role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

May 5, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L008 - Mon 5 May 1986 / Lun 5 mai 1986

HOUSING POLICY

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PALLIATIVE CARE

PROVINCIAL PARKS

HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP

UNEMPLOYMENT

EMERGENCY SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

MISSISSAUGA CITIZEN OF THE YEAR

OSTOMY SUPPLIES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FAMILY MONTH

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

HEALTH SERVICES

EXTRA BILLING

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR PLANT

INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

FREE TRADE

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR CITIZENS' SERVICES

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

INSURANCE RATES

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

INTERVENER FUNDING

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HOUSING POLICY

Mr. Speaker: Last Thursday, May 1, the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) took exception to a statement by the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling), who said, "We are down to business in housing, unlike the past and his government, who were making many deals with individuals."

The member referred to it as a point of privilege; it is not. if anything, it is a point of order. As the minister made no specific accusation against any other member of the House, I find it hard to rule that the statement must be withdrawn. It was one of those general innuendoes which would be much better left unsaid as they tend to lead to disorder.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr. Cousens: I would like to take this opportunity to address the very sensitive issue of palliative care, commonly referred to as "care for the dying." Many members of this House know that recently our party, under the auspices of the task force on human and social services of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), released a discussion pamphlet dealing with palliative care. In this document, we have proposed that immediate measures be taken to reorient and co-ordinate health care services to include the preference of the terminally ill patient.

Whether that preference be the home environment, a hospital bed or respite care in a hospice, there should exist a choice. At present, the choice is virtually nonexistent, and 95 per cent of all palliative care is administered in a hospital setting.

In order to provide for the needs of the dying, we have suggested several concrete proposals that are not only cost-effective, but sensitive to the desires of the dying. These proposals include a reduction in the number of patients who are forced to die in an institutional setting; that moneys saved with this measure be applied to community-based palliative care services for people dying at home; implementation of a firm funding structure for palliative care providers, so as to introduce regional plans and reduce inefficiency; and, finally, education for health care professionals in the techniques of pain management, symptom control and bereavement counselling.

On behalf of my party, I am proud to say that care for the dying is an important priority, and we do care.

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr. Ramsay: I rise again on another parochial matter, Mondays being those days for me. I draw the attention of the House to Landmarks magazine. To the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio): it is a good magazine, Vince, but there is an

article there about provincial parks and how accessible they are. All of them seem to cut off at North Bay and go the other way. The magazine mentions Marten River, but the text refers to Marten River Provincial Park being on Highway 69, just north of North Bay. That is Highway 11, my stomping grounds.

Mr. Speaker: I remind all honourable members when they refer to another member to do so by the riding or ministry.

HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr. Ferraro: This is not the new Liberal emblem, even though the Tories feel they have been hit by a lightning bolt. What I proudly hold is the insignia of the Guelph Holody Platers, who as of last night are the Ontario Hockey League champions. It is with great pride that I stand here today and brag a little about my team, which over the season provided such excellent entertainment to the fans back home. They did so in a very unbiased fashion. They took on all parts of Ontario, taking on worthy opponents from Sudbury, North Bay, Windsor and last night Belleville. Even though I am from Guelph and am partisan, I think it is in order for us to wish them all the best.

I have collected 10 bucks from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), with whom incidentally I did not make a bet. Nevertheless, let me congratulate Joe Holody, the owner; Rob Holody, the general manager; Jacques Martin; and all the members of the Guelph Holody Platers, who are on their way to Portland to defend the province and, we hope, to bring the Memorial Cup home to Ontario.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Hennessy: I wish to make a few brief comments on a waferboard mill in Thunder Bay. One hundred and fifty people are out of work because Great Lakes Forest Products decided to close down the waferboard plant. Once again, the Liberal government has watched people lose their jobs without lifting a finger to help. The irony of their plight is that they lost their jobs on May Day, which is considered a big day for the workers.

Thunder Bay needs jobs. The Liberal government's neglect has let down the people of Thunder Bay again. First, there was the loss of jobs because of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. deal and now there is the waferboard mill. I understand the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has met with the mayor of Thunder Bay and the members of city council. I can only hope that the meeting was fruitful and that the Premier can assure the 150 people who lost their jobs that new employment opportunities will be made available.

EMERGENCY SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Mr. Wildman: I rise to make some comments about the emergency shoreline management program. Despite the assurances of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) that the provincial government is extending the program to individual property owners in northern unorganized townships in the Great Lakes basin, ministry officials have informed me that applications from such property owners cannot be processed until the legislation has been amended by the Legislature.

It is imperative that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) and the provincial government introduce the necessary amendment immediately and that its passage be expedited by the House to ensure that applications from northern property owners can be processed while sufficient funds remain available and before the assistance has been completely dispersed to applicants in southern Ontario.

I implore the House to move as quickly as possible on this amendment, to have it introduced as soon as possible and the House leaders to co-operate to expedite its passage.

MISSISSAUGA CITIZEN OF THE YEAR

Mr. Offer: It is a pleasure for me to rise today to pay tribute to the winner of the Mississauga Citizen of the Year award, Mrs. Velma Kennedy, who was honoured yesterday at a special ceremony when she received the Cordon S. Shipp Memorial Award for community service. Velma Kennedy is 70 years old, a mother, grandmother and a long-time city resident. She has devoted a good deal of her time to helping various community groups.

Velma Kennedy represents the most important individual in this province, the person who always finds time to help and contribute to others. Throughout many regions of this province, there are other persons who demonstrate the commitment of people such as Velma Kennedy. They provide the backbone, the inner strength, the spirit of this province. During a period when the world is undergoing a series of crises, it is refreshing to be able to report that the residents of Mississauga have again taken the time to recognize one of their outstanding citizens.

OSTOMY SUPPLIES

Mr. McLean: One of the main concerns I have is with health care in Ontario. I have been concerned for quite some time about the policies of this government. There should be more security for our senior citizens and for people who need services such as the ostomy program.

In my estimation, the government is not living up to the commitments it has made to the people of this province with regard to health care. Would the minister explain to the people of Ontario why we are the only province in Canada where ostomy supplies are not completely covered under the provincial health care plan?

Recently, coverage of this cost was changed to assist those up to the age of 21. This is covered by the Ontario health insurance plan under the assistive devices program. I had asked the minister to try to make complete coverage available to all those who need such assistance.

The Canadian Cancer Society spent almost $3.75 million on ostomy supplies for cancer patients in 1983. That cost is increasing year by year.

I am aware that there are advisory committees dealing with this matter and would like to know whether any changes are anticipated in the near future.

2:12 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FAMILY MONTH

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: I have the pleasant responsibility today of officially proclaiming May as Family Month. The goal of this special month remains to provide a common time for all Ontarians to focus on the importance of the family. Family Month helps all of us to acknowledge that the family is the fundamental social unit which forms our communities and provides our province with its special identity.

In 1986, the Family Month theme is "Every Family is Unique." This theme encourages all of us to reflect on the wide variety of family formations which prevail in our heterogeneous and multicultural society. In accordance with this theme, I have invited several families to attend the announcement of Family Month. These families come from a variety of backgrounds and symbolically represent the unique quality and importance of all Ontario families.

Our families evolve as ongoing responses to our individual abilities for communicating affection, understanding and care. Our potential for exchanging mutual support establishes the character and contributions of every family. Although there is not a common description of what a family looks like, we can all recognize and appreciate the family's universal importance. Many of us feel that family relationships call forth our need to give and receive commitment. The family also can enable us to experience the deepest level of human potential, a sense of personal interconnectedness.

During Family Month, all of us are encouraged to recognize these special qualities of our own families and strengthen family ties; further appreciate and honour the variety of family formations and values which friends, neighbours and other members of our communities have created; and affirm the contribution of Ontario's families as a common resource which enables all of us to participate more fully in building stronger communities and achieving our desired quality of life.

During the month of May, many of the members of this Legislature will have opportunities to speak at and participate in community activities. During these events, I encourage members to acknowledge the importance of the family and to request that all in attendance affirm and participate in the goals of Family Month.

Mr. Rae: I want to comment on the statement made by the Minister without Portfolio about Family Month and to say that it is astonishing to us that a minister of the crown in 1986 would make a comment about Family Month without talking about the realities of family life with respect to the need for a decent child care program or the need for us to provide the kinds of support that are integral to what the modern family is all about. The minister failed also to make any reference at all to the fact that there are a great many women in particular who are living in poverty because of low wages, poor working conditions and difficulties of organizing.

There is no reference to the reality of the modern family. What the minister is reflecting today is a very Victorian, old-fashioned approach with respect to the modern family, which surprises me given that this is May 1986.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I am pleased to inform the honourable members of the substantial progress that has been made in the current negotiation of salary agreements with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. For the first time since 1982, settlements have been reached in direct negotiations with the union without arbitration or any form of third-party participation.

A strong factor in this success has been the co-operative response of the union representatives to this government's approach to employee relations. As the members are aware, we place great emphasis on human resources management which, I believe, is reflected in the current negotiations.

Agreements have been reached in five of the nine categories under review and these have been ratified by the 23,500 employees concerned. The categories are administrative services, maintenance services, general operational services, technical services and scientific and professional services.

These contracts are effective from January 1, 1986, to December 31, 1986, with increases for the employees in the five categories averaging 4.23 per cent. In addition, adjustments have been made to provide equity in certain classifications, involving mostly female workers, which will result in a total average cost of 4.49 per cent of current payroll.

Negotiations are under way on agreements for the correctional services, institutional care and office of administration category and instructors at the Ontario Police College. I look forward to reporting to the members as we continue to achieve progress.

Mr. Gillies: The chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet made a statement to the House about the adjustments being made to public service wages. First of all, we are very pleased the negotiations are going as well as they are. Buried in that statement is the rather startling fact that 0.26 of one per cent of the increased funding going to our public servants is going for the purposes of pay equity. I am sure the minister will agree with me that is not a particularly startling figure or one of which the government should be overly proud.

Again it points to the need for broad public sector pay equity in this province. Our party will be moving amendments to expand the government's pay equity bill to the very broadest public sector.

I say to the minister, during the recession when the government saw fit to restrain public sector wages, her government supported that measure. Now that the time is here to extend a benefit to those workers, why will she not support that initiative?

