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

May 8, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L011 - Thu 8 May 1986 / Jeu 8 mai 1986

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DAY CARE

TAX INFORMATION

DUNNVILLE DAM

HELP CENTRES

TULIP DISPLAY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TELEVISION AWARD

SCIENCE EDUCATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

DAY CARE

EXTRA BILLING

INSURANCE RATES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PENSION FUNDS

FASHION SHOW

PENSION FUNDS

SPRAY PROGRAM

FREE TRADE

ACID RAIN

TAX INCREASES

WATER QUALITY

TABLING OF INFORMATION

PRISON FACILITIES

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

CANCER TREATMENT CENTRE

FASHION SHOW

TABLING OF INFORMATION

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

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. Martel: I thought the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) would stay to hear this. It is going to be good stuff.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We have a House leaders' meeting.

Mr. Martel: He will hear it down there then.

I will not bother talking about the throne speech. There was not much in it. I will dismiss that very quickly.

Mr. Bernier: Tell us something new.

Mr. Martel: I am going to tell my friend about a trip I just finished making. I took five weeks, went to 13 cities and received more than 200 briefs.

Mr. Bernier: At whose expense? Who paid for it?

Mr. Martel: Not that member. I did not even get paid, unlike some members who were sitting on committees.

I visited 13 cities, received at least 200 briefs, interviewed 200 or 300 people and obtained the documents surrounding health and safety that we are going to use during the next couple of months to show that the Ministry of Labour in the preceding government and in the present government has virtually destroyed the use of Bill 70. We might as well not have it in Ontario today, because Bill 70 does not protect workers. What the Tories did with that bill was a disgrace, and the Liberals have continued to do precisely the same. The bill does not protect working people.

In 1982, I made a similar tour. The act was relatively new then, and companies had not learned how to ignore the act; nor did they know the Ministry of Labour had no intention of enforcing the act. That has continued down to the present. We have had two governments, both of which have enforced the Occupational Health and Safety Act in the same way, which is to allow companies to do whatever they want.

During the next couple of months, we are going to document many examples. We saw two in the House yesterday, when I called the Ministry of Labour office at 400 University Avenue the swamp. The inspectors themselves call it the swamp, because everything gets filtered in, it sinks in the quagmire and nothing comes out. We saw that yesterday with respect to two fatalities that occurred last September in this province. It took seven or eight months even to decide whether there would be prosecutions.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) got up in his place yesterday and said it was a very complex issue.

A member of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications was working on a seven-foot culvert by himself. The ministry did not provide a safety jacket for him, and he fell in the water and drowned. There were three contraventions of sections 35, 36 and 37 of the construction safety regulations; yet the minister and the legal department say it is very complex to sort out whether they should prosecute. There is something crazy about that.

What made it difficult is that MTC wanted to appeal the orders by the inspector. The ministry does not want to provide safety jackets for people working around excessive quantities of water in which they may drown. That is what they are going to appeal. Can members imagine it? An agency of the crown is going to do this. If they get away with it, what will the public say?

It is complex, the minister says. It is anything but complex; it is simple. The ministry violated the act. We do not apply the Highway Traffic Act that way in Ontario. If people get caught half snooted up, going down the street in Toronto, they are put in the can. Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, on the other hand, 80,000 orders were issued last year and virtually no one was prosecuted. I will come back to the figures.

I remember my friends across the way being irritated when their task force on health had a civil servant follow the members around for days on end. When I went out to start this task force, that is what the Ministry of Labour did to me. I did not mind. I said to the minister, "1 do not mind, as long as you first do not go back and try to clean up those plants but forget the real problems." That is what the former Minister of Labour, Ramsay, did. When I toured last time, the Ministry of Labour did not deal with the problems of the act. They cleaned up the plants where people came forward and did not touch the act.

When we had been out on the road for only four days, OPSEU, which represents the inspectors, made a presentation to us. What really irritated me is that the inspectors were given a letter from 400 University Avenue telling them not to speak to me under any circumstances. That is what they were told. I have a copy of the letter. That is unconscionable. The minister himself sends someone around from his ministry, and then somebody on his staff sends a letter out to the inspectors, saying, "Don't you dare talk to Martel."

They did talk to me; they did it late at night. That is how I come to know what the inspectors, in that department at least, think of the Ministry of Labour at 400 University Avenue. They call 400 University Avenue the swamp. Everything gets fed in and nothing comes out. It is like Okefenokee. I say to my friend the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) it just sinks in a quagmire or quicksand and stays there. It never comes out; it gets lost. That is the first thing we heard about from the inspectors.

10:10 a.m.

I have been trying to point out that what is going on out there is ridiculous. Companies still have advance notice of when things are going to occur. Both the workers and the inspectors said to us that when an inspection is going to occur, it is strange how many bosses are running around with an armful of masks, hearing plugs and glasses. How does a company know when to put them out on a given day? It is obvious. There has been a tipoff. "Somebody is coming. Clean up the place." It still goes on. My friend Russell Ramsay-Wrye says, "No." However, his inspectors and the workers in at least 200 plants tell me it does.

The new rules say the union has to be notified too. I said to the workers, "Under these new instructions, who has been told?" There has not been one yet. I know the minister has put out the instructions. However, there is a carryover from the past regime. The old regime said, "We will not prosecute." That is still in place in the new ministry.

I learned another interesting thing. One of the inspectors came to see us late at night. He said: "I can recall recently suggesting that this company be prosecuted. The company did not talk to me. They picked up the telephone and phoned 400 University Avenue. Somebody at the top" -- I know who it is, but I will not name him; I will save that for another day -- "picked up the telephone, phoned the district office," where I was speaking to the inspector, "and said, `Look, drop that nonsense about the charges; go out there and mediate this situation.'" That is what is going on.

I do not know another act where we mediate 80,000 violations. It is certainly not the Highway Traffic Act. However, we mediate the Occupational Health and Safety Act. We are chicken in this society. We think workers are expendable and that they can be killed and maimed. Last year our accident rate went up by 40,000. We now have 420,000 or 440,000 compensable accidents a year. I remember last fall, sitting in here when we introduced the stuff on the Highway Traffic Act and getting tougher on violations by drunken drivers. I agreed with it and I believe in it. It was put in effect.

There were 80,000 injuries on the highway last year. With 440,000 accidents in the work place, we want to mediate the act.

I would like to know why there is the double standard. Why can people get slaughtered in the work place, but we are going to get tough about the highways? I do not think I am asking for something unfair in asking that workers be protected. I think they have that right. I said that the wrong way. I think they have to have the right and the authority to protect themselves. Bill 70 does not give them a jot of protection. They are merely consultants in a game of chess. I will come to it in a moment. They have no power and no authority; they cannot even protect themselves.

Let me say what else the inspector said to me. There are cyclical inspections. I tried to get this across the other day, but it is very difficult in question period or in a 30-second statement. Cyclical inspections occur every 12, 18 or 36 months at certain companies, depending on whether they are good, bad or moderate actors. That is gone. They have now put them under a code 99, whatever that means. In plain layman's language, it means those companies that come under code 99 will no longer be inspected.

The 18-month and 36-month inspections have gone, and that is by order. Verbally, the 12-month inspection has gone. Then there is another little part of the regulation that says there are routine inspections. Routine inspections are to make sure that the internal responsibility system works and that the regulations are being followed. If that is what it is, what are the cyclical inspections? Cyclical inspections are the routine inspections, and the routine inspections have been eliminated. The only time there is going to be an inspection is when there is a fatality, a serious injury or a work stoppage.

My friends to my right destroyed the act. In 1981, there were 235 or 245 inspectors, and they allowed the number to drop to 205. The Liberals are going to build it back to within 11 of what it used to be. Here we are, seven years after the act came in, and we have finished up by hiring 11 fewer inspectors than we had in 1981. We are really committed to protecting the workers of Ontario when there are more than 200,000 work places and just 235 or 245 inspectors.

At the same time, members heard me make a comparison between the number of accidents on the highway and the number of industrial accidents and diseases. There were 80,000 accidents or injuries on the highways last year and 440,000 in the work place. We have 15,000 or 20,000 policemen in the province and we have 225 or 235 inspectors in the work place. It does not make much sense, does it?

The government allows mayhem in the work place because workers are expendable. On the highway and in the municipalities, we have 15,000 to 20,000 police to protect the citizens and we have 235 inspectors to protect people in the work place. There is something sick about what we do to the working class.

Let me tell members how the act works. I am going to tell them about the internal responsibility system, and this is the crux. That is not in the act, by the way. The Tories never thought to put it in the act, so it is not in there. It works under what is called the internal responsibility system, except that it is not in there.

The theory is that labour appoints so many workers to the health and safety committee and management appoints so many. Together they go around and tour the plant and decide what has to be changed. That is wonderful. They make a decision as a committee and then it goes to upper management to decide whether it is going to implement the change. If upper management says, "No, we are not going to implement the change," nothing happens. That is the end for the workers.

There is one little

section I will come to later on, but that is where a worker puts his neck and his job on the line and gets fired. The Ministry of Labour has yet to prosecute one person for firing someone under

section 24 of the act. That is the theory of internal responsibility, but it is not in the act, not explained and not written down.

If a problem arises in the plant, it is difficult even to deal with the problem because who is going to inspect? If it is not a serious accident, the union representatives are not called in. If a worker loses half his hand, that is not critical; so the union representatives do not inspect. They are not called in, nor are they allowed. If a worker loses half his foot, that is not critical enough either. Can you imagine a worker losing half a foot, but the worker representatives on the health and safety committee cannot investigate to develop policy that will prevent it from happening again?

