing is parochial any more; I mentioned that earlier in my remarks.

Ontario has a population of nine million people, 2.5 million of whom were not born in Canada. It is cosmopolitan. A tremendous contribution has been made to our province. It has given us a broader vision. It has enabled us to know people better, to get involved in world affairs and to look outwards.

We must have more confidence in ourselves as Canadians. We can compete with anybody. We have to learn that we must have that confidence. We are not hewers of wood and drawers of water. We have the highest of skills. We have great technology. We have the industry, the strength, the energy and the enterprise. Why do we not get out there? Are we afraid to compete? I am not afraid to compete. I do not see why a highly industrialized nation such as Canada should be afraid to get out and compete with the rest of the world in the international marketplace.

The government should take a stand on this. We know free trade is not going to happen tomorrow. It will be phased in, probably over a period of 10 years. It will be phased in unevenly so that advantage will be given to Canada. It probably will take twice as long for Canada to be phased in as the US, so we will have advantage of their markets before they have free advantage of ours.

Considerations will be made. There will be areas where free trade cannot be worked out. I suggest agriculture is one of the areas that will not work. Probably the resource industry is another.

Let us pursue this, however. The US is not going to come to us with cap in hand, saying, "Here, we want this." If we do not protect our existing markets -- and this is the greatest fear arising from the rampant protectionism in the US -- if we are cut off from those markets as we could be, along with other foreign countries, we could suffer very seriously. We could have massive unemployment.

I have figures here, but I do not have time to present them today. I will not take more of the members' time. We have reports, we have had research done and we have the computer models of what will happen in Ontario if we fall victim to US protectionism. If we cannot ensure our present markets in the US, then we will have massive unemployment and we will suffer. There are 300 or 400 bills in Congress that are protectionist in nature.

While we are the biggest trading partner of the US, in terms of total trade we are not all that significant or that important. However, there is no reason that we cannot negotiate a sensible bilateral contract with the US to protect our interests and enhance our opportunities in the commercial field.

Through the additional trade offices the Liberal government has announced, we can promote a greater share of the world markets. Southeast Asia is a land of tremendous opportunity. Some people have said the economic centre of gravity has shifted. It was in London, England, 200 years ago; 100 years ago it was in New York City; now they say it is shifting to Tokyo. We have to be more aggressive in southeast Asia. The penetration through foreign offices is important. We have to pursue the multilateral trade agreements through GATT and at the same time do what we can to negotiate a fair and equitable enhanced trade relationship with the US.

It is up to the government to speak loudly and clearly about its position. It has a duty to inform the people of Ontario before they are misled about the alternatives and the impact on the future of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you very much for your patience and guidance in this address. You have been most kind and tolerant. You have kept some of the unruly members in order.

Mr. Cureatz: I will be very brief in my comments. I know the time is running short.

First of all, may I compliment my honourable colleague for a very well presented and logical presentation on the speech from the throne. I remind all members, including the new backbenchers, that the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor) has served in various ministries in one capacity or another. He was the Minister of Energy and was always receptive to all members of this Legislature when problems with his ministry evolved. I want to compliment him publicly and thank him for the fine job he did in that portfolio.

His comments and compliments about his own riding are true to form and true to various discussions we have had from time to time. I have been to his area, through the lovely riding of Prince Edward-Lennox and down to the sandy beach area, which is such a tourist attraction. I have been to his modest residence and to his riding office. With his wife and lovely family, he has done an admirable job of representing that area.

I could centre on a number of aspects of the member's discussion, but during the few seconds I have left I want to bring to everyone's attention a concern I have upon which he has focused. The chairman of the school board in his area, a prominent Liberal, has indicated with disgust that the member for Prince Edward-Lennox is responsible for the high increase in school taxes in his community. Indeed, the chairman of my school board, the Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education, has gone to the various municipalities, Port Hope for one, and demanded in a tyrannical way that the councillors immediately start collecting the very high, 16 per cent increase in school taxes because the school board chairman demands it and wants the money. I say to her and to my Liberal colleagues, that is no way to run a school board. I am ashamed of her comments in that matter. If she wants extra funds, she should be going to her Liberal colleagues.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time is up.

Mr. Cureatz: I am disgusted by her attitude with respect to raising funds for the Northumberland and Newcastle school board.

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

The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.