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Curling: As the members of this House are no doubt aware, there is an urgent need to preserve the existing supply of rental housing in many areas of our province, and to protect the security of tenants in this accommodation. The crisis we are facing today is the result of many years of inadequate rental supply programs and an insensitive rent review policy. We are now in the process of addressing those problems.

Last December, I announced a comprehensive series of initiatives to create a new supply of housing, to restore the quality of existing accommodation and to reform the rent review system. In my December statement, I also indicated that this government would be taking a strong stand against efforts to remove sound, affordable rental housing through conversion, demolition and other such measures.

At the same time, my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) indicated his concern about these activities, which have contributed to the severe depletion of affordable rental housing in this province, particularly in our larger urban centres.

The government has expended considerable time, effort and resources to increase the supply of rental housing. At the same time, it is necessary to take measures to ensure the preservation of the rental stock now in existence. That is why I am introducing today the Rental Housing Protection Act, which will apply to all rental housing stock in municipalities having a population of more than 25,000 and those smaller municipalities which may be designated as having a rental housing shortage.

The legislation will not apply to residential complexes of six units or fewer; however, in all municipalities, municipal approval will be required prior to conversion of a rental property to a condominium, regardless of size. This legislation will be in effect for 24 months.

Under this act, a proponent of a conversion or demolition of a residential rental building will apply to the local municipal council, which will review the application and decide whether the application should be approved or rejected. Any person will have the right to appeal the decision of the municipal council to the Ontario Municipal Board. The OMB will then hold a hearing and make a decision on the appeal, and that decision may be appealed by petitioning the Lieutenant Governor in Council. This legislation will result in stricter and more extended controls for a two-year period, which will ensure the protection of Ontario's valuable rental housing stock.

The new legislation will authorize regulations to allow the approval of an application to convert or demolish a building under the following conditions: (1) where the proponent has provided satisfactory accommodation for the current tenants and has provided new rental housing stock at the same price in the same market area; (2) where it is demonstrated that the proposal does not adversely affect the availability of affordable rental housing; or (3) where, in the case of a demolition permit, a building is found to be unsafe.

This two-year time span will also provide the government with an opportunity to reassess the rental housing market and determine the approach most appropriate for preserving Ontario's rental housing stock.

Moreover, I wish to draw attention to the matter of severances, which enable the conversion of rental town houses to individual ownership. This is a practice already requiring municipal approval, and my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs will be commenting on this matter shortly.

We recognize that some proposals to convert or demolish rental housing are currently under way, and I would like to comment on those now.

This legislation will allow projects which have obtained all required permits to continue. Proposals which have not been approved, however, cannot proceed without proper approval.

This means that following royal assent:

If a condominium conversion proposal for an existing rental building has not been draft approved or has not received a commitment for exemption from approval, it may not proceed without approval.

Where an owner proposes to demolish a building now rented or to renovate so extensively as to require that the unit be permanently vacated, it is only where the necessary building or demolition permits have already been issued that the demolition or renovation may take place without approval.

No notices of eviction may be served on existing tenants because of demolitions, renovations or conversions, except as approved by the municipality. If all permits have been obtained, however, notices may be served in the future. The act will also prevent a court from ordering that tenants be evicted for these purposes unless all permits have been obtained.

The offering for sale or sale of any interest in a proposed co-operative or other common ownership housing venture, other than a nonprofit co-operative, is also prohibited unless approval is given to the transaction.

If any conversions or other actions described are attempted without approval, a purchaser will obtain no interest in the land, and the parties to such transactions will be liable for financial penalty.

In the days ahead, together with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I will continue to consult with municipalities and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. As well, I will continue to consult with landlord and tenant groups on ways to best implement this legislation.

I am confident that the Rental Housing Protection Act will enable us to accomplish a crucial goal: to preserve Ontario's valuable stock of rental housing.

The initiatives we have taken today are but one small part of the Assured Housing for Ontario policy announced in December. We will continue to move forward on all aspects of this policy, ensuring effective protection for tenants, just treatment for landlords and action to meet essential housing needs.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am pleased to endorse the announcement which has been made by my colleague the Minister of Housing.

Our government has pledged from the outset to reverse decades of neglect in the rental housing field. In recent months, programs have been brought forward to increase the supply of rental accommodation, landlords and tenants have been brought together to reach a consensus on a system of rent review, and the groundwork has been laid for the builders to build once again.

Today our government moves forward again with measures to protect the supply of rental housing and the security of tenants.

As Minister of Municipal Affairs, I strongly support the key role that our municipal governments must play in this vital area.

All applications for the conversion or demolition of rental residential buildings will be considered by the local municipal council. Each municipality has a vital concern with the health of its rental housing market.

One additional activity that can contribute to the reduction in rental housing is the splitting of linked complexes of more than six units such as town house developments and other forms of row housing into individual ownerships through the land severance process under the Planning Act.

Municipalities have the power to approve land severances, so today I am requesting that all municipalities subject such applications to especially rigorous evaluation during the next two years. This applies to municipalities with a population of more than 25,000 and any other municipality where a critical shortage of rental housing exists.

During this period, my ministry will review any proposed consent approval creating individual ownerships to determine whether the public interest is being served.

Furthermore, I have today withdrawn the delegated authority from the 12 municipalities now exercising approval of condominium conversion. This action is being taken to facilitate the implementation of the new procedures under the Rental Housing Protection Act.

I am pleased to support the Minister of Housing in his initiatives, and I am confident the measures we have taken today respond to the urgency of the current rental housing situation.

Mr. Gordon: I have listened very carefully to the statements by the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I think they should hang their heads in shame. It is obvious that over the past 10 months -- and they should remember 10 months have gone by -- they have created a lot of confusion by the announcements they have made, particularly in regard to rent controls.

The private sector does not know whether it should go ahead and build. It reached the point where landlords started demolishing their apartments from within rather than merely renovating. We are at a point in this province right now where there are virtually no rental apartments being built. Take a look at the Renterprise program, which promises more than 5,000 units. Where are those units? The government has barely scratched the surface.

Now we get this piece of legislation which promises us studies. The government is going to study the matter for two years. That hardly sounds like a decisive government or a decisive ministry. When I look at this statement, the Minister of Housing says, "In my December statement, I also indicated that this government would be taking a strong stand against efforts to remove sound, affordable rental housing through conversion, demolition and other such measures." Then the minister stood back to the point where we had elderly women in this House because they were being evicted.

The minister is not doing anything for them; they are gone. I do not see how the minister can feel he has done something decisive.

He continues, "The government has expended considerable time, effort and resources to increase the supply of rental housing." We do not see that rental housing; it is not happening out there. What we have instead is a major crisis in Toronto over condo conversions, and the minister has to take some responsibility for that.

Looking at page 4, a great deal of our housing stock in this province has fewer than six units. What does the minister hold out to these people? He says, "The legislation will not apply to residential complexes of six units or less; however, in all municipalities, municipal approval will be required prior to conversion of a rental property to a condominium, regardless of size."

The fact is that this government has determined it is going to decide whether there is going to be rental housing in this province and whether there are going to be conversions in this province. It is obvious that the municipalities are going to turn around and look to the government, which is going to be running the whole business from Queen's Park through order in council, through the cabinet. That hardly seems to me to be a way to decentralize the powers in Ontario. This is one more step in Peterson's Ontario. We have seen it before.

We have seen how the government handled the doctors, the pharmacists and the solicitors. This is the way they are now going to handle the housing situation. When are they going to get on with building more housing in this province? That is what the people of this province want to know.

Mr. Reville: Tenants in Ontario have been waiting too long for a government interested in protecting them. They waited on the Tories for 42 years. They have waited on the Liberals for 10 months, and we still do not know whether tenants are going to be protected. We have 16 pages of words here. We will have to see whether these protections are real.

The Minister of Housing complained last Tuesday that I wanted the legislation to include everything and that I wanted it immediately. The minister is absolutely right. I do want it to include everything and I do want it immediately because the crisis in rental housing exists now. As long as any techniques exist that erode our rental housing stock, the government will have to be both vigilant and timely.

Until the government solves the problem of creating rental housing, we are going to be under increasing pressure. Rental housing is being lost at a rate far faster than it is being created. Each unit lost creates one or more casualties. We know, to our horror and to our shame, that people are being forced out of the housing market altogether. For some of those people, it is fatal. In Toronto alone, 16,000 units are under threat. If the government lets them go, it will be 10 years before we can replace them at the existing supply rate.

The 10-month delay has cost hundreds of tenants their housing. We do not know whether the Minister of Municipal Affairs is using empty words when he suggests that municipalities subject applications to rigorous evaluation. Of course they subject them to rigorous evaluation. Will the government wait until the last day in the two-year period to address its new policy on protection of rental stock so the demand is again pent up and so that municipal councils are subjected to the exercise the city of Toronto council has gone through? They debated the matter of Bretton Place for six hours on Thursday and are meeting again at three o'clock. What kind of provincial government is that?

Does the minister view the debate at Toronto city council as an exercise in a commitment for approval that he mentions on page 8? If that is the case, then we lose Bretton Place. Has he left loopholes in this large enough to drive a bulldozer through?

New Democrats believe people should have control over their lives. Housing is absolutely central to that control. Housing must be decent, affordable and secure. We will continue our fight until every single person in Ontario has decent, secure, affordable housing. We call upon this government to join us in that fight.

VISITOR

Mr. Grossman: I know all members will join me in welcoming a very fine Ontarian, someone who distinguished herself admirably over the past few months. Gina Brannan is sitting in the first row of the east gallery; it is not quite the seat we had in mind.

2:36 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Premier. Does he agree that by way of a letter dated Friday, May 2, from the Ontario Medical Association, interestingly not to the Premier or to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) but to the government's chief negotiator, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), the OMA has agreed --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We are a team.

Mr. Grossman: They know who is in charge. The OMA has agreed that, should a negotiated agreement be available with the government, it would not extra bill senior citizens, people on Ontario health insurance plan premium assistance, general welfare assistance, unemployment insurance, disability pension, family benefits or vocational rehabilitation and any person requiring emergency treatment. Does the Premier not agree that, by way of that offer, it has well addressed the clustering phenomenon, which is the key problem to the extra billing question?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is nothing new. The suggestions the OMA brought forward in that letter were the same it brought forward two, three, four, even six or eight months ago, and this government does not accept them.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is nothing new in this. It was discussed six or eight months ago. The government does not accept it. We hope there will be some other avenues of forward progress, but we do not consider these suggestions to be forward progress.