If the representatives take a chance and go there, the workers are fired, suspended, demoted or not allowed to work overtime. Every type of intimidation possible goes on in the work place. That is the second problem with the internal responsibility system.

10:20 a.m.

The first problem is that if upper management chooses not to make the change, it is not made and the workers have no power to force the change. The second problem is that if there is a serious accident, and accidents are supposed to be reported, if it is not critical, the representatives are not called in. The definition in the act is "critical." What is critical? Does the worker have to lose a certain amount of blood? I do not know how they measure the quantity of blood the worker has to lose before the representatives are allowed to come to investigate the work.

What else happens on this internal responsibility system? Management decides it is going to have the minutes typed up. Management is constantly changing the discussion of what went on at a meeting and what the minutes are. There are great battles about whether the minutes reflect what was discussed at the health and safety meeting or what management wants in them.

The interesting thing about the inspectors is, as long as an item stays on the monthly report, the Ministry of Labour does not get involved. An item about ventilation can appear for 18 months, 20 months or 24 months. As long as it appears in the minutes of the meeting, even as an unresolved problem, the workers continue to work in conditions that cry out for a new ventilation system. When I was out for five weeks, I said to the workers: "Take the item off. The Ministry of Labour inspectors are using you. Take it off and tell them it is an unresolvable issue and the Ministry of Labour staff is going to have to deal with it. As long as it stays, they are not going to."

What else happens in the internal responsibility system? As I said, some of the workers are to be chosen by management and some by labour. We have a company we recently turned in to the Ministry of Labour. The father owns the company and is head of the occupational health and safety committee for management. The worker representative is his son. I do not know who chose his son, but it is not a violation of the act.

I can tell the Minister of Labour, as I used to tell Russell Ramsay, there are literally thousands of violations that can be put before the Ministry of Labour, but the ministry will not issue an order that leads to a court trial, except where the worker is at fault. The ministry is so fair that it always intrigues me. Somewhere in this mess I have before me is a list. It does not matter. I will tell the members what happens.

If an inspector walks on to a construction site and a worker is not wearing his safety glasses, he is fined on the spot. The amount of the fine is already determined at $58. If he is not wearing his hard hat or his safety boots, he is also fined on the spot. He is given a ticket, which leads to a conviction. Management had 80,000 orders against it last year. In the industrial branch alone, there were 50,000 orders, 10 per cent reissued and 50 fines on convictions. On the other hand, workers are fined right on the spot, and it was the government that started the process.

Mr. Warner: The Tories did it for years.

Mr. Martel: For seven years. There were on-the-spot fines to workers compared with 50,000 orders, 10 per cent of which had to be reissued, which meant a second violation, and 50 convictions; so one tenth of one per cent might be convicted. Now the minister is telling me some company is going to be worried. It is cheaper for companies to ignore the Occupational Health and Safety Act than to enforce it.

Mr. Shymko: And the Liberals are doing nothing about it.

Mr. Martel: The Tories did not do anything for seven years.

Mr. Shymko: The New Democrats are propping them up and they are not doing anything about it.

Mr. Martel: There is going to be a change in the act.

Mr. Warner: The Tories never cared a jot about workers' safety.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: So my friend the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) can get it straight, yesterday the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) did his little rant about occupational health. He used to be in the Ministry of Labour. He was a parliamentary assistant at one time. He was in there and did not do a thing. In his speech in February in committee, and it can be checked in Hansard, he said the Ministry of Labour was being too tough on companies. He cannot have it both ways. That is not three months ago. That is how those people have been committed to health and safety.

We are trying to get the minister to clean out some of the -- I am not sure of the appropriate word -- junk that is down at 400 University Ave.

Mr. Andrewes: Swamp.

Mr. Martel: Swamp.

There is the internal responsibility system. Management, by the construction safety regulations, is supposed to present to the health and safety committee within four days a report of every accident. This does not happen. That is a violation of the act. I ask why, when there is violation after violation, the minister takes the position of "Well, that is fine; you can break the regulations."

If the ministry does not convict them, if it does not charge them, what is the purpose of having regulations? If the regulations say the company has to give to the health and safety committee the accident report, within four days of an accident, why does the ministry not enforce that part of the regulations? I cannot understand it. Maybe I am obtuse.

Mr. Shymko: Fire the officials.

Mr. Martel: Some should go. I am convinced that until we do a housecleaning down there, nothing is going to happen. They have to go.

I said to the representatives of the health and safety committee, "How do you feel trying to protect your fellow workers?" They said, "It is worse than any job we have ever had because of the intimidation." I am going to give a list in a few minutes of how workers are treated and fired and the fact that Ministry of Labour in seven and a half years has never once laid a charge for intimidation and so on against a company, even though it has written examples. Not one.

Let me give members the first example of a violation, which is from Canadian General Electric in Peterborough. If members recall, I said the internal responsibility system indicates there will be equal numbers of representatives from labour and from management on the health and safety committee. That is the intent. It is not written in the act, but it is there.

CGE has six people on its health and safety committee, three from labour and three from management. There are 2,700 employees in that plant, and the committee gets part of a day a month to do an audit. The plant is one city block in size.

The union has said for years: "Look, we do not have enough time to investigate. There just are not enough hours in the short time we have before us." The company resolved its problem. It appointed a bunch of hacks and flacks of its choosing and made some new committees, but not in keeping with the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Not at all. These are people they wine and dine and for whom they buy theatre tickets.

For four and a half years, the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America have been trying to get the Minister of Labour to stop that. For four years -- does the member for High Park-Swansea hear that?

Mr. Shymko: Yes.

Mr. Martel: For four years, they have said: "Look, this is not the intent of the act. You cannot appoint a bunch of hack guys." The company has appointed them. The union appoints its representation and the company appoints its. In this case, the company has appointed between 120 and 150 people to serve on subcommittees. The company appointed them. They run counter totally to the main health and safety committee under the regulations. For four and a half years, the union has been trying to get that stopped because that is not the intent of the act.

They do not give the health and safety committee more than half a day a month to visit a plant that has 2,700 employees. They let them appoint their own committee as management, 120 to 150 people to work on the floor, most of whom are wined and dined, given tickets to the theatre and bought dinner.

10:30 a.m.

I say to the Minister of Labour I received the letters and I remember bringing this stuff into the House question by question. However, four and a half years later, Mr. Melinyshyn is saying, "It does not contravene the act because it is not in the act." We know what the intent of the act was. The Ministry of Labour knows what the intent of the act was, but the intent of this company is to bypass the appropriate health and safety committee. In four and a half years, the union has not got 400 University Ave. to move on it.

It goes on day after day. There is this great internal responsibility system that does not work anywhere. Interestingly, one of the best briefs we had presented to us during the tour was by Inco. People have heard me malign Inco on occasion over the years, but in 1975, Inco, with its union, decided it had to do something about its health and safety program. Injuries were rampant: 13.8 for every 100 employees. They signed an agreement with the union. In fact, in the last contract, they have 13 paid health and safety inspectors from the union who do nothing but go around.

They are now down to 2.8 accidents per 100. It works. They have doubled production per man in that time and reduced their accident rate by 500 per cent. It can be done, except that most of the companies are not interested in doing it.

Mr. Warner: One has to believe it; neither is the government.

Mr. Martel: My friend is right; neither is the government. It does not matter which government.

I do not want to disillusion my friend the member for High Park-Swansea. I want to tell him the figures up to March 31, 1984. His party was still in power then. I have the figures with me.

Mr. Shymko: I was just a back-bencher.

Mr. Martel: It is always easy to say, "I was just a back-bencher," or, "It is just Russell Ramsay-Wrye."

These figures are from my friend in the industrial health and safety branch. In 1983-84, there were 48,000 orders issued, 4,800 reissued and 67 convictions.

Mr. Shymko: Where did you get those figures?

Mr. Martel: I have them. There were 48,881 orders issued and 4,876 repeated, and every order is a violation of the act. There were 88 cases prosecuted and there were 67 convictions.

Mr. Warner: Those are the known violations.

Mr. Martel: Yes. These are only the known violations.

In Ontario, of all the companies with unions, only 63 per cent have health and safety committees. In other registered companies without unions, and that is the vast majority, only 32 per cent have health and safety committees.

The act says the act will be posted and there will be a health and safety committee in every work place with 20 workers or more. Why is there not a conviction every time an inspector walks into a plant where there is not a health and safety committee? Why is there not a conviction every time he walks in and the act is not posted, as it is supposed to be under the act itself, so that the workers can read it in a language with which they are familiar?

I am not talking about that type of order. Where the workers are unorganized, fewer than one third of the plants in Ontario have a health and safety committee seven years after the act came into existence. Does the minister not think something has to be done about that? I say to my friend the member for High Park-Swansea that was 1983-84. That was one year of Toryism. My golly, the Tories were still in power until March 1985. There were 50,643 orders, 5,418 repeats, 91 prosecutions and 50 convictions. Are we not making progress? We are going down.

Mr. Pierce: I can tell by the smile on his face the member is happy.

Mr. Martel: Yes. We are really protecting the working class of the province.

Mr. Shymko: It will keep going down as long as the Liberals are in.

Mr. Martel: We had 50 with the Tories. We could not get much lower.

Mr. Shymko: We will see the figures next year.

Mr. Martel: I ask my friend how it would be possible --

Mr. Shymko: Does the member think there will be a change?

Mr. Martel: I have given the member the figures for the last two years the Tories were in power. In the industrial sector, they got 67 convictions in 1983-84, and that was reduced to 50 convictions in 1984-85, which is one tenth of one per cent.

Mr. Pierce: The member just told us things were getting better.

Mr. Shymko: That is right.

Mr. Martel: I did not say that. I said we ought to houseclean down there. That is why I called it the swamp, as the inspectors did. Imagine one tenth of one per cent who might be convicted for violating

an act.

Mr. Shymko: Unacceptable.

Mr. Martel: I heard the crap my friend threw at me yesterday. The Minister of Labour said it was a complex issue. If the government is not going to lay charges in the case of fatalities, what is it going to lay charges for? That is so serious that someone loses his life. That is in the industrial sector. Things are the same if one wants to check with the mining sector. It is not very good too. The number of orders issued in 1983-84 was 5,000. Let me see if I can find the number of convictions. I cannot find them. Maybe they do not even issue them.

We hear a lot of stuff about capital punishment in the event that policemen get killed. Do members know how many miners in Ontario were killed in 1984-85? There were 15 miners killed. That is a much higher figure than that for policemen right across Canada. I happen to represent a mining community, and there were four killed in one shot last year or the year before. I do not hear anybody saying, "Let us get serious."

There was a conviction in the death of a miner in Windsor recently. Do you know what the fine was, Mr. Speaker? It was $5,000. Life is pretty cheap if one is a miner. Life is pretty cheap if one is a working person in this province. Do members know what happened in that instance? Somebody changed the logbook. Somebody entered in the log that there was a piece of loose that would require a piece of equipment to be used to remove it, and somebody changed the logbook.

The miner went in without the equipment, and the loose fell on him. He was using a bar to try to scale, as my friend the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce) will know. It fell on him and crushed him. For changing a logbook in a case which led to a fatality, the fine was $5,000. Life is cheap. There were 15 miners killed last year and nine the year before. That is far greater than any number of policemen ever killed.

Mr. Warner: Nobody goes to jail.

Mr. Martel: People do not go to jail. They do not even pay fines or go to court.

A young miner in Elliot Lake, about whom I have been raising Cain, four times in August warned that the gate underground did not work properly. He was killed by that gate in September. He was 33 years old. It took from September of last year till yesterday to find out they might prosecute.

10:40 a.m.

I wonder where governments have been in protecting working people from what are more than accidents, from what are crimes against humanity. Workers get injured in such ways, and no one gets anything back for what has been done to working people.

I want to talk not just in terms of accidents, but also in terms of industrial diseases. In Elliot Lake, 275 underground miners have now died of cancer. Half of the widows get pensions and the other half get nothing. I have never been able to figure out the difference.

I remember when this bill came into existence as a result of the action of the United Steelworkers in Elliot Lake. My friend Stephen Lewis, my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), Linda Jolley and I spent all kinds of time in Elliot Lake. I remember going after the government then. The then Minister of Natural Resources, who now sits on the front benches of what used to be a government, used to say to me: "You exaggerate, my friend. You take it out of context, my friend."

Now 275 underground miners are dead. Miners now are dying of cancer at Elliot Lake at a rate of three a month. We have known the effects of radon daughters since 1919. I say to my friend the member for High Park-Swansea that the Department of Mines in 1961 said in its own annual report that we had to be aware of the hazards that would occur to miners working in uranium. It took a wildcat strike in 1974 to bring about this bill. We have stood still ever since the bill came about because we do not have the guts to enforce the act.

I have been talking on this topic for many years. In fact, the first question I raised at Queen's Park was on behalf of the people working in the coal plant in Sudbury. I was told by the then Minister of Mines, the white knight, Lawrence of Ontario, Allan himself, about trying to get inspections without advance notice. It is still rampant today. All working people ask is that when there is an inspection, it will be the conditions under which they work that are observed, and that is not happening.

Let me go on with this little tour I did. The workers now realize there are two ways the act can work. The first way is the internal responsibility system, and Inco and most big companies will say that unless upper management wants it to work it cannot work. It is not the health and safety committee that makes the determination; it only points out the problems. It is upper management that decides to change it. If it says no, then nothing can be done.

The second way is called enforcement. I put forward the figures for two years in one sector alone, and there is no enforcement. Actually, there is a third way. It is

section 23 of the act on the right to refuse to work.

Section 24, which follows it, says that if you refuse to work and a company threatens, harasses, attempts to intimidate you and so on, that is a violation of the act. There is yet to be a charge in Ontario for a company that does this.

We picked up a case, and I will document it more fully later on, of a young woman who refused to work in a store where for five days the heat was 52 degrees. The management fired her. It put right on the slip, "Dismissed because she refused to work." It is pretty clear that if the Ministry of Labour wanted to lay a charge, it would not have to look very far to find out there was intimidation or reprisal. The company wrote it out for the ministry, which will not lay a charge. The ministry will not do a thing. This is under the tenure of the current Minister of Labour; this is not even under the Tories.

Mr. Mancini: Oh, come on, Elie, you know it is not that bad.

Mr. Martel: I say to the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) that I am sorry, but that is the reality. These guys are no better; they are worse. They are the ones who created the monster.

The Ministry of Labour takes the position that a worker can go to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and have a hearing to go to arbitration. That is not quite true. If one does not have a union, one cannot have arbitration; so that eliminates two thirds of the work force in Ontario that cannot go to arbitration. That is compliments of the Tories. The Liberals have not changed it yet, but the change is coming in the act. I am hopeful it will change.

They can go to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. A friend of mine handled this case for the young woman for nothing. He got her a settlement. However, she does not have a job, the company was not fined and was not prosecuted. Does anybody worry about the Ministry of Labour? It is a joke.

Mr. Warner: They do not have to take her back.

Mr. Martel: The company does not take her back. She is out. It is in writing.

This is a case I raised earlier this spring. I do not want to give any of my new cases away. I will tell members how stupid this ministry really is. Five years ago orders were issued to the Robert Hunt Corp. , which makes windows and doors in London, that it had to change from using fork lifts that exhaust carbon monoxide to electrical ones, so people would not get sick. Five years later that has not changed.

Mr. Shymko: Is that in the riding of the Premier (Mr. Peterson)?

Mr. Martel: No, I do not think so. I think it used to be in Gordon Walker's, but it does not matter. The point is, nothing has happened.

Let me tell this true story. One worker, Frank Stilson, has taken on this company by himself. He has been suspended twice -- once for five days and once for three days. He has been taken out of the plant and sent to another plant. He has been intimidated. He gets no more overtime. If that is not bad enough, five years later the company has the same equipment exhausting carbon monoxide. The company came in recently, in March, and painted the floor.

It is interesting that the Ministry of Labour approved plans for a warehouse for this building, which is supposed to be a factory. A warehouse does not have exhaust systems in it and it does not have ventilation. The company gave plans for a warehouse, which turns out to be a factory, and the ministry does not do a thing. It does not have proper ventilation; so it paints the floor. It has to do some stuff on the floor; so a construction company comes in, does it and provides its workers with masks, breathing apparatus and the whole business. Their workers get up, leave, go home and are all healthy and safe.

The next day, in come the workers for Robert Hunt. The first day 39 were taken to hospital; so they call in the Ministry of Labour. It sends in some of its flunkeys from London.

Mr. Mancini: Is that what you call civil servants?

Mr. Martel: That is what I call these guys. I will call them worse before I am done, my friends. Flunkeys.

Mr. Shymko: They are all flunkeys from London. That is right.

Mr. Warner: They are useless, Remo.

Mr. Martel: They send in this flunkey -- an inspector. I will tell his name -- Sullivan -- so the member will know whom I mean. Listen to the rest.

Mr. Mancini: I have listened to everything you have said.

10:50 a.m.

Mr. Martel: This guy sniffed around and said: "Oh, it is safe. The workers can go back in now." In they go, and what happens next? They take 14 more to the hospital. The guy should be fired for sending in workers without doing any testing. That man should be gone, fired, dismissed, got rid of.

This happened in March. Let me add to it; it gets better. A couple of days later, six more go to the hospital because of monoxide fumes from the hoist, which the company had been ordered five years ago to get rid of. The Ministry of Labour goes in and issues 23 more orders. For five years the ministry has been issuing orders, and they do nothing. Frank Stilson used his right under the act to refuse because he had enough courage. He is a young man.

I will tell my friend the member for Essex South another interesting story. I met with the Minister of Labour one night right here privately in my office. There was a guy working for Imperial Oil.

An hon. member: Russell Ramsay?

Mr. Martel: Russell Ramsay-Wrye. I met with him. There was a young worker for Imperial Oil who had a couple of citations for doing a good job in occupational health. This was nonunionized labour. He knew he was on his way out because he had found some asbestos in a laboratory. He kept pestering the company about the asbestos, which was in chunks all over the lab at Imperial Oil in Sarnia.

I said to the minister, "My friend, I would like you to send an inspector in there unannounced." The company was on a two-year cyclical inspection. By the way, cyclical inspections are gone now; they do not exist. I said, "Why do you not go in, have the guy check around and see whether this man is right? If he is, I think the company is going to fire him."

Down goes the inspector. He talks to management for an hour. He then gets on the intercom and calls my friend to his office. The last thing I said to the minister was, "You cannot let them know you are going in there to do an inspection to see whether this guy is right." They take the guy around, they write out a bunch of orders about asbestos and the kid is fired. What a ministry. What a bunch of hooligans we have in that ministry.

Mr. Shymko: Does the Minister of Labour not consult the member at any time?