Mr. Grossman: Last week the Minister of Health, in response to a suggestion offered by the New Democrats, said he would approach the OMA to ask it to suspend all extra billing while the discussions continue. Therefore, I have a suggestion for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Is it by way of supplementary?

Mr. Grossman: Yes. Will the Premier now approach the OMA and say very reasonably that if it will immediately suspend extra billing the people it has offered to stop extra billing, he will suspend pushing through Bill 94, perhaps until the end of this year, so that reasonable discussions can take place with a view to averting a strike as soon as Thursday of this week?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I consider myself to be a very reasonable man. Obviously, the member would like us to do nothing in this matter. Our friends in the New Democratic Party would like us to have moved yesterday. We believe we are conducting these discussions in a way that is conducive to some kind of settlement. I am not sure how many times we have discussed this in the House, but in my view the member's suggestions today are not constructive in moving this forward. There is nothing new in his idea. He is asking us to back off, and the answer is we are not going to back off.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier is bound and determined to have a health care strike because he seeks a political victory instead of looking after health care in this province.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Minister of Health, such as he still is. We understand the minister has been preoccupied of late, carrying the briefcase and briefing materials of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). Today in Sarnia, there are 94 people who have waited 114 days for a chronic care bed. In Sudbury, there are 100 people who will have to wait six to nine months. In Barrie, there is a shortage of 112 nursing home beds. We know the minister will brush this off by saying he inherited the situation, but he also knows he has had one year in which to address this problem.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: What has the minister done specifically in this year to alleviate that shortage?

Hon. Mr. Elston: My friend the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, who was at one time Minister of Health, asks what was done and says nothing was done. We are moving to address the needs he has set out so well. In the speech from the throne, we indicated there will be longterm planning with respect to capital needs for construction in this province. We are moving ahead to make provision for the needs that have been identified throughout the province by such groups as district health councils and health care providers, including nursing home operators.

Mr. Grossman: Apart from the planning to which the minister just referred, apart from the white paper on which the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs (Mr. Van Horne) is still working and which still has not seen the light of day -- I might add we were able to write a better white paper ourselves and do it more quickly than he has been able to do in a year -- and apart from appointing Liberals to district health councils, will the minister explain specifically what he has done in the one year to alleviate these bed shortages? The people in Sarnia and Sudbury want to know what he has done to alleviate the shortages.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is quite appropriate that this former minister asks me what we have done. He used to speak about taking pressure off demands on the institutional sector by introducing community services. We have already done things such as that in the 10 months I have been Minister of Health. For instance, we have put together a chiropody program that will help people to become more independent and more able to stay in the community. We have finally introduced and put into place the frail elderly program, which takes pressure off the institutional groups the member set out.

The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), who announced the frail elderly program, with the co-operation of the Minister of Health, who will be administering it, has done a great deal to advance the cause of keeping people in the community where they would like to be. Those are a couple of examples of what we have done.

In addition to that, we have attended various functions, for instance, at St. Joseph's Hospital, Sarnia, where we are well on the way to doing the planning that is required to put up buildings to house some of those chronic care needs in that area.

Mr. Grossman: We know the minister has been to lots of receptions and functions.

Let me quote the Provincial Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). In Brantford last week, he told the Kiwanis Club that when the Liberals were in opposition, they used to ask, "What is the delay?" He said tongue in cheek, "Now that we are in government, we say we are doing it as quickly as we can."

My question to the Minister of Health, reflecting the Liberal policy as outlined by the Treasurer, is this: Will the minister specify how much his boss, the chief negotiator, offered the Ontario Medical Association out of the $53 million recovered from the federal government under Bill 94 in order to pay physicians who ought to be earning more, more than they are currently being paid, and in order to establish a special fund to attract and retain world-class physicians?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Obviously, the former minister does not understand the negotiating process about which he used to wax so eloquent. That fellow across the way used to tell us: "Do not worry. It is in negotiations, and it would not be helpful to talk about negotiations in this forum."

We are carrying on negotiations in earnest. I can tell the former minister, the former Treasurer, who has very little to do but reflect now upon his former self, that we are moving ahead with plans to provide the necessary support services for the people of this province. We are working within our budget. As a former minister, he should not be concerned with the fact that we are going to run short, because we will provide services for our people. We have done that. We have expanded community services. We will expand the institutional services. He should not worry. As a former Treasurer, the member will be very happy with the way the Treasurer and I --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. Can the Premier tell us whether the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) kept the promise he gave us last week? Was a specific request for a moratorium made to the doctors in the discussions on Friday night?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I honestly cannot answer that. I will refer that to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The request that was made here was relayed to the group, with whom we met on Friday evening. Although I do not think the exact words in reply would be appropriate for this forum, I was able to assess a very strong rejection of that request.

Mr. Rae: Given that fact, which I do not think comes as a shock to anyone in this assembly, and given the nature of the proposal made by the OMA on Friday night, of which I think either the minister himself or one of his assistants said in coming out of the meeting, "It is a rehash of proposals that were made four months ago," which is precisely the warning we have been giving the minister and the government with respect to that issue for the last four months, when are the cows finally going to come home? When is the minister going to seize the nettle, get on with this bill and stop allowing himself to be jerked around in these discussions?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman will well realize, as I have said, that we have made progress. I felt the written proposal or position paper was just that: a position paper that reflected the situation as it had been several weeks ago. I felt it was a regression during the negotiations. I can tell the honourable members here and the people of the province that the expectations for our next meeting will be that there will be real and new proposals brought forward.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The minister indicated that the doctors very strongly rejected the idea of even a moratorium on extra billing. What leads the minister to believe, as of today and as of last Friday's meeting, that there is any possibility of negotiating an end to extra billing in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The position of this party has always been that negotiations on this item will be very difficult. That does not mean we will throw up our hands in despair. We will go the extra mile, as it were, to make sure we have canvassed every opportunity. We can tell the honourable member, as the critic for his party, which has been very consistent on this matter, that extra billing will be ended. It is a little more difficult to pick up consistency there, but we are committed to ending extra billing.

Mr. Rae: When, oh Lord, when?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It will be very soon.

Mr. Hennessy: Here is the Lord.

Mr. Rae: I was not asking the Premier. I know it is going well, but it is not going that well.

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR PLANT

Mr. Rae: I want to ask the Premier a question about Darlington. In January 1984, he was quoted as saying that construction on the gigantic nuclear power station would be stopped in its multibillion-dollar tracks if the Liberals are elected.

We have questioned the Premier with respect to this project several times since the House has come back. The select committee on energy has made its recommendation with respect to a six-month moratorium on contracts for the third and fourth units at Darlington. Since the election, the government has spent at least $3 million a day on Darlington. What is the premier going to do to make a decision with respect to a project that Ontarians feel more and more is a colossal waste of money?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I recall the history of this matter very well, as does my friend opposite. I have spoken about this many times, going back almost a decade. I know he has done his research properly and he will be aware of the things I have said in the last year or two with respect to that. I said at the beginning I would not have built it. That being said, at a certain point it becomes less costly to proceed than to scrap the project.

The member will be aware that some $7 billion has been invested. Those interest payments are ongoing. This is no different from what I said during the campaign and prior to the campaign. I know he will want to check the record on that. Generally, he has pretty good research over there. He should check it out. That is the kind of situation we are in.

The cabinet is reviewing the matter and the minister is reviewing the matter. It is an extraordinarily complicated one with respect to the amount of money that has already been committed. Our job here, like so many other jobs, is to minimize the loss and optimize the opportunities for the taxpayers of this province.

Mr. Rae: To the same exalted gentleman, on June 30, 1985, $3.5 billion was spent and committed, not $7 billion. On October 30, 1985, $4.6 billion was spent and committed, not $7 billion. Those are the facts. Between June 30 and October 30, $1 billion was spent and committed. We do not yet have the latest update from Ontario Hydro, but we know it is very extensive because it has been spending money like crazy to get in before any decision is made.

Why has the Premier let this matter drift for 10 months? He has failed to make a decision with respect to the recommendation made by the select committee last December, although his Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) said we will have a decision very soon. Why has he failed utterly to make any decision with respect to Darlington when it is costing us $3 million a day, an expenditure that may be unnecessary if he has the courage to make the decision that needs to be made in this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend will be aware that when a capital dollar -- any dollar, for that matter -- is spent in this province, because we are deficit financing, those interest costs run in perpetuity. Those are the realities. That money has all been borrowed in New York. If we cut it off tomorrow, I hope he would not want to give the impression that we are going to save all that money, because we will end up for a very long time in the future paying that interest.

If one is writing that off against a capital asset that is actually generating revenue, then it is a different situation, and that is all calculated as a factor. What one has to calculate, when one puts cost figures on it, is the interest that will run for ever against Ontario Hydro's capacity to borrow and charge consumers. What the member is asking for, in a very simple sense in that scenario, is dramatically higher hydro rates, and he is the first who likes low hydro rates, in order to pay for the long term. Those are some of the economic realities of this situation this government has to take into account, and we are.

Mr. Rae: The Premier is spouting the Hydro line hook, line and sinker, which is completely different from what he said when he was in opposition. The conversion has been total with respect to this issue. Does the Premier not recognize that, as a result of his decision, Ontario Hydro is going to be going from 40 per cent dependent upon nuclear power to 70 per cent dependent on nuclear power? That is something which is in his hands to change. He is in the position to do something about that. Is he standing in his place today and saying he wants Ontario to be 70 per cent dependent upon nuclear power by 1990? That is specifically the path he is now taking the province down.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In fairness, the member would want to acknowledge that a number of initiatives have been taken by this government with respect to Ontario Hydro. There is the encouragement of cogeneration, of small-scale hydro development and others in northern Ontario that we believe in the long term -- one has to be fair -- are new departures for Ontario Hydro and will have an impact on the generation mix.

We inherited situations on which I think we have made an impact already. Particularly with a corporation of this scale, because of the long-term planning and the long time frame in which decisions have to be made, the member will see the results of our new influence in the years to come.

INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

Mr. Jackson: I have a question of the Premier. I was delighted to hear in the last question that he asked the House to please be fair. On Thursday last, the member for York North (Mr. Sorbara) advised us he would extend the closing dates for the Ontario public service internship program for his ministries because he was able to determine they were selectively posted. In the interest of fairness, can the Premier please tell us whether he has now ordered the rest of his ministers to follow that minister's lead with their internship program postings?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is I have no idea what the member is talking about. I have not ordered anybody to do anything. I never do that.

Mr. Jackson: If the Premier was not listening in the House during the two times I raised the question, perhaps he might refresh himself with Hansard. Specifically, I had raised questions about the fact there were selective postings for approximately 120 highly sought after positions with this government for post-secondary graduate students in Ontario. I even cited four or five cases of postings that were going to close late last week. I further advised the Premier that his Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) had four positions which were selectively posted to Toronto post-secondary institutions, including his former employer, Seneca College.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Jackson: Will the Premier please investigate these practices of selective posting for positions in the specific case which has been brought to his attention and any other specific case within any of his ministries and report back to this House?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Now that the member has brought this matter to my attention, I will investigate. Is he suggesting there is some sort of unfairness in this`? It would bother me a great deal if that was the case. I will be happy to take his suggestion under advisement, if there is any substance to it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Mantel: I have a question of the Minister of Labour regarding the fatality at the Stanleigh mine in Elliot Lake. René Perron died because of a malfunctioning pass gate at Stanleigh mine in Elliot Lake on September 4, 1985. Is the minister aware that four times in the month prior to René Perron's death he reported the malfunctioning gate, the gate that caused his death, to his supervisor? When is the minister going to get serious about the enforcement of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and ensure that equipment that is deficient is repaired quickly?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I was not aware of the facts that the honourable member raises in this specific instance. I share with him his sadness that these matters did not get rectified, but I want tell him that we have already taken action.

As of November, and I think the plan is now well into effect, orders are to be written rather than avoided. The member is also aware, because I shared with him the new orders policy, that compliance dates are required for all orders. Orders are no longer reissued, which is a very important change.

I assume the two changes, ensuring that orders are written the first time and that the compliance dates are attached to every order, will begin to solve those kinds of problems and make sure those kinds of tragedies do not recur.

Mr. Mantel: Members of Local 5417, the United Steelworkers of America have asked that the investigation report by the Ministry of Labour be provided to them. That request has been denied. Can the minister tell me why that report was denied to the Steelworkers and, more important, why his ministry is not laying charges against Rio Algom for that fatality?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I cannot give the member any information today as to why the results of the investigation were not shared with the Steelworkers local, nor can I tell him why a prosecution has not been commenced. I will look into the matter and get back to the member tomorrow.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Jackson: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Last Monday the minister stated that his government fully supported the auto pact, and last month the Premier (Mr. Peterson) also stated, "Ontario must force more intellectual rigour in this auto pact debate."

Will the minister please advise this House of his position in all talks with the federal government with regard to ensuring that the Canadian value added ratio is maintained in free trade talks to help secure long-term auto parts manufacturing jobs, or is it his government's position to ensure that only production ratios are maintained, enabling Japanese and Korean manufacturers to flood our markets with imported auto parts and putting thousands of Ontario workers out of jobs?

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Mr. Jackson: Which position does his ministry support?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We have made it very clear in the trade talks with the federal government concerning that matter, and it has always been our position, that we want to have the parts manufacturers or people coming from other countries producing as much as they possibly can in this province, to provide jobs for our people in this province.

Mr. Jackson: "As much as they possibly can" is what the minister said. That is really tying things down for Ontario workers. In answer to previous questions, the minister has indicated he was not a party to negotiations with Toyota Canada when it tied down its plant in Cambridge. The minister is no doubt aware that since that agreement, the president of Toyota Canada was quoted in the March 24 issue of Automotive News as saying: "The 60 per cent CVA is too high for Toyota. We cannot comply in the immediate future and it may take five years or longer because compliance is only a long-term goal ."

If the minister received no guarantees in the first round --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has already asked the question.

Mr. Jackson: With respect --

Mr. Speaker: About five more words and that is it. Make a question out of it quickly.

Mr. Jackson: I will make a question out of it. With respect to these negotiations with offshore manufacturers, what assurances do we have that offshore parts will not be brought into Ontario ensuring companies --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The honourable member should be aware that to participate in the auto pact, these companies must reach that 60 per cent level. They have stated both to me and to the federal people that they intend to reach that level.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Pouliot: I have a question for the Premier. He will be aware that Darwin Smith, the chairman of Kimberly-Clark International, flew into the riding of Lake Nipigon last Saturday to make a startling announcement, an announcement that threatens the jobs of 2,000 people and the economic viability of towns such as Terrace Bay, Nakina and Longlac. While he was making the announcement, he said no additional money would be coming from the parent company in the United States. He further suggested very strongly that unless productivity is increased and costs are reduced --

Mr. Speaker: I suggest you ask a question.

Mr. Pouliot: Given the magnitude of the problem, surely the Premier is aware of the dilemma facing the people of the north. What is he going to do to stop American companies from deciding the future of northern companies?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am very much aware of the situation the honourable member presents. He could easily place this in conjunction with a number of other very serious problems we face in northern Ontario at the moment. I do not mean to minimize them at all.

We are in contact with Kimberly-Clark. It has shared with us some of the problems it has shared with the member and people there publicly. It is a worrisome situation. I come today with no easy answers, but I can assure the member we are making the best efforts we possibly can to keep that mill going, now and in the long term.

Mr. Pouliot: With all due respect, I know the Premier is incapable of lying. I know that he has --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member place his supplementary immediately?

Mr. Pouliot: I simply ask the Premier to be more specific and to give us some sort of guarantee that the problems of the north will be addressed seriously, in an orderly fashion, so we will know soon where we are going in terms of economic prosperity and job guarantees.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is a top priority of this government. We are looking at all the options we have. I spent this morning talking to workers from Great Lakes Forest Products in Thunder Bay as well as the mayor and members of council. The minister is speaking today and tomorrow with people in Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa.

I wish I could wave a magic wand and tell the member I had the solutions to all these problems. We are attacking them one by one, as crises, and there are a number of them at the moment. In addition, we have made a major commitment to northern redevelopment and to broadening the economic base. We have discussed those in this House before.

It is a very worrisome situation in general and it has the full attention of this government.

SENIOR CITIZENS' SERVICES

Mr. Dean: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs. In view of his statement last November that he had given the Premier (Mr. Peterson) his report on services for senior citizens and that this report would be made public "in a month or two," can the minister give us now, some six months later, the date on which his long-awaited report will finally be made public?

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: The response is twofold. First, the report was given to the Premier in October. He and my cabinet colleagues reviewed it in complete detail. Having gone through the various committees of cabinet, the report has been put into the printing process. It is at the printers right now. The Premier will make the decision on the date as soon as it is available, but it will be very soon.

Mr. Dean: In view of that rather convoluted answer, will the minister tell us whether the six-month delay -- maybe seven months if it was October -- in releasing this report is a result of dissension within his party over the contents or simply that he could not persuade the Premier to look at it until now?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: On the contrary, the response in the first instance was not convoluted; it was very straightforward. Second, the Premier and my cabinet colleagues found the report so fascinating and found so many holes in the system left by the previous government that they and I determined to present a white paper that would provide a blueprint for curing the system. When the honourable member reads the report, I am sure he will agree this was time well spent.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Mr. Reville: My question is for the Minister of Housing. On Thursday last, my friend to my far right and I, asked him nine questions. It is going to be much easier today because perhaps some of the answers are in this document. I have one simple question for the Minister of Housing: Has he stopped the conversion of Bretton Place?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The new announcement that is in place today will require Bretton Place to go through the process in the same way as any other such case.

Mr. Reville: What that means, I believe, is that Bretton Place will be converted, because what is happening right now at Toronto city council -- and I am advised by some colleagues at city council that they have no messages from the minister -- is that it is making a commitment for exemption. Is that the minister's understanding, and will he not move now to stop the conversion of Bretton Place?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I thought the statement was quite emphatic enough to indicate our great concern for the loss of rental stock in this province. Having indicated we are that concerned, the process will be looking very seriously at situations such as Bretton Place. As my colleague has indicated, the Metro people no longer have the final approval; it will now come to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, where we will take the decision as to whether Bretton Place will be converted.

Mr. Gordon: Municipal councils currently have the power to stop conversions, do they not?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The municipalities have to make a recommendation to the region, or to Metro in this instance, for any approval or rejection.

Mr. Gordon: Again, do the municipalities not have the power to stop conversions, and specifically how does this change matters?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I will go much more slowly for the honourable member. At the moment, as he knows, the municipality does not have the final approval; it will have to refer that case to Metro. Municipalities do not have the final approval. That is what he asked me. No, they do not have that.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues. Concerning the matter of equal pay for the 98.5 per cent of working women who are not covered by the public sector equal pay bill, has drafting on a bill for equal pay for the rest begun?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The consulting task force that has been going across the province hopes to conclude its hearings with a final round of hearings in Toronto, I think on May 15, at which time the Equal Pay Coalition and the Ontario Federation of Labour will make their submissions. At that time, we anticipate the hearings will be completed and the consultators will thereafter make a report. We hope to have that report as soon as possible. We then propose to meet with the union consulting committee and the management consulting committee and bring in our bill.

Ms. Gigantes: I asked a simple question and the minister did not answer it. Perhaps he will answer my supplementary. Has the drafting begun and does he feel any concern about cabinet understanding of the basic principles of equal pay legislation, given that the Premier's comments concerning the Wheel-Trans workers revealed his conviction that wage parity could operate to bring wages down to parity rather than up to parity?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The drafting has not begun. It would be wrong to begin the drafting until we have had a full consultative effort. As the honourable member knows, we have not yet heard the Equal Pay Coalition submission, which we hope to have on May 15.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Mr. Grossman: I want to try to sort out this housing situation with the Minister of Housing. The member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) was making the point that municipalities, whether it be the region or the local municipality, have always had the power and right to stop condominium conversions. Where such a bylaw has passed, that has always been appealable to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Therefore, as we read his statement, the only thing he has added to the procedure is to allow for an appeal from the OMB to the cabinet of Ontario. Will he confirm our understanding of the sum and substance of his statement? Is that right?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Maybe I had better step through the process. I take the case that is before us, Bretton Place. It went before the neighbourhoods committee. They recommended their decision for approval to the municipality.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Curling: In that instance, it is referred to the region for final decision. I hope that clears up the question. This falls under the portfolio of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître). If there is any question, maybe he can clear it up.