Mr. Martel: No, and neither did Russell Ramsay or Bob Elgie -- none of them.

We are going to change the act. I have gone on long enough. I am just starting on this. Let me give members some quick examples of what is going on. It does not matter where. This act is being violated and it is totally useless. I am giving the minister notice of what we intend to bring up.

Regarding nursing homes, the former government pulled down all of those institutions where people who had mental illnesses were. We do not have any homes in the province for them. We do not have aftercare. Do members know where these people are? In nursing homes. Do members know what they are doing? Pounding the living daylights out of the female staff in nursing homes. It is a fact. I have the statistics on the assaults on staff. It is rampant.

By the way, because of cutbacks by government in hospitals and so on, nurses now equal miners for back injuries. I tell the member for High Park-Swansea that did not happen only yesterday. That took a long time and a lot of cutting back. These women weigh 115 pounds. They try to lift somebody weighing 200 pounds by themselves and suffer back injuries equivalent to those of miners. Assaults are rampant.

I will tell an interesting little story about hospitals. There is a hospital in Ottawa, but I will not name it yet; I will later on. When doctors operate on someone, there are these bad parts that have to be taken to an incinerator. They used to take them away to the Department of National Defence. Is that not what they said? Does the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) know? They took it to the National Defence incinerator. When they came back they had the back of the Volkswagen full of pizza. Happy days are here again.

Mr. Warner: Oh, Jesus.

Mr. Martel: Oh, yes, it was full of pizza.

Mr. Shymko: Is the member serious?

Mr. Martel: Yes, I am dead serious.

Ms. Gigantes: It is true. I was with it.

Mr. Martel: My colleague was with it. They were bringing the pizza in the back where they had just carried all the infected organs to the incinerator. What does one say?

I got the Minister of Labour to send five of his people into a hospital in September about asbestos. They are going to reconstruct it. Five people from Toronto went to Ottawa. They got in on the inspection and they were going to do all these wonderful things. Four weeks ago the hospital decided that before it does the reconstruction, it is going to change its phone network from Ma Bell --

Ms. Gigantes: To Mitel at the end of February.

Mr. Martel: -- to Mitel at the end of February. Patients were in their beds. Visitors were there. People from Mitel were drilling holes through the walls. The asbestos fell into rooms, around the patients. They sent for the Ministry of Labour inspector. He came in and said, "With all the construction, I cannot write an order." For three days this went on with the patients right in their beds, the visitors and staff there and these clowns drilling holes with asbestos floating around and being ingested or inhaled by patients.

Ms. Gigantes: They brought in a vacuum cleaner, remember?

Mr. Martel: Yes. The Ministry of Labour inspector said: "I cannot write an order. This new regulation on asbestos does not become effective until the middle of March." All he had to do was take clause 14(2)(

d) of the act to take any precaution necessary if he thought there was a problem. It did not have to pertain to the asbestos regulation. He could have protected people.

It was interesting. The member for Ottawa Centre and I were there. We were at the Public Service Alliance of Canada building. I will tell the members how crazy the ministry is. This humungous crane came in right next to the building. It started lifting all kinds of things right over the entrance with no protective barriers, nothing. One of the workers picked up the phone, phoned the Ministry of Labour and said, "You know, Martel is in that building right now."

Mr. Warner: That is probably why they went in.

Mr. Martel: Yes. The member should have seen the fur fly. They were down there in 10 minutes. An order was issued and the job was stopped. By mid-afternoon all the barriers were up. I was there. That goes on across this province constantly everywhere. People walk in and out of buildings and bloody cranes are operating overhead with no protective barriers. The act is totally useless.

I came away from the hearings after five weeks, exhausted and literally emotionally drained because the act, the way it is written today, is a pretty good act. We could amend it, put in the internal responsibility system and give the workers power to protect themselves.

Mr. Shymko: That is the constitution; it is all good on paper.

Mr. Martel: It has been so totally wasted for the past seven years that management knows it does not even have to look at the act. I can go on and I will. Last year civil servants in the Ministry of Correctional Services had 1,600 accidents. There is no protection in offices, mines, libraries, universities or schools.

Does the member for Essex South know what they did in Windsor in a school? Formaldehyde is carcinogenic, and when the students are in biology, playing around with the rats and the frogs and so on, they are supposed to be given protective gloves that cost 19 cents a pair. They had the kids in a high school cutting these frogs with formaldehyde without protective equipment. It is everywhere.

11 a.m.

For years I have been trying to get a minister to give people the power to protect themselves. We have that on one side; on the other side, we have the Industrial Accident Prevention Association.

I know I am running late, but I want to finish up on this. What a magnificent group is the Industrial Accident Prevention Association of Ontario. It had a three-day convention in Toronto a couple of weeks ago that cost $365,000. That is not bad. There were 8,000 people there.

We have all heard it. Every last Tory and Liberal has heard industry complaining before the Workers' Compensation Board about the assessment rates and the unfunded liability of $5.6 billion. Every company in Ontario belongs to one of the groups in the Industrial Accident Prevention Association. They received $31.5 million last year from the Workers' Compensation Board to teach health and safety in the work place in the province. That was for nine associations, and every operating company belongs to one of the nine.

Who is fighting the act? Who is preventing it from being useful? Who intimidates, fires and dismisses? Who does not bring in adequate testing of toxic substances? Who covers up constantly? Companies. Yet they got $31.5 million.

It is interesting that there has never been an audit of an accident prevention association. They get carte blanche from the Workers' Compensation Board. They argue it is their money. However, Weiler and other noted people say it is public money. The associations do not do a thing. They are totally useless.

It is the same companies that want it both ways. They want the assessment from the Workers' Compensation Board cut and, on the other hand, they are the ones that are violating Bill 7.

Ms. Gigantes: They have done some nice ads.

Mr. Martel: Yes, they have done some ads, pardon me. They have done some beautiful ads. There is that dumb worker. Have members ever seen an ad put on by the Construction Safety Association of Ontario? It is always the stupid worker out there; he does stupid things and gets hurt. It is never that management sends him into it.

My friends and I were talking about the minister from northern Ontario. We heard some wonderful things about some of the pulp and paper plants in Hearst and Kapuskasing. One plant spends $15 a year for health and safety equipment. A worker gets one set of ear plugs. If he loses them, he has lost them for life. By the way, the pulp and paper industry has one of the highest incidence of noise levels.

The forest industry has the highest accident rate -- almost all the people in it -- and it fights health and safety like mad. Some of the government's friends in Timmins, some of those great little companies, spend $15 a year --

Mr. Shymko: Do they get charged for not wearing those hearing aids?

Mr. Martel: Yes, the workers get charged. If they get caught by the Ministry of Labour without hearing plugs, they get charged on the spot.

Mr. Shymko: What is the charge, $15?

Mr. Martel: It is $58, not $15.

Industry cannot have it both ways. It cannot be opposed to health and safety and be running to government saying: "You have to cut the assessment at the Workers' Compensation Board. We are going out of business. It is too costly." If industry wants to change it, there is one way. If it wants to reduce the assessment, it can improve its health and safety record. That is the only way. Yet these companies, which are represented by safety associations that get the $31.5 million, fight it more than anyone else I know. They do not want health and safety.

Mr. Shymko: They do it with public funds.

Mr. Martel: Yes.

What does labour get? Labour got $420,000. This year it is getting $1.7 million. Labour represents 4.5 million workers. The accident prevention associations are getting $31.5 million.

Not only must we provide the money for labour to teach its members how to protect themselves, but also we have to establish worker-controlled clinics so we can hire doctors and hygienists to do the investigation to determine whether workers become sick from the work place to which they are exposed.

Mr. Shymko: Such as the one in Hamilton.

Mr. Martel: The ones that do not get any government funding, such as the one in Windsor, the one in London or the lakeshore area multiservices project. None of them gets a cent, but we give $31.5 million to industry. They hire all the doctors and lawyers possible to prove one does not get cancer from working with uranium.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Who pays that?

Mr. Martel: That is public money. I know who puts the money into the Workers' Compensation Board, but I also know Weiler and two royal commissions said it is public money once it is put into the board. Why do we not share it? Why do we not give $31 million to the Ontario Federation of Labour to establish worker clinics around this province, with doctors and hygienists?

Mr. Shymko: Even $15 million.

Mr. Martel: Why do we not split the $31 million in half and give half to industry and half to labour? I would go for that. We can hire people to balance it out.

Mr. Shymko: Elie, it takes a change in government.

Mr. Martel: We have one. I hope it will.

I want to quit on this last point about clinics. The thing I saw the most when I was out there was the concern people had in working with substances they did not know they were working with, such as carcinogenic substances. When we were in St. Catharines, we visited one company that provided data sheets. Interestingly enough, it had just changed them when I got there. The original data sheets gave the formula, the chemical composition, the hazardous effects that it causes tumours in rats -- and the protection. The company brought in a new data sheet with the warning about cancer in rats removed. It was a good data sheet, was it not?

Talking about the Ministry of Labour, I have one case right now from McDonnell Douglas regarding a substance with a threshold limit value of 350 parts per million. When the workers refused to work there, the substance was tested and it was 6,072 parts per million. I got the answer on my desk just yesterday. The company provided masks that were good for TLVs of 500 parts per million. Yet the limits reached were 6,072 parts per million.

When the workers refused to work there, it was not handled in the proper way. The minister admits that. There is a violation for inappropriate handling of a work refusal. The company was providing masks that were not adequate to protect against levels of 13, 14 and 20 times higher. They were adequate for levels of 350 parts per million, but the levels reached 6,072 parts per million. Do members know how many charges were laid? Not one. In fact, it was a doctor from the Ministry of Labour who said it was safe to go back in there.

Workers are afraid of the things that cause cancer, and there are 300 carcinogens. Company after company says it cannot provide the data sheets.

Mr. Shymko: Goodyear is another one, the rubber industry.

Mr. Martel: Yes, Goodyear. We are going to bring them all out as we go along.

The information is there. If workers cannot get it through the company they work for, there should be a place where they can get it. As I said, if they had independently funded clinics that could hire hygienists, adequate staff and specialists to be advocates for their health, we would be doing something positive in Ontario.

11:10 a.m.

I have been in this business a long time -- 19 years -- and I get frustrated. Although one talks to ministers and governments, it seems they are more interested in protecting industry than in protecting the health and safety of working people. Some day I hope we will have a government that will have enough courage to do only three things. One is to establish health and safety committees made up of labour and management that will run a health and safety plan and will say: "It does not matter who is in power.

It does not matter who the civil servants are, we are going to run it." Second, I hope we will have a government that has enough courage to say, "We are going to give power to the health and safety committee in the work place."

I know it is radical to give power to workers and to say, "You have to make the change or the place does not operate." Industry will go mad. When the funding does not flow in, people will say we cannot do that for all kinds of crazy reasons.

We heard them all at the beginning of the debate on Bill 70. Workers have never abused it. They have the right and the responsibility to protect their health and safety because they have families at home. Surely to God there is a government somewhere that has the courage to give working people the power and the funds necessary to hire the people to protect themselves from industrial disease and trauma. Before I leave this zoo, I hope I see the day when we will give working people that power.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions and comments?

Mr. Mancini: I enjoyed the member's comments, as I always do. When I came in this morning, I was not too sure that the first thing I wanted to hear was the voice of the member for Sudbury East, but after a while things got in their normal groove and it was quite pleasant. Because of his long years of experience in the House, some 19 years, and because of the interest he has shown in mine workers and others, no one has ever denied that he is quite knowledgeable. Many of the incidental points he has brought forward here today and in the past to the members of the Legislature are correct and he has pointed out some flaws in the system.

With the new government and the new Minister of Labour, we have turned over a page in matters that involve labour and workers, particularly in the area of health and safety. As he demonstrated with the situation in Windsor, with the Valenite-Modco situation, the new minister has shown some courage that was not demonstrated in the past. He has stated quite clearly that he wants to be more aggressive in the area of safety in the work place. Time will prove that my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich will be an effective Minister of Labour and will protect workers from unsafe situations.

I know even the Conservative Party members would not want to see any of their friends, relatives or people in their constituencies put in a situation where they might have to be in a work place that is unsafe. They never had the courage to do anything about it. The Minister of Labour does have that courage.

The member will probably not be running for re-election after this term. I hope we can find a suitable place for him where we can use his skills, perhaps in areas like health and safety.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other questions or comments? Does the member for Sudbury East wish to reply?

Mr. Martel: I will just say two things. If the minister was going to something at Valenite-Modco, he would have laid charges. He talked tough and did nothing. It was all in place, and that is what worries me.

Second, he has a bunch of people around him who apply the act. Over the years, they have taken the position that one does not prosecute, one mediates. I do not know another piece of legislation where one mediates. That is why I say he has to do a housecleaning job because that group has what one might call a mindset on mediating. As I toured, I talked to inspectors privately who told me that nothing has changed.

Mr. D. W. Smith: It is a pleasure for me to rise to take

part in this throne speech debate in the second session of the 33rd Parliament. I want to state how it will affect the people of Ontario and, in many ways, the constituents of Lambton county.

I have enjoyed listening to the many speakers who have taken

part in this debate, especially my colleague the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor), who so colourfully and graphically described his riding of Prince Edward-Lennox that I am sure he will have tourists travelling there all summer. He did an excellent job. However, now that we have the St. Clair River cleaned up, I am sure everyone will want to come to Lambton and enjoy the beautiful St. Clair River and Lake Huron as well.

This throne speech is endeavouring to make the people of Ontario aware that we are in an era of transition and that there will be changes in the way issues are dealt with to better serve the many sectors of society.

When deregulation was applied to some of our industries, this told us that the rules were changing from those we had been accustomed to and that the people affected in Ontario should prepare for some innovative ideas. We are a large province in area in a large country with a relatively small population, and we cannot always accomplish our objectives as efficiently as some other countries can. As we read in the market reports in the financial pages, programs that used to work in the marketplace are no longer responding as they did in the past.

It is quite possible that deregulation is happening too quickly for the general economy to react and respond to it. We have to realize that new approaches will have to be taken for us to remain competitive with other importing countries that are flooding our markets with products made with new technology.

I want to take members back in history 50 years. It seems rather ironic that we are having to address some of the same issues today as members of the Legislature were addressing then. For instance, they were hoping the federal government would be able to provide unemployment insurance on a national scale to help the unemployed of that era. Today we are hearing from time to time of workers being laid off from a number of our plants in the Chemical Valley as well as elsewhere in the province. I am sure our government will be addressing this issue in the future.

Another interesting comment made in the throne speech of 1938 was on the capital expenditures for Ontario Hydro in 1937. They were $8,245,000 then, and now Ontario Hydro spends 40 per cent of that figure every day on the Darlington project.

Another issue under discussion at that time was the dollars being spent for health purposes. They had to ensure then, as we have to ensure today, that health care is affordable to all and accessible to all.

I bring these historical facts to the attention of this House and of the people of Ontario to show that the more things change, the more they remain the same.

I was pleased to see health care mentioned to a great degree in the throne speech. The government wants to see this province maintain a health care system that is the envy of the world, but it also recognizes that the system must be revamped and changed to meet the changes of an ageing population and the need for the independence of our senior citizens, wherever and whenever possible.

I take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and his ministry for the assistance and support they have seen fit to provide in the hospitals and health care facilities in the riding of Lambton.

I also want to mention how important the tourist trade is to Ontario. I am pleased to see it addressed in the throne speech. We as the government of this province must endeavour to create programs, in conjunction with private enterprise, to entice American travellers to visit and enjoy our cities and countryside. We have come to grips with the environment and we have made people more aware of the need to clean up. It is with pleasure that we can invite everyone to the beautiful blue St. Clair River, Lake Huron and the many other tourist attractions within Lambton.

11:20 a.m.

I want to talk for a short while on the agricultural problems in Lambton county and in the whole of Ontario. I am pleased that agriculture and small business were brought into the throne speech in a positive way. The agricultural community is going through a tremendous period of adjustment, and I believe it reached this point for a number of reasons. We have come through the inflationary 1970s and are now in the deflationary 1980s.

In one way of adjustment for some, we can talk about small milk plants and cheese factories that were purchased by large companies and then closed down. This had a very negative effect on our small towns and businesses within the small communities. The farming community has gone through this transition period of extreme increases in import costs which are based on the Canadian economy. Now they are left with those high costs but are forced to sell on a world market.

There are no products grown, such as grains and vegetables, or stock raised that could not be produced more cheaply in another country. In order to maintain a stable economy within the province and the country, however, we must have a strong, viable agricultural community or we shall soon become slaves of some other country or regime that will provide us with food at whatever cost it decides we should pay. I believe this government will be responding to these concerns in the future.

To show how important agriculture is to everyone, I was told by a constituent that a survey was done in the town in which he lives showing that residents of the town itself spent only 18 cents of their wage dollars within the town. Those residing in the outlying community spent 35 to 40 cents of their wage dollars within the town. It is very important that the family farm and the agricultural community are helped through this difficult period in order to help improve all sectors of society.

Over the years, there have been many professional people who have worked with the agricultural programs and have understood the theories of farming very well. I believe, however, that the practical aspect of farming can be so different that this knowledge cannot be gained without that first-hand experience. We have to keep all people's opinions in perspective at all times.

I remember a number of years ago we were advised to specialize in our farming operations to enable us to become more efficient with our products. Specializing made the farm operation much more vulnerable to the cycles of the marketplace, however. At the same time, large companies were diversifying or generalizing and were much less vulnerable to the changes in the market.

It may sound as though I am opposed to large companies, which I am not, but they appear to have been able to handle their position very well over a great many years and decades. They seem to able to hire the smartest lawyers, accountants and executive officers, and we cover all their costs of production through their products, which are paid for by the consumers in the end. I believe agriculture must be given all its costs of production as well.

This government recognizes that there have to be changes made quickly. As I read through the throne speech, I could see the message was there. I hope the budget can address some of our problems more specifically.

I have heard the comment so many times from people who have never actually farmed and do not understand basic economics that farmers are just complaining again. I want to tell those people that if the agricultural community cannot buy a new tractor or truck or fertilizer, then the factory worker who helps to produce those items will not have a job or a very comfortable, secure living either. The farmer has to get all his costs of production, plus a profit, equal to the wage of the industrial and service sector workers, or our community will not thrive and possibly will not even survive as we understand it today.

I want to pass along a comment made to me by a person who worked in the Chemical Valley for some 37 years. During that time, he received a wage increase every year, and sometimes twice per year, and retired with a good pension. If the agricultural community had received the same treatment, we would not be faced with the social problems we have before us today. Each sector of society would be in balance one with the other. I mention this because in Lambton a great number of farmers have to work in these plants in the Chemical Valley to obtain enough income to keep going.

If agriculture were given its cost of production, more jobs would be available for the people who live in the towns and cities.