Mr. Grossman: Once again I say to the Minister of Housing, municipalities, whether the senior tier or the junior tier, have always had the right by bylaw to stop conversions. That has always been appealable to the OMB. How does his announcement today change the process, other than to allow an appeal from the OMB to the cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The legislation will allow for any of the parties, tenants or landlords, to make a further appeal from the OMB to cabinet.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Reville: This is a very painful process as we all sit here and watch the Minister of Housing learn how governments work. Can the minister tell us clearly, does the Rental Housing Protection Act take effect today or does it take effect when it receives royal assent? That is a simple question.

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The legislation we introduced is not retroactive. We are asking the member and his party and this party to proceed quickly in approving the legislation presented.

On the other question, if I understood the member properly, the Bretton Place situation would have to go through the process as would any other. As I said, after it leaves the city, it goes to the regional government. Because of our concern to protect the rental stock in this province, we will look at it very seriously.

Mr. Reville: I am astounded that the way to keep the cows in the barn is to throw the barn door wide open. Does the minister not realize that he has just kissed goodbye to 16,000 units?

Hon. Mr. Curling: That is not the case. Bretton Place will be seriously looked at to protect those units.

Mr. McCague: Can the Minister of Housing tell me to what region a municipality in Simcoe county would go to apply for approval?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I will refer that to the Minister of Municipal Affairs; I am not quite familiar with the region to which it would be referred.

Mr. Speaker: Is the minister asking the Minister of Municipal Affairs to respond?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Can the member repeat the question, please? I have a list of all the regional municipalities in front of me.

Mr. McCague: It is a rather easy question. To which region would a municipality in Simcoe county go for approval?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Under the old Planning Act of 1983, all regional municipalities had the power on conversions; now local councils will be making that decision, and that includes all regional municipalities.

Mr. McCague: Do the two ministers to whom I have had the privilege of speaking understand that Simcoe county is not a regional government? Will they together undertake to get me an answer to this very important issue'?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I was trying to correct what was said in the House before on the question. Regional municipalities had the power to prevent conversions, unlike what was said previously. This is what I was trying to correct.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Wildman: I have a question to the Premier. He is probably aware that the vagueness and lack of full candour by Algoma Steel Corp. has led to serious concern and uncertainty in Wawa and Sault Ste. Marie. I know he wants his government to be clear and open with the public.

In that regard, can the Premier explain which deputy ministers form the committee that is visiting the Sault and Wawa this week; with whom they are meeting; the purpose of their meeting; and what they intend to tell the company and the municipalities with which they meet?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is my understanding that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) and his deputy are in Sault Ste. Marie this afternoon and will be in Wawa tomorrow. A group of deputies is going from the ministries of Northern Development and Mines, Tourism and Recreation, Labour, and Industry, Trade and Technology. A variety of ministries are involved in the situation.

Obviously, we are concerned about the long-term viability of Algoma and the mine at Wawa, the impact on the railway and the great ripple effect throughout that entire area. I am not sure I have answered the honourable member's questions. We are very concerned about the viability and are willing to lend our offices to do what we can to keep up the employment and, at the same time, to broaden the economic base in the Sault Ste. Marie area.

Mr. Morin-Strom: More specifically, can the Premier give us an indication of what specific directions have been given to these deputy ministers, as well as to the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines , with regard to the government's intentions for northern Ontario? In particular, for the Sault Ste. Marie region, what specific economic actions does this government intend to take to ensure the economic growth and viability of that community?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Very specifically, we have announced in this House before the northern Ontario development fund, a bold, expanded initiative, as the member knows, to broaden the economic base. We have talked about things in the tourism area and about a lot of other individual programs that we believe will have some impact.

Obviously, the big issue is the survival and in what form of Algoma Steel. We do not have simple answers. We are working with the company and the union. There will be wide meetings on the situation. The seriousness of our view of the situation is being conveyed, and we are going to be working with all of the people there to find solutions. That is all I can tell the honourable member.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Mr. Grossman: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. On page 8 of his announcement, it says, "This legislation will allow projects which have obtained all required permits to continue." It then goes on to say, "This means that, following royal assent, if a condominium conversion proposal has not been draft approved or has not received a commitment for exemption from approval, it may not proceed without approval."

Can the minister indicate which approvals this refers to? It would seem to us that the approvals that Bretton Place requires will all have been obtained under this exemption clause prior to royal assent.

Hon. Mr. Curling: As an example, Bretton Place has not received draft approval at this stage.

Mr. Grossman: Since the legislation is being introduced only today, since Bretton Place's solicitors are pushing this very quickly and since the municipal council is dealing with this either today or next week

An hon. member: Right now.

Mr. Grossman: Is it today? It is dealing with it this very day. Is the minister prepared today to acknowledge that there is a very great possibility that Bretton Place will receive all the draft approvals and thus escape any of the protections offered in this document, which, after all, involve only an appeal to the cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The city may be discussing Bretton Place at the moment, as the member says; then it will be sent to Metro. As the member realizes, my colleague has just announced that this authority has been taken away from Metro; so the matter must come to the minister for final approval.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: My question is of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I presume the minister knows that Eagle Transport, which was involved in the fiery accident that destroyed the James Snow Parkway overpass, had far from adequate liability insurance to cover the cost of replacing that overpass.

I ask the minister how he feels about the likelihood that the taxpayers of this province will have to pay much of the bill for replacing that overpass because he has been negligent in ensuring that there is an adequate insurance system in this province to cover something like this.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member raises a specific question. It is under current review. The determination of whether the coverage is adequate has not yet been made, and I am really not in a position to comment on it.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Swart: I wonder whether the minister realizes that Eagle Transport paid $175,000 annually for its previous coverage of $5 million from Royal Insurance. That was cancelled just prior to the accident with only a few days' notice, and the only alternative was for Eagle to get one fifth the coverage on one half the tractors for $444,000, 2.5 times the rate, from his Facility Association.

Will the minister now admit that the Facility Association is in reality an association of his making to protect and benefit not the motorists or other insurers but the insurance companies, which can get a lot more revenue for less coverage? Will the minister be proposing some sensible alternative tomorrow to this ministerially endorsed insurance company ripoff?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member raises a couple of questions in his statement. He has referred to the fact that tomorrow we will be making public the report of the Slater committee. He will then have an opportunity to see what the recommendations are.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Mr. Grossman: I have another question for the Minister of Housing. The minister keeps talking about an appeal or a referral of the Bretton Place issue to Metro. Page 5 of his statement says, "Under this act, a proponent of a conversion or demolition of a residential rental building will apply to the local municipal council, which will review the application and decide whether the application should be approved or rejected." It makes no reference to appeal from the local to the regional government.

It says, "Any person will have the right to appeal the decision of the municipal council to the Ontario Municipal Board." Can the minister explain to us the contradiction between what is on page 5 and his continuing insistence that this thing ends up at Metro?

Hon. Mr. Curling: May I again step this through with the honourable Leader of the Opposition? He is reading the new proposal, which says, "Any person will have the right to appeal the decision of the municipal council to the Ontario Municipal Board." The member is talking about the old proposal.

Mr. Grossman: Is it, therefore, the minister's opinion that the current situation is that when municipalities deal with or stop conversions, the decisions of the municipalities are not appealable to the OMB? Is that what the minister believes the current law to be?

Hon. Mr. Curling: My understanding is that at the moment, especially in a case such as that of Bretton Place, about which the member asks, when it goes to Metro --

Mr. Grossman: It does not go to Metro.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Under the old act, it is my understanding that this will go to Metro to be rubber-stamped. Under the new one we propose, it will go from the city to the Ontario Municipal Board.

INTERVENER FUNDING

Mrs. Grier: Last week I raised the question of intervener funding and was assured that a policy was in the works and that ad hoc approvals were being given in the interim. I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment whether this ad hockery will be extended to the citizens of Northumberland and Haldimand who oppose the enormous facility proposed by Consumers' Gas?

Mr. Andrewes: And Lincoln too.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Does the member for Lincoln have an additional question?

Mr. Andrewes: I am not allowed a supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: He is not allowed that. With regard to intervener funding, we do not use the term "ad hockery." We use "designated" -- it is a better word -- or "case-by-case basis." This is for those who did not take Latin.

The honourable member raises a very good question, a very interesting question, to which I will provide an answer in the not-too-distant future. When there are matters where a number of issues of great importance must be raised, such as the site to which she makes reference, it is essential that the people who make representations which are opposed to the proponent's have an opportunity to do so with some assurance that they will have some funding up front and not simply have to rely on funding that may come later on, although very often that is forthcoming.

To do this, we have to ensure that these people are aware of this funding. I assure the member there will be an announcement made in the very near future in this regard. I think the member will smile when she hears this announcement.

Mrs. Grier: If that is the minister's opinion, I do not know why he cannot just say yes or no to my question. Let me put it this way. Is the minister aware that the citizens in that area have already raised and spent a considerable amount of money in their fight for the Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee and for legal advice? Is he aware that the citizens are the only ones in this hearing who are intervening on behalf of the environment? Is he aware that the hearing has already begun? Does he consider this David and Goliath struggle to be in the best interests of the environment?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: There were several questions involved in that. I could probably provide several answers, but I will try to be relatively brief, unaccustomed as I am. I like to give full answers to the member.

In answer to the question -- whether I believe there should be a so-called David and Goliath adversarial system, the member will know that we built a strong environmental component into the Ontario Energy Board hearing on this specific case. One of the reasons we did that was to allow the people in that area the opportunity to make effective representations. I recognize that this involves some expenditure of funds. For that reason, we have looked very carefully at the application and will be making an announcement very soon. I recognize the urgency of the situation.