To give another aspect or view of the farm problem, I want to tell this House that three pieces of equipment in 1974 that listed for $21,500 would list at four to five times that price today, while the prices of our commodities are either the same as they were in 1974 or possibly a little less for some farm products.

A great deal of new wealth is created in agriculture to make our capitalistic system work efficiently. During the past couple of years, I have been able to speak with members of the banking community, and they have implied that it is possibly easier dealing with a chief executive officer of a large company than with a number of small businessmen or businesswomen and family farmers. However, dealing with a large company such as Dome Petroleum has not been too profitable to the banks or the taxpayers of this country and province.

It alarms me a bit when a company owing money to banks and possibly the government, which is the people, says it is not going to pay the principal or the interest on its debt for 14 months. If this is possible with one large company, the same conditions should apply to other sectors of society.

We have to start listening to the grass-roots people from all walks of life in this province. I am not sure whose voices inspired the previous administration. This throne speech has given us general guidelines for the next 14 years, taking us into the 21st century. I am pleased to help in some small way as part of this government party.

I want to close with a quote from William Bryan, in which he said in 1896, "Burn down your cities and leave our farms and your cities will spring up again as if by magic, but destroy our farms and the grass will grow on the streets of every city in the country."

Mr. Baetz: Along with thousands of other Ontarians, I was looking forward to the throne speech with great anticipation. I thought that surely we had a right to expect, after 42 years in preparation, a visionary and cohesive master plan, a carefully thought out blueprint that would guide the people of this province out of the 20th century and into the 21st.

Instead, we have witnessed an exercise in blowing bubbles in the air. The speech, like bubble-blowing, was not a repugnant exercise; indeed, it was rather pretty. It was full of very colourful words and phrases giving it all the colours and hues of a verbal rainbow. The problem is that as one tries to grab on to and examine the contents of these bravely and vaguely stated intents, they, like the bubbles, burst and vanish into thin air. Very simply, there is no substance in the speech to back up the claim that this is an "agenda for the next decade" offering "a framework for long-term achievement rather than a list of short-term promises."

11:30 a.m.

It would have been better to have given us a short list of specific projects and promises rather than this exercise in vague abstractions. It is unfortunate that the speech was so void of vision, because this government inherited a rich legacy from the previous administration. The solid base to launch the province to even greater social and economic heights is here to build on. The economy is strong. Our labour force is growing rapidly, as the speech itself has noted. Some 179,000 new jobs have been created in the last 12 months. Housing starts in the province rose to an annual rate of 78,000 in the fourth quarter of 1985, the highest rate in seven years.

The speech notes that the Ontario system of health care and social services ranks with the best in the world. I agree. What an excellent inheritance and basis on which to improve.

The economic activity has driven the unemployment rate down to 6.8 per cent, the lowest in Canada. All these activities were really generated and initiated before the present administration assumed power. It is therefore particularly unfortunate that the government, if one is to assess it by this throne speech, simply does not have the necessary vision to capitalize fully on the good fortune it has inherited.

I will confine my comments to the social policy field, where it is particularly and painfully evident that this government lacks the vision to assist to the fullest potential the people of Ontario to improve both their quality of life and their quantity of life.

If the throne speech generally must be severely criticized for being simply a hotchpotch and a mishmash of old programs and ideas, this is nowhere more evident than in the whole field of social policy. Here even more than elsewhere one cannot help but get the impression that the authors are some neophytes in this field who have suddenly discovered ideas, concepts, plans and programs that had been evident for decades.

For example, we need not be reminded that we are now entering and must be prepared for the post-industrial society. That is an observation and a realization that has been around for at least 20 years. Nor do we need to be told that we are in a period of transition, as we were told repeatedly throughout the speech. Surely that too is something as self-evident as to note that the future is imminent.

There is above all a very disconcerting overall impression that social policy is very much an adjunct to economic policy as far as this government is concerned. Social policies, social programs and social development all appear on the cost side, the expenditure side of the provincial balance sheet. Economic development, on the other hand, is the revenue-producing side. Therefore, it is argued that only to the extent that the economy produces wealth can the social programs, health, education and so on be financed.

This kind of truncated, bifurcated, double-vision approach to our society does not bode well for a government that wants to build a world-class society, to use the author's favourite phrase. This kind of thinking completely overlooks the fact that provincial expenditures in education, health and some of the other social programs are also important investments in our economy. The development of our human resources is every bit as important and, indeed, will be more important to our economy in future than the development of even our commodity resources.

This throne speech makes it abundantly clear that this kind of progressive, comprehensive view of society is simply not there. The approach to health care in the throne speech clearly manifests the philosophy of health care being a cost item rather than an investment. The speech admits that Ontario's system of health care and social services ranks with the best in the world. It has not said, of course, that it is thanks to the previous administration.

It thus goes on to announce a major study and review of health care, but prefaces it all with a stern warning about the escalating costs of the past decade of the system. There is not a word estimating the benefits to the economy of our time in having a healthy population.

This frothy, bubbly approach to social policy is all too evident in the proposed plan in education, with its stress on scientific disciplines. While there is no doubt that we are moving into an ever more scientific and technological society, surely the key to human happiness -- and that is, after all, the ultimate goal of all of this -- does not lie only in the development of the scientific mind.

Indeed, an argument can be made that in this ever more technological society, if people are to retain their humanity, our educational system for those at a very young age should be evoking in the children intellectual interests that go far beyond running a computer. There is something very unsettling about a future, as expressed in the speech from the throne, that intends to further accentuate the scientific side of our educational curriculum in the elementary and secondary school systems.

Perhaps the most eloquent appeal for greater concentration on the humanities is reflected in the writing of the speech from the throne itself. The wordsmiths who wrote the speech and their political bosses who approved it may be skilful in the use of the computer, but they lack the necessary perception and understanding of our society. They should know better than anyone else the limitations of the adage re the computer: garbage in, garbage out.

The speech speaks in a somewhat prophetic, visionary manner about the creation of geriatric assessment units in selected community hospitals. It may come as something of a surprise to the authors to know that after a great deal of study and planning under the distinguished leadership of a visiting British geriatric specialist, a geriatric assessment unit was established in Ottawa one year ago, with financing made available by the provincial government of the day. This centre has been in operation for one year, based at the Ottawa Civic Hospital, and has been proven to be well planned and conceptually sound.

The one statement that is missing is about a mobile team that would do assessment of geriatric patients in their own homes. Unfortunately, this program has now been seriously thwarted and its outcome frustrated by the present provincial government because of inadequate funding. The care facilities that have been identified by an assessment team as the most appropriate for the patients are simply not there. One result is that far too many patients are still occupying acute beds in hospitals, even though an assessment of their needs indicates they should be in chronic care beds or in their own homes with proper home care.

In other words, because of the lack of adequate provincial funding, we have in Ottawa today the bitter irony of a growing backlog of geriatric patients, all of them assessed but with nowhere to go. Neither these geriatric patients nor those organizing and running the program require the further insights and rhetoric of yet another white paper on adequate geriatric care. What they require is an adequate degree of funding to implement the appropriate care that careful assessment indicates should be given.

The throne speech has a vague promise to establish a multidisciplinary department of geriatrics at one of Ontario's universities. That promise has puzzled many geriatric experts. The concentration of limited resources in one such super geriatric department at one university could very well be a misdirected waste. A far bigger bang for the buck could be obtained by enriching the teaching of geriatrics at all of the five Ontario medical schools.

Currently, geriatrics gets about only one per cent of the teaching curriculum. Family practitioners, especially, should receive extra training for their growing number of geriatric patients. The appeal for the establishment of "a world-class" -- to use the pet phrase of the author -- department of geriatrics at one university may be great for a government that is interested in show, but it is an idea that should be dismissed quickly if it results in taking limited funds from increased funding for geriatric teaching for family physicians.

11:40 a.m.

The speech promises to launch a thorough review of Ontario's social assistance system to determine ways more effectively to combat poverty. One cannot help but become sceptical, even cynical, at the proposal for such a major review. Poverty is a subject that has been virtually studied to death in Canada over the last two decades, beginning in 1971 with the comprehensive report, Poverty in Canada: Report of the Special Senate Committee on Poverty, which was headed by Senator Croll. Most recently, the National Council of Welfare issued its annual report entitled Poverty Profile, 1985.

Virtually every community social planning council in Ontario, including that in Ottawa-Carleton, has produced reports on poverty.

The Social Planning Council of Metro Toronto has produced a number of valuable reports on the welfare system and its impact on poverty from coast to coast. The Canadian Council on Social Development has produced many reports over the years. One of the most recent ones was entitled Not Enough: The Meaning and Measurement of Poverty in Canada. The National Anti-Poverty Organization has produced a number of useful studies on various aspects of poverty. One could go on and on.

We are not lacking insights into and knowledge of the causes and effects of poverty in this province and in this country. What we are lacking is enough public will and political will in its mitigation. I am therefore very sceptical about the value of yet another major review. It provides a very cautious minister a great excuse not to take the steps that must be taken.

The comments of the poor New Brunswick potato farmer, in reply to a proposal that he should attend a course in agriculture during the winter months, are relevant here. He said: "Heck, why should I learn more about farming? I ain't using half the knowledge on farming I have got right now."

It is more than a little revealing of how narrow and limited this government's approach is to combating poverty, and especially its causes, when it approaches this complex subject of the social assistance system operated under the Ministry of Community and Social Services. To make any useful inroads into the various causes of poverty requires a far broader attack on this ancient evil. It requires broadly based taxation reform designed to produce equitable income redistribution. It requires better urban planning to reduce ghettoization of the urban poor, which in turn leads to a cultural poverty that spreads the disease from one generation to another.