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Warner: I enter a petition on behalf of 261 residents of Scarborough:

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

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

Mr. Morin: I enter a petition on behalf of 294 Ontario residents:

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

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Curling moved first reading of Bill 11,

An Act respecting the Protection of Rental Housing.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Warner: I know the members will be disappointed to learn that I have only about 20 more minutes of contribution to make. Apparently, there are other members who wish to participate.

When I left off, I was discussing two sides of the issue about care for seniors. I went through the response I had prepared in some detail. I am quite surprised and rather shocked that the government with its huge bureaucracy and its power is unable to come up with a plan, while I as a single individual with no expertise in this area managed to put together a complex and all-encompassing piece of legislation in less than a year. That legislation is now before the House and is to be debated three weeks hence.

The flip side is the present care for seniors. The most glaring problem we face in Ontario remains the nursing homes.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I counted about 12 private conversations and I find it very difficult to hear the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. The honourable member has the floor.

Mr. Warner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that, but I realize my colleagues were all hurriedly trying to make alternative arrangements so they could sit here and listen to my speech.

The nursing home situation has become increasingly difficult over the years. Unfortunately, the previous government was quite content to allow abuses to occur and recur in many nursing homes without any redress of the problems. That simply is no good. It has to stop. Elderly people, like everyone else, deserve a life of dignity and they deserve to be treated properly. Many nursing homes are simply warehousing people; they are not providing the kind of loving and adequate care that is required.

I want to turn for a moment to a number of other areas which, as far as I am concerned, were left out of the throne speech, or at least they were just mentioned in passing with no specifics as to how the government intended to handle problems such as insurance, which my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) has raised many times.

The insurance problems in this province continue to plague us. Car insurance has gotten completely out of hand; it has become totally ridiculous. The people in Ontario are far and away paying more than most people in the rest of the country, and there is no good reason for it. I have watched with interest how the people in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia over the past two years have received rebates on their premiums. I remind the members that premium levels in these provinces are already far below the levels in Ontario for the same coverage and they have been receiving rebates. Here in Ontario, drivers continue to see their premiums escalate.

In particular, the problems facing the under-25-year-olds, especially single males, are quite incredible. It is possible for such persons in this province to drive for seven years without an accident, with a clean record, and pay in the neighbourhood of $2,500 a year. A person of the same age and situation with the same coverage and living in a similar community in any one of the three western provinces would pay in the neighbourhood of $500 to $600, versus the $2,500 in Ontario.

Why? It is very simple. What the western provinces base their insurance coverage on is one's driving record. If one has a clean record, one gets the lowest rates. If one is causing accidents, then one is going to pay a penalty for that. That is not the case here in Ontario; the insurance companies decide to punish people for having clean records. Right from the start, when a young person begins to drive, he pays exorbitant rates. The government apparently has very little interest in doing anything about this, and that bothers me. We owe it to the people of Ontario. We know there is a better way.

For example, we know from the examination this Legislature made a number of years ago that the government-run programs in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia have been successful for 14 years -- in the case of Saskatchewan much longer than that -- and that they are cheaper and highly efficient. In fact, all three parties agreed, although the Liberals and Conservatives could not find it in themselves to put pen to paper when the crunch came, that those plans are superior to what we have in Ontario.

Equal pay legislation troubles me. I continue to be troubled about why the government is dragging its feet on equal pay legislation. It seems to me it is simply a matter of justice. I do not know how on earth we can countenance a situation in 1986 where women continue to be paid less for what they do when their work is essentially the same as that performed by men. I cannot understand why the government does not bring the legislation forward. Why does the government think it is necessary to separate people working in the private sector from those working in the public sector?

In many cases, it will be the same task or one that is quite similar. The government sees it as important to separate them. For whatever strange reason, it does not feel it necessary to bring the legislation forward.

As I have mentioned on a previous occasion, the federal-provincial agreement with respect to skills training, a document recently signed by this government and the federal government, is a mistake of a magnitude that could eventually see the closure of some of our community colleges. As many of us are painfully aware, the federal government has decided to privatize the education field, a move that troubles me. Over the years we in Ontario have been well served by our educational institutions. Our elementary and secondary schools and our colleges and universities continue to provide excellent graduates and the skilled labour we require in our work force.

The reward for this appears to be that the federal government is determined to close down some, if not all, of our community colleges. It is doing it by a system of privatization. This is a dangerous move that should strike a bit of fear in the hearts of all members here, including those in the Conservative caucus. I remind the Conservative caucus members, if they do not know it already, that in many of their communities the community colleges are held in high regard for the work they do and the skills training they provide.

The federal government has this strange and quaint notion that somehow the private sector can do it much better. What does the federal government do? I will give the members an example. Drake Personnel receives a contract for $1 million to put on a secretarial course. Every community college in the province is running secretarial courses, but that does not matter. Being a private firm and not being accountable for the quality of its education, Drake Personnel can put on whatever program it deems appropriate. It has an opportunity to undercut the tuition fee put forward by the local community college.

Unfair competition can run untrammelled and we have no say over the quality of education. That is a backward step.

The cut in manpower placements will have an immediate detrimental effect on the colleges as they see up to 40 per cent of manpower placements cut in the next three years. To some community colleges, that is as much as $400,000 a year cut out of their budgets.

We also see private companies taking on training. Money can be funnelled directly to a private company to do training on the job site instead of availing itself of the local community college with its trained staff. Again there is no guarantee of quality of education.

The government has made a mistake. It was not necessary to enter into the agreement immediately. Ontario was the first province to sign. Ontario could have refused to sign. Many other provinces would have been very happy about that. Ontario is viewed by many to be the key to industrial training. Had Ontario resisted this great opportunity to sign, I am sure many provinces, particularly Quebec and those in the Maritimes, would have been very grateful. Unfortunately, this government has entered into the agreement. As it learns the error of its ways, I hope it will withdraw from the agreement after the first year.

I understand that is perfectly legal under the agreement. It can withdraw, and I suggest it should.

3:50 p.m.

I hear some disturbing words that the unemployed help centres across this provinces in places such as Windsor, Sault Ste. Marie and Ottawa are about to face the axe from this government. I know the background of this, as you do, Mr. Speaker. The federal government had the responsibility to fund unemployed help centres, but it decided that was no longer its responsibility and that it would remove the funding, which it has. That was a mistake, because clearly it does have the responsibility as far as employment centres are concerned. None the less, it withdrew the funding.

The province moved into that vacuum and supplied some money, which is appropriate. I applaud the provincial government for that. Now apparently Ontario is about to systematically shut down the unemployed help centres. That is a mistake, and it will be a disservice to the people in many of those communities, particularly to those in Sault Ste. Marie, which we know is going through the possibility of even greater dislocation. This was mentioned earlier today by my colleagues the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) and the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom). If anything, the unemployed help centre in the Sault requires more support, not less.

I want to talk about apprenticeships. This is an area of particular interest for me. As we know, the previous government showed it did not have the courage to complete what is so obvious: a three-way agreement on apprenticeships between government, business and labour in private industry. Unless we are able to fashion a three-way agreement with some kind of grant levy system, similar to what has been developed in West Germany and other parts of western Europe, we shall continue to flounder in the world of apprenticeships.

We have had this incredible situation for a number of years, and it continues. Every once in a while in certain areas we require more skilled tradespeople. We do not have them and we end up going elsewhere to obtain the necessary skilled people. In the area of carpentry, for example, I understand -- although the figures may be out a little -- that in Metropolitan Toronto over the next five years we probably will require in the neighbourhood of 700 carpenters. We have absolutely no idea where these carpenters are magically going to appear from.

Despite us having a complete college system consisting of 22 colleges, we continue to have fairly high unemployment but will end up importing carpenters. Why? Our apprenticeship system is a failure. The previous government knew that. It knew the answer, yet it could not supply it. It could not bring itself to do that. Unfortunately, I see no indication that the new government is ready to bite the bullet on this one. It too knows the answer. It knows the model and what has to be done. Unfortunately, what is required now is some political will to make it happen.

In brief terms, I wish to mention my concern about free trade. This province seems to have taken a number of different positions on free trade, which is unfortunate. I quite frankly defy any member of this Legislature, regardless of party, to stand up and say that he or she does not have some uneasiness about the way events are unfolding, because we all realize the Americans are interested in what they call "the level playing field;" that is, everything on the table, everything up for grabs. As well, I realize the Prime Minister of Canada does not have any problem with that.

He wants to get rid of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. anyway. That is not a problem for him, but it is a problem for me and it should be a problem for anyone who is a good Canadian. Our cultural sovereignty should not be for sale, nor should our social programs.

To a certain extent, I do not care what the Americans think about our medicare program, our pension programs or our unemployment insurance program. Whether we supply unemployment insurance to fishermen in the wintertime is our business. Over a number of years, as Canadians, we have fashioned certain social and cultural programs for ourselves. They are ours, and they cannot and should not be tied to any free trade talks. Unfortunately, the federal government does not quite see it that way.

This government's role is to take a very firm stand on this and to say these programs are not negotiable, and if the Americans happen to think they are, they can jolly well trot off to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade table and try it out on a few other countries to see whether a subsidy for health care or unemployment insurance is an unfair trade practice.

The strange part of this is that 65 per cent of Ontario's trading now, I believe, is done on a nontariff basis. A huge chunk of trade is already being done without tariffs. I will not argue for a moment that we should not look for better trade possibilities; we would be silly not to. I want us to have good trading partners south of the border, on the Pacific Rim and throughout Europe and the rest of the world. It is marvellous. However, we should not go into trade negotiations with anyone by allowing the remotest possibility that they can have a say in how we develop our social or cultural policies. I urge the government to take a strong stand on this. It would be very helpful.

I am troubled by the reference in the throne speech, and subsequent to that in the announcement by the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway), to the designs to have the education system churn out a bunch of little entrepreneurs. In the education system, there is a far greater role to be played in attempting to develop co-operation. Surely it is better to develop a co-operative spirit among young people than to train them to take advantage of one another.

I ask the minister to rethink the path he is headed down. If he is bound and determined to have entrepreneur courses in the schools, at the very least he should allow equal opportunity for the opposition. If he is about to introduce these new and inventive ways on how to make money quickly, he should at the same time ensure that there will be courses in labour studies, the history of labour and the role of the working person in our society. Young people should be taught or at least allowed the opportunity to learn about our class society.

I have had the opportunity to visit many communities in this province during the past few months. I did a tour in which I visited community colleges and other places and discussed a number of items. One that came up constantly from the community colleges and others was a very deep concern about adult literacy. It is a problem that continues with us, one that is hidden to a large extent.

4 p.m.

A significant number of adults in our society in Ontario are illiterate. For an older person who cannot read or write and who is working, it is deeply embarrassing to admit that. However, the older person is increasingly in a work place that is more complicated today than it was 20 or 30 years ago, working with chemicals or working with labels that he or she does not understand and cannot read.

The adult literacy problem is a severe one, according to educators and other people working in communities. Unfortunately, as of today, there is no one minister of the crown whose responsibility is adult literacy. There is no one in charge. There are about 10 different ministries that each have a responsibility for adult literacy, but there is no one person who oversees it. We do not have any concerted effort to try to grapple with the problem of adult literacy. I hope the government will take that in mind and come up with something.

I want to mention a couple of things. One is the situation for Armenians. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) rightly and properly proclaimed Armenian Memorial Day for April 24. He sent copies of the proclamation to Ottawa, where a demonstration was held on that day. I for one appreciate his recognition of Armenian Memorial Day. It was the proper thing to do and I appreciate that.

I suggest, however, that the government needs to go a step further. It must make representations to Ottawa indicating that what the Canadian government has to do, notwithstanding its arrangement with Turkey and the fact that Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and is also considered to be a strategic ally of the United States, is to try to exact from Turkey an acknowledgement of the holocaust of 1915, an acknowledgement of the genocide and an apology. A plan should be constructed whereby there will be a homeland called Armenia again.

I want to close with a few remarks with respect to the situation of ordinary Ontarians and a new definition of obscenity. I knew that would catch the members' attention. One mention of the word "obscenity" and they are right there.

Mr. Barlow: Tell us what the old definition was.

Mr. Warner: The member wants me to review the old one first, does he?

Members from all parties of the House have attempted at various times to help constituents who have had difficulties receiving family benefits, single mums who lack adequate funds to raise their children, senior citizens who have only the old age pension on which to rely and, in some cases, injured workers who are attempting to get a disability pension from the Canada pension plan.

All of us have done that work. We realize when we are finished, if we are successful, we may have obtained for the individual a meagre amount, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $8,000 to $9,000. A family benefits recipient, for example, receives approximately $8,500. However, all the amounts, whether they are from CPP disability, the family benefits allowance or any of the other social programs, will be in the neighbourhood of $9,000. Somehow in this province we have determined that is an adequate sum.

We have said again today about Family Day that it is important to raise children. We think children should have at least one parent and, we hope, two, and care and attention should be paid to those children. They should be raised properly and well. Somehow that is to be done on $8,500 a year.

The folks about whom I am about to speak spill more than that. Some members, like me, I am sure, read the Globe and Mail this past Saturday. An entire page was devoted to the most recent corporate income increases. If one wants a definition of "obscenity," this is it. Some of these corporate people had been given an increase of in the neighbourhood of $200,000 to raise their salaries to anywhere from $600,000 per year to more than $1 million per year, and in addition to this perk, if one can believe it, a housing allowance. It is obscene that someone who gets $600,000 or even $800,000 a year requires a housing allowance on top of that,

whereas I have constituents -- and probably each member, including some of the Conservatives, has constituents whose total income is less than $10,000 a year.

We have done something wrong when we have that kind of situation. That gap should not be tolerated at a time when government, both this one and the former one, was preaching, through the civil service and through employment in general, that raises should be in the neighbourhood of four to five per cent, all of which is generally predicated on salaries of $15,000 to $25,000. These folks at the top are getting even more, and the gap widens. The people at the bottom are lucky they do not starve to death. In fact, some do starve to death.

If the Liberals think that is acceptable, I feel sorry for them. The Tories, I know, believe it is acceptable. They are the ones who helped to create that system, and they will defend it. They think it is quite all right for someone to get only $8,500 a year and for some other person to get $1 million and then ask for more. That system is wrong and it needs to be changed.

There are a lot of challenges that this government needs to meet. Quite frankly, as I listened to the speech from the throne, I did not believe this government was up to meeting those challenges. I know our party is, and I look forward to the day when we will be on that side of the House and we will be the government of Ontario.

Mr. Callahan: It gives me great delight to rise and speak to the matter of the speech from the throne. Before I enter into the discussions about the specifics, I found it rather remarkable to sit here and listen to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) refer to this speech as one of the ones that was drawn out of the archives. I suspect this was probably the way it was done in the past and I suspect that the poll-makers and the poll-takers probably had a very great hand in writing the speeches from the throne.

4:10 p.m.

On the contrary, the speech from the throne that has been produced by this Liberal government can be summed up in a general fashion by the opening statements. They indicate that it is an agenda for the next decade. It offers a framework for long-term achievement rather than a list of short-term priorities.

I suggest that, at least in the last 10 years, anyway -- I will not speak for the period before that, because I think in the period before that, in fairness to governments before that, priorities were on a longer range -- for some reason the people who conduct public opinion polls in this province were more significant than the people who had the knowhow, the expertise and the vision to come up with programs that might be put into a speech from the throne that would move Ontario towards the 21st century.

It is fortunate that this task fell to a more progressive and more visionary government, namely, the Liberal government; otherwise, we would still be having polls taken and we would probably still be operating the way we were in the past.

Let me address generally a few of the problematic concerns in that regard. Number one is education. We were turning out, en masse, engineers, teachers, doctors, lawyers and people in various trades and professions. We were introducing children to the idea that they could get a job in a particular field without any possible futuristic approach of determining whether there were going to be jobs in that field.

As a result, large numbers of young ladies and young men went through the education system, which was an exceptional one, without any clear direction and without the opportunities to use the technology of the present century and of the next century to be able to decide where they should direct their goals.

The throne speech addresses that in a very real sense. I suggest it addresses it in a visionary way in that it is going to set up computer terminals and is going to keep the standard up to date. I gather that those computer terminals and those computer activities can not only project for the present, but can also project an image of the future, so that young people getting out of school, graduating from secondary school, community college or university, will have an opportunity to address a job or to arrive at a job that is meaningful and that has some relevance to the courses they have taken or to the course of pursuit they have gone after.

Up to this point, that has not been done. What happened was simply that people were required to go to school and to stay in school for a specific period of time; there was no direction. That is a sad commentary, because probably the strongest and most essential commodity we have in this province, in this country and in this world is our young people. To have allowed them to continue in that vein without any direction, without any possible hope of getting a job when they got out of school -- unless they got lucky -- was a sadistic approach to the entire education system.

I am very enthused by the statements made in the throne speech. This is where I depart from the Leader of the Opposition, who looked at the throne speech and said there was nothing there. He should not only get contact lenses, he should get a new pair of glasses, because he missed the entire tenor. The entire tenor of this throne speech is futuristic.

I will go to the introduction. I quote pages 2 and 3 so that those Conservatives who did not wish to bother themselves with reading the entire throne speech can get a total picture of what was being presented by this government in terms of vision for the future. I go on to the next statement that was made: "It outlines some of the steps Ontario must take over the next decade to ensure its place as the world-class society of the 21st century."

This becomes particularly significant in the light of the headlong approach Mr. Mulroney, their kissing cousin in Ottawa, is taking towards free trade with the United States. Unless this province is prepared to have a vision, to try to adapt, to be flexible and to provide the investigation, research and development to be able to compete not only with the United States but with other countries around the world, we are going to be left behind. This is one of the things that is approached in the throne speech in a very significant way.

There is a recognition of another sector as well. The job sector is certainly one of the most important, but another sector is the question of how we deliver medical services in this province. We have an excellent health care system, probably the finest in the world. The delivery systems for that health care system have changed dramatically. The age of people in this province has changed dramatically. No longer can we look at the constant building of hospitals and at providing beds for people who are of an age category in which they would be better served in a chronic care facility.

This government in the throne speech addresses that issue. It says it is not going to do what the official opposition did. We recognize that the cost of health care to the provincial budget is some 31 per cent now; some $9 billion is being spent. If this is allowed to continue in the vein the former Conservative government would have allowed it to continue, it would have resulted in the year of 2001 in a doubling of that amount.

The Liberal government was not satisfied with that. In its throne speech it is saying it is going to look at different approaches because changes have taken place in Ontario society. Contrary to the approach that was taken by the former Conservative government, rather than going around and dealing with the question of budgetary measures by attempting to close hospitals, we are looking at buttressing the hospitals that are there now and introducing more visionary ways of dealing with them. I suggest the Leader of the Opposition missed that point, and it is a very significant point.

I suppose members will see what a throne speech is all about as they see it fleshed out. It is simply given in point detail at the moment. It will be fleshed out over the period of time between now and the budget. I think a significant feature of that is the recent introduction of an explanation by the Minister of Education. When did the Conservatives ever get the idea of introducing into the curriculum of a secondary school a credit course to allow young men and young women to learn how to be entrepreneurs?

I know the NDP does not appreciate that, but they have to learn how to get jobs and the skills that are essential to be able to go out and get them. In a very large sense, this is what the job centres are doing throughout Ontario. They are required to do it because the educational system of the past, the nonvisionary approach, did not provide for that.

I was speaking with the Minister of Education the other day. This is not in the throne speech, but I suggested to the minister that perhaps we should look into the question of making public speaking a required course for every student in a secondary school in Ontario. In a very real sense, we are human beings and we do not communicate by concepts; we communicate by the verbal word. If you cannot speak, you cannot communicate. If you cannot communicate, you cannot get a job and you cannot do the job effectively.

Mrs. Marland: He cannot negotiate; he is down to only two members on his side.

Mr. Callahan: It is interesting that the member on the other side can actually count.

A most interesting idea is the Minister of Education's approach of dealing with it by introducing it as a credit course. I am sure we are well aware of people who have not only graduated from the secondary educational system, but also from university and some with postgraduate degrees, who cannot get jobs. I suggest that had they had the opportunity early on in their secondary education to take a credit course that would teach them the approaches to business, they would now have that opportunity. That is what the Minister of Education has done. That is futuristic. That is visionary.