A real war on poverty requires greater effort at community development programs in disadvantaged and depressed rural areas. It requires better outreach programs for transient youths to provide them with the necessary initial stability and encouragement to develop whatever innate resources they may have. An attack on poverty demands better labour laws to protect the ageing and aged employees who can and want to continue in their employment beyond age 65.

A truly effective war on poverty requires all of these measures and many more. It is therefore little wonder that we become sceptical and even a bit cynical when we hear in this throne speech that this government plans to combat poverty primarily through the social assistance system and will start it all with another comprehensive review. Obviously, it is through the social assistance system that we must mitigate the raw realities of poverty today and treat the casualties that are in our midst right now.

It is the social assistance system that must not only provide the means of daily survival -- adequate food, clothing and shelter for the victims -- but also, in those cases where rehabilitation is even remotely possible, assist the individuals in building for a better tomorrow.

The social assistance system must do what it can to sustain at least some glimmer of realistic hope for the victims of poverty, because when hope has died within the victim, the social assistance program can really do little more than provide palliative care -- we hope with sensitivity and understanding.

I was interested several years ago when our colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) went on his poverty diet to experience raw poverty. I was not sceptical or cynical about his attempt to do this, but I suspect when he went on a diet that was comparable to that of the welfare assistance cases, even though he might have experienced the physical pangs of hunger that the welfare cases experience, what he did not find or discover was the major component of poverty, which is loss of hope. He never lost hope.

What makes the difference between poor and being poverty stricken is hope for the morrow. I suspect that all of us when we were university students were living on very low incomes in garrets. We did not regard ourselves as victims of poverty. We had hope for the future.

It is the social assistance program that reflects how and to what extent society at large is prepared to assist or not to assist the casualties of poverty. When the collective will of the majority is not strong enough or is even mean-minded in what it is prepared to give to those on welfare, it all too often uses the social assistance system as the scapegoat.

Society generally can rid itself of its collective feeling of guilt by castigating those who work on its behalf on the social assistance programs. The charges directed at the social assistance system range all the way from the system being incompetent, insensitive and inflexible to it being antiquated and bureaucratic with unimaginative personnel.

It is probably understandable that the general public might carry some of these feelings, because very few among of its members have an intimate knowledge of what the system is all about, the kind of work that the front-line workers do and how the system functions; but it is not understandable nor is it forgivable that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) should charge that the system is antiquated and 50 years out of date, as he was reported as saying in the Toronto Star of April 14.

To suggest that the social assistance program in Canada has not changed drastically for the better since the Dirty Thirties illustrates that the minister simply does not know the system or that he is deliberately playing to the gallery. Neither I nor anyone else who is interested in social assistance claims that the program is entirely adequate and requires no change. Obviously, change is constantly necessary. Thanks to thousands of imaginative, sensitive and dedicated workers, from deputy ministers to front-line, nonprofessional community workers and thousands of volunteers, this system has made some progress. It is working.

Simply to say that the system is 50 years old, antiquated and out of tune is totally to ignore the brilliant work carved on by some of the senior people in our social assistance system here in Canada. I should mention the late Dr. Joseph Willard, Deputy Minister of Health and Welfare in Canada, Dr. Richard Splane, Dr. Fred McKinnon of the Department of Public Welfare in Nova Scotia and our own Dr. Jimmy Band here.

I could go on to talk about my predecessor at the Canadian Council on Social Development, Dr. Richard Davis. We can think of Bess Touzell and of the late Harry Cassidy. I am not going to talk about his son, but Harry Cassidy was one of the great visionaries of our social assistance program when he was dean at the school of social work here in Toronto. These are all brilliant people who have brought our social assistance system into the late 20th century.

None would argue that the system does not need improvement, but for the minister to stand up here and say that this system is 50 years old and it has not changed over five decades simply does not give us the right assessment of what the system is all about. As I say, there is room for improvement. Over the years I for one have been advocating a guaranteed annual income, and so was Robert Stanfield back in 1972. Maybe the time has come when we should once again look at the inauguration of a system of guaranteed annual income. Certainly, it is much more flexible and adaptable in helping the working poor.

It is unfortunate that the minister should simply play to the gallery, as it were, and say the reason we still have poverty is that the social assistance system is antiquated. The same minister said on April 14 in the Toronto Star, with great concern, that we are putting an awful lot of money into the welfare system, $1.6 billion. He said: "That's an awful lot of money and it should be going a long way towards solving that problem. What is wrong?" His answer is that 50-year-old welfare system. I wonder whether it ever occurred to the minister that we spend an awful lot of money on welfare because there is an awful lot of poverty in our midst.

11:50 a.m.

In the same article, he cites homelessness as "a very serious problem" in Metropolitan Toronto. The reason we cannot cope with this problem, he feels, is that too large numbers are flocking to Toronto for jobs or the excitement of the big city. My own assessment is that they are flocking to Toronto for excitement in the big city because there are no jobs available for them in their home towns.

On April 14, on the CBC radio phone-in program, the same minister said: "No matter how much money you make, how much money you have, it never really is enough because there are other things that you want to do. For example, a single mother would say: `I do not have enough to live on because my child cannot play hockey. I cannot afford to buy skates.' Then you have to ask yourself, is the government-sponsored income support system designed to buy hockey skates? You see, at this point in time, it is not. It is designed to put food on the table, a roof over your head and clothes on your back, and that is all. That may not be enough, but who makes that decision as to what is enough?"

I would respond by saying that the decision of what is enough is to be made by the minister and his government. This is a negative, sterile attitude expressed by the minister about the severe limits of his social assistance program. All the vague talk in the speech from the throne about combating poverty through social assistance programs is simply another example of blowing bubbles in the air.

I would like to make several comments on ageing. No statement on social policy today would be complete without substantial reference to the age group in our population which will be growing the most rapidly, namely, the elderly, those aged over 65. Between today and the year 2001, the senior citizen population will increase by more than half a million, a percentage increase of 55 per cent. This contrasts with the overall anticipated population increase of 13.8 per cent.

The task force on human and social services of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) has just produced an excellent report on Care for the Elderly, subtitled Developing a More Coordinated and Community-Based Approach. It is a valuable, up-to-date, forward-looking document that will serve as an excellent guide and discussion paper for those interested in developing sound social policies and programs for the elderly. No doubt my colleague the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) will speak further on this report during this or subsequent debates.

I would like to expand on an observation made by that discussion paper. It notes correctly that when we speak of the elderly, i.e., persons over 65, we are really speaking of three very different age groups. I have referred to them from time to time as the young old, the middle old and the old old, in age brackets ranging respectively from 65 to 74, 75 to 84 and 85 and over.

Although many of our labour laws and pieces of social legislation treat these three age groups as a homogeneous unit beginning at the magic midnight hour of age 65, there are vast differences in lifestyles and social and economic needs among the elderly during these various ages and stages of growing older. This lumping together of all ages in our legislation surely violates what is or should be a basic social policy, namely, that of providing the greatest degree of personal individual choice and encouraging their full independence as long as possible.

Nowhere is this weakness in our current social policies more apparent than in the matter of mandatory retirement at age 65. If there is one emerging predominant characteristic of our post-industrial society's labour force, it is to get away from rigid work schedules established for various sectors of the labour force and clearly determined consistent career patterns followed through a lifetime.

Much of this rigidity has given way to far greater flexibility and individual choice through such mechanisms as flex hours, time-sharing, prolonged leave of absence, career retraining and changing of careers. In the past week, we have heard of a two-day working weekend that is comparable to a full week of work. All this shows us that we have become very flexible and adaptable in our attitude to the hours spent at the work place. if we believe in this principle of flexibility, then surely we should extend to all people the greatest degree of personal choice, which is the cornerstone of our free society. We should do so for the aged and not ring that bell at midnight at age 65.

Indicative of the lack of any comprehensive and coherent social policy in this speech is the fact that virtually no reference is made of the fundamental unit in our society, namely, the family. The only mention of the family was made in a fleeting manner in relation to child abuse and day care spaces. The Canadian family, the traditional cornerstone of our society and the wellspring of future generations, remains the basic unit of our society, even if it has undergone enormous changes during the past 25 years. The changes in the roles of wives and mothers, in the size of families and in family lifestyles have been dramatic.

A throne speech that purports to have a framework for long-term achievement in social policy, and then merely alludes to these fundamental changes and fails to take them fully into account in future governmental plans, cannot be taken very seriously as a major social or political document.

Today, in sharp contrast to several decades ago, the majority of wives have joined their husbands in the labour force. This increase in labour force participation has greatly exceeded all predictions and expectations. For example, in 1976, the Economic Council of Canada predicted there would be a less rapid rise in the number of women working in the labour force in the late 1970s and early 1980s than in the previous 15 years.

The council argued this was in part because many of the women who wanted to work had joined the labour force by 1976. The council was wrong. The rapid rise of participation in the labour force by women and, above all, by women with very young children has continued. By 1984, 52 per cent of women with children under age three were in the labour force, compared with 32 per cent in 1976. In other words, in eight years there has been a dramatic increase of 20 per cent in the number of mothers of children under age three joining the labour force.

Today it is estimated, and again perhaps even too conservatively, that 73 per cent of the mothers with children under age three will be in the labour force within the next decade. These statistics deserve, indeed demand, far more attention than a cursory mention in any throne speech that boldly claims to set forth a framework of long-term achievement rather than a list of short-term promises. Under the circumstances, we would be better served by short-term promises.

Working mothers or, more correctly, the working parents of young children have become a major and permanent characteristic of our labour force. Sound social policy must accommodate this vital phenomenon. The obvious answer of adequate day care spaces has been cited and discussed at numerous times and in numerous places. While the throne speech makes some passing reference to increasing the number of organized day care spaces, that is not an adequate response to meet the needs of all the young families.

The most recent national day care study, chaired by Dr. Katie Cooke, recommended the introduction of free universal day care at an estimated eventual cost of about $11 billion annually. While there is no doubt that additional space for day care is very much needed, I do not believe it is realistic to expect in the foreseeable future the kind of universal network of free day care services envisaged by Dr. Cooke's committee.

Even if we were to expand the number of organized day care spaces, it would not provide an answer for those young families with both husband and wife in the labour force, but who wish to care for their own children, especially during those very first critical bonding years. We need to introduce measures that will provide reasonable guarantees for working parents, mainly mothers, who are employees, so that having and caring for their very young children does not cost them their jobs. Conversely, keeping their jobs will not require them to abandon the essential family obligations during the early years of their children's lives.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder whether the member could find a suitable time to adjourn the debate.

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

The House recessed at 12 noon.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DAY CARE

Mr. Cousens: Yesterday I addressed the federal government's special parliamentary committee on child care and presented a series of recommendations that call on the federal government to respond immediately to a comprehensive program of federal-provincial co-operation with respect to child care.

This action reflects the continuing commitment of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario to providing for increased government support in day care initiatives. We strongly believe the federal government must respond to the needs of our changing society.

Among the points made were:

1. The federal financial share, through the Canada assistance plan and the grants system, must be increased to help expand adequate day care.

2. Tax deductions for families requiring day care need to be re-evaluated to compensate for the high cost of these services for the working parent.

3. New incentives need to be developed for the expansion of work-related day care.

Improving child care in this province is one major step in responding to the changing needs of our society. Increased federal co-operation within this realm will serve to ensure its success.

TAX INFORMATION

Mr. Foulds: We in the New Democratic Party, unlike the party to my right and the opportunists opposite us, have always tried to provide real alternatives to the policies of the government of the day. That is proved by the fact that the most progressive and popular initiatives of the present government have been taken from and first appeared in our party's program.

As my party's Treasury and Economics critic, I have argued that the government should provide a complete accounting of its tax revenues and expenditures. Only with this information can we judge the full extent of the unfairness of our tax system on the ordinary Ontario family. For example, our best estimates are that the province loses $1.5 billion in corporate tax loopholes and giveaways. To know where to begin the task of making our taxation system more fair, this Legislature needs that information.

I have asked for this information in my replies to the last two provincial budgets and in recent correspondence with the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). The federal government has done it and other provinces have done it. It is my sincere hope that this government will publish a complete accounting of its revenues and tax expenditures with its budget next Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker: Statements, the minister -- I am sorry; the member for Brantford.

DUNNVILLE DAM

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, was that déjà vu or foreshadowing?

I rise to express a concern that has been brought to my attention by the good people of Dunnville. Last April, the then Treasurer, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), travelled to Dunnville and met with a large number of municipal officials to discuss that town's proposal for restoring the dam and weirs that form such a vital part of the history of the Grand River.

Since a good part of the Grand River is in the area of the province I have the honour to represent, I am aware how useful it would be to provide an expanded facility for recreation and beautification of the whole area. To accomplish this, the town of Dunnville will need provincial funding for a marine lock railway system that will permit marine vessels once again to navigate the Grand River.

Last April, the previous government made a commitment to the town of Dunnville that it would receive the necessary funding to restore the Dunnville dam. But now the good people of Dunnville, after months of trying, have been unable to secure a commitment from the current Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) that he will honour the commitment of the previous government.

I am hopeful that the Treasurer, who like myself has a large part of the Grand River running through his riding, will do what could be seen as the fair thing to do and will honour the commitment made by the previous government to the people of Dunnville.

HELP CENTRES

Mr. Warner: Unemployed help centres in many communities throughout this province have been able to meet the immediate social and economic needs of unemployed workers and their families, have been able to assist in the process of re-employment and have worked with other community-based organizations to establish a support network for unemployed workers and their families.

First the federal government abandoned these worthwhile centres, which had been providing a variety of useful services to many unemployed people, and now the provincial government is similarly abandoning the centres. I call on the government to reverse its decision to close the unemployed help centres and ask that it review this horrible decision and provide the necessary funds so help can be extended to those so unfortunate as to be out of work in our province.

TULIP DISPLAY

Mr. Andrewes: From time to time it is appropriate that we as members of this House offer congratulations to various public employees. I want to offer congratulations to those of the Ministry of Government Services who so carefully and studiously planted the tulips around Queen's Park.

Members will recognize that these tulips are the ongoing kindness of the government of the Netherlands. I recommend to members a stroll down the front walk towards the southerly regions of the Legislative Building.

However, as an objective observer, I must say there seems to be an unusually large number of tulips this year of one colour. Perhaps this is only a coincidence. That colour is a very deep, bright red. However, even as May melts into June, the colours will fade, the petals will find their way into the breeze and the only constancy at Queen's Park will be the deep blue of the sky.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that members wishing to make statements have only 90 seconds. Please allow them that time.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) has made several glowing remarks about inspections and orders from his ministry. Cyclical inspections of the work place, which occurred on a 36-month basis, an 18-month basis and a 12-month basis, are now gone. Once a firm is placed on what is called a code 99, the company will never again be subjected to a regular cyclical inspection. The only time code 99 firms will be inspected will be when there is a critical injury or a work refusal.

Ministry policy on routine inspections is to audit the internal responsibility system and to ensure compliance with the act and the regulations. This is eliminated by code 99. Inspections not considered routine ensure that companies are given adequate notice of impending ministry visits, so that in fact there will not be any unannounced visits in the future.

The minister claims in his new policy that the unions are given notice of impending visits at the same time the company is. When I tried to find out from approximately 200 presentations made to me whether any of the unions had received any advance notice, I found they had not. The only ones getting advance notice were the companies.

2:09 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TELEVISION AWARD

Hon. Ms. Munro: I believe the members of the House will want to join with me in congratulating one of our provincial agencies on achieving one of the highest awards in its field of endeavour.

TVOntario has won many awards over the years, some 250, which is a fitting tribute to the quality of Ontario's television and film producers and managers. Today, Wally Longul is in New York to receive the much-coveted George Foster Peabody Award, an award comparable in prestige to the Pulitzer Prize. He receives it for the TVOntario coproduction The Final Chapter?

The Final Chapter? is a scientific assessment of the devastating effects of nuclear war. It is one of several TVOntario learning programs that deal with science and technology, its bright and productive side as well as its darker aspects.

The George Foster Peabody Awards for excellence in public service in broadcasting recognize distinguished achievement and meritorious public service. The award for The Final Chapter? is the only such honour given this year to a Canadian organization.

The recent commitment of this government to TVOntario will help fuel its production of more top-quality science and technology programs such as The Final Chapter? Programs such as this not only provide enriched learning opportunities for the people of this province but also bring international acclaim to Ontario, its resources and capabilities.

Mrs. Marland: We join in the congratulations to Wally Longul on the announcement made this afternoon. We share in the pride of the success of TVOntario, having been the government that established this service in Ontario. However, we do have grave concern as to the future of that service and would like to know what the current government is going to do about the shortage of funding to TVOntario.

Mr. Rae: I want to take this opportunity to congratulate TVOntario and, in particular, the producers and creative people behind the programming.

I do not think it is widely known, but the award that has been won by that group is the equivalent to the Pulitzer Prize for public broadcasting. It is a significant achievement. Those of us who believe so strongly in and are committed to public broadcasting, and in our party I think I can say our commitment goes back more than half a century to the old days of the Canadian Radio League, are proud of the achievements of TVOntario. We want very much to associate ourselves with the achievement, in which all of us can take some pride.

I also take this opportunity to say how much we are looking forward to the budget of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) on Tuesday to see how far he will deliver on the promise made in the speech from the throne with respect to additional funding for TVOntario.

Anyone who realizes the potential of TVOntario and the potential of public broadcasting, educational broadcasting and cultural broadcasting in this province realizes we are on the verge of a time of great opportunity, great employment prospects for broadcasting and for culture and communications. It would be nothing short of a tragedy if the Treasurer were to take away at all from the steps announced in the speech from the throne with respect to funding for TVOntario.

I know the people of the province are expecting an announcement that will relate not only to this year but also to next year and the year after in terms of steady increases in funding for TVOntario. We look forward to that announcement in his budget when it comes on Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Education.

Mr. McClellan: Sufficiently rehearsed?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I do not know whether it is going to be as unrehearsed as the comments from the --

Mr. Breaugh: There was no pause written in your speech.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have not come to question period yet. This is statements.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am being provoked, Mr. Speaker. I was only going to say that perhaps it will not be as unrehearsed as the comments of the caucus of the third party about the leader in the weekend press.

Mr. McClellan: Rehearsed, not reversed.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I do not like to be provoked, so I will try not to be distracted.

SCIENCE EDUCATION

Hon. Mr. Conway: The speech from the throne clearly stated this government's commitment to the twin goals of excellence and relevance in education. It also emphasized the importance of science and technology to the future prosperity of this province and its citizens.

The Ministry of Education recognizes that scientific and technological literacy is a vital part of education. Our future work and lifestyle are tied to advances in science and technology. Our education system has some excellent programs in science as a result of the commitment