That is something that the former government had 42 years to do and did not do. They simply allowed these young people to flounder after they got out of school, or they would introduce some hot-shot program that was supposed to take these people over a short period of time, perhaps a summer or perhaps an even shorter period. That was unfair to the young people of this province.

The Minister of Education, in fleshing out the proposals in the throne speech, has been masterful in the vision he has shown in doing that. In his fleshing out of that statement, he also provides for the computer program, so young people can go to a library or any of these other locations where these computers are going to be set up and tap out not only what the job market is today, but also for the future. They can then plan their careers.

4:20 p.m.

When I was in university, everybody wanted to be either a teacher or an engineer. In fact, when I went to law school, we had fellows there who had received their engineering degrees and had come back to law school because there were no engineering jobs in the private sector or the public sector. We had people rushing off in a mad dash to take a particular course which led absolutely no place.

Today we have lawyers -- and I am sure the people of the nonlegal community will consider this to be appropriate -- people in the legal profession, who are not even practising in the legal community. They are practising in fields somewhat akin to social work. Some may even be working in fields that are totally divorced from the question of the legal profession.

Again, it was a situation where the former government and the former educational policy allowed these people to go on, take what they liked and take their chances that they would get a job when they got out.

Mr. Gregory: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: It is unfortunate that only two Liberals are in the House to listen to this great speech by the member for Brampton. I do not see a quorum.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

4:24 p.m.

Mr. Callahan: I would like to see the Leader of the Opposition out here to listen to my speech. I will go on with the visionary items that are in this speech from the throne that the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) could not see. I am not sure he read it. It was either that or he was having some difficulty seeing it. It is full of visionary items, some of which I have already addressed.

Through this speech from the throne, this government has pledged to continue the openness with which it has approached government. Never before have the secret books of all the positions, the jobs, the dates that people's jobs are up and the salaries ever been taken out of the bowels of this House. They have now been tabled and are available to anybody in this province.

In addition, the appointments made by this government have been appointments of fine quality, disregarding the question of what party the appointees belong to. That is a visionary step on the part of this government in making certain that the people who are the beneficiaries of those actions are the people of Ontario and not some select group, some group which is owed a favour or which assisted in an election, but people who are excellent. That is a hallmark of the speech from the throne and a continued process that this government has pledged.

One of the other new items is the budget process. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has invited people to participate and contribute to the budget process. This has not happened in the past. Only recently has it been tried in the federal Tory fiefdom but not with great success. This government has taken the opportunity to listen to the people of this province who will be affected by the budget and to introduce another degree of openness and fairness to the budgetary system and, in the final analysis, the taxation of this province.

In the justice system, the speech from the throne addresses probably one of the most lingering and difficult problems, which was never addressed by the previous government, the question of how one gets to trial without waiting two or three years to do it. I have had letters -- and I am sure every member of this House has had letters -- from constituents who found that a matter finally went to trial two, three or four years down the line.

In this speech from the throne -- and I am sure members will see it fleshed out by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) -- are visionary approaches on how to speed up that system and how to make certain it is fairer. There is an old axiom, which I am sure my good friend the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) would be aware of, which says justice delayed is justice denied. There is no question about it; witnesses die and witnesses lose their remembrance of what they saw. That is unfair.

Recently in the press -- and we do not know whether it is a fact yet because the details have not been fleshed out -- it was stated the criminal injuries' compensation maximum is being increased to $25,000. That was never done. It was $15,000 and had been since the institution of the entire process.

That is dealing with people in a much fairer approach and recognizing the fact that victims of crime are Ontario citizens who have had to pay for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or perhaps for having had the courage to assist another Ontarian who was in a plight. That is the hallmark of a civilized, sensitive, open and fair society.

The legal aid system in this province has been a good program, but it has been underfunded for a considerable time. As a result, we have lost some of our more senior members of the bar from representing people under legal aid certificates, and yet I have to return to the defence of the counsel whom I know in this province. I doubt there are any major contributors to counsel work in the criminal process, including Eddie Greenspan or Bob Carter, who would deny an Ontarian the opportunity for a full defence under a legal aid certificate. That is a recognition of the high degree of integrity that the legal profession has in this province.

It was high time that the legal aid tariff was enhanced, and it has been. We will find out the particulars of that through the speech from the throne.

During my campaign in my riding, I discovered that what had been overlooked was that Ontario had changed. Ontario is no longer the fiefdom of people who were perhaps born here. It has expanded and opened up to a myriad of cultures, to the benefit of this entire province. Because of that, interpreters are required to handle the difficulties in courts. To see that justice prevails, again in the speech from the throne we are told there will be total access to interpreters in whatever language the person speaks.

4:30 p.m.

Looking at it from the standpoint of a visionary approach, today we have something that is very significant, the question of battered wives. We had battered wives 10 or 15 years ago, but nothing was done by the previous government to address, zero in on that problem and try to deal with it. It simply tried to use the old wheels of justice, the old system, to address that problem.

I suggest that the net result of the delay in approaching that very sad problem, the flotsam and jetsam of it, was the young children who grew up and did the same thing as a result of seeing their fathers do it. The women who lived in sheer horror and fear are now going to have the opportunity, through the advertisements that are being put forward, the shelters that are being made available and the special crown attorneys who will be dealing with these sensitive cases, to come out of the closet and to stop this continuum so that future generations of young children will not be affected by it and will not perpetuate the process.

There is a statement in the throne speech that there will be consumer protection. This is also visionary. It is high time in this province that we reviewed the protections that are available to consumers, because the approaches, the techniques and the technology that have been introduced into consumerism and into the sale of commodities have moved into the future. Unless we move into the future with laws that protect the consumer in that regard, we will have done nothing for them; we will, in fact, have left them subject to people preying upon them in a dishonest fashion. This again is visionary.

I am really sorry the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) cannot be here to hear this, because when I listened to his speech, I thought to myself opposition, loyal opposition, Her Majesty's loyal opposition do not mean Her Majesty's loyal negativism. That is exactly what his comments were, totally negative. He could not find one good thing in the throne speech. He must have read the speech at a time when he really was not concentrating on it, because there are numerous visionary statements in it that are going to take us in a sensitive, open and just fashion into the next century.

The social assistance program in this province prior to the installation of this government was a hotchpotch. Just as a matter of curiosity, I took the book provided by the government and tried to go through it to find where the services were.

Someone would need a master's degree to find them, and when he got to them, he would probably find there were so many diverse programs that he could not possibly put them all together within his lifetime.

This is being reviewed with a simple, particular approach of justice, fairness and openness for the delivery of a system to the people that is meant to be delivered to them -- not a sham, not something that is set aside and about which we say, "It is there," but something we can talk about and say, "We have done this and we have done that." It is a system that is going to work and that is going to provide the necessary funds, with the least red tape, to the people of this province who need them.

I suppose the only way one can really appreciate the difficulties that existed under the old system was to have been involved as a municipal politician, as I was and as I am sure many of the people in this House were, trying to get some assistance for a particular constituent. By the time I got finished, I was not sure whether I had finished playing Password or some quiz program. I went from pillar to post and everybody gave me a little bit of information. Finally, if I was lucky, I was able to put it together and eventually get some results for my constituent. That cannot happen.

We are not dealing here with nonhumans; we are dealing with human beings, whose needs are immediate and whose needs have to be met in a sensitive fashion. I suggest that is exactly what this government is doing.

Let us take the question of senior citizens. When has there ever been a minister specifically responsible for seniors? If I may suggest it, that was a stroke of genius of this government because --

Mr. Barlow: Let us not get carried away.

Mr. Callahan: The problem with the former government was that it was all senior citizens. The approach will be for a single minister to go throughout this province and listen to the people who can provide the answers, who can resurrect the problems and who can tell the government where it should be going, in what direction, instead of what was done in the past. The former government probably got one of its pollsters to go out and ask four or five people or 100 people. It did not get a cross-section, a gathering of views of people throughout this province.

A white paper is going to be brought forward. I suggest this white paper is also visionary and is also a demonstrative recognition of the fairness and justice of the approach this government is taking. If that is not far-reaching, I am surprised the Leader of the Opposition did not see that. Maybe those pages got stuck together with peanut butter or something. I do not know, but he obviously did not see it.

On the question of entrepreneurship, we are going to give an opportunity to working people, to people who do not have their own businesses. We are going to take entrepreneurship out of the boardrooms and we are going to include the guy on the shop floor. That is an excellent approach. That may be a futuristic approach to the question of labour relations, not in total, but in part. If we can make that person an entrepreneur by giving him shares through the program suggested in the budget, we give him a little bit of the business he is working at.

It makes him more attentive to the fact that companies cannot continue to raise wages to the extent that they cost themselves right out of the market. Maybe that is the approach to take. Maybe that is the start. Maybe that is the sparkle that is going to start a new change in the approach to labour relations.

I suggest that is visionary as well. It is something that should be applauded by the workers of this province, particularly in areas such as northern Ontario. If that program had been in place 10 or 15 years ago, and if it had been aggressively pursued through programs of the government, we might well have had employees who would have been in a position to have picked up the chips when the employer left, instead of being left stranded. Perhaps we would not have half the crises that have come before this House in the past week or two; very sad crises, with people losing their jobs.

Perhaps if there had been some vision in the past and some such approach taken, we would not be facing that problem.

The farmers of this province and this country have never had a significant backup from the government. This government is trying to open up markets to them in the Pacific Rim countries. We can compete. We have some of the finest farm land in this country. We have the opportunity to produce and to sell far afield. There are provisions in the budget for providing the financing, the expertise and the information required by the farmer to do that. I suggest that is a sensitive approach.

I dare anyone to point to any government in Canada and perhaps in the world that has done more in the past year for the environment. The most exciting thing in carrying that forward is that within this throne speech we are talking about developing technology. Ontarians and Canadians can develop that technology. We have developed the Canadarm and numerous other technological advances. If we can develop the technological approach to enhancing and to making our environment better, we can market that.

In marketing it, we may be able to convince our US neighbours, who thus far have not been convinced by moral suasion, to clean up their act. Perhaps we can provide them with the technology that will make it easier for them to do it, so that we can preserve the future heritage of this province for our children and our grandchildren. That is an exciting situation.

There were some chuckles about the fact that we are taking a new direction in tourism. I suggest that if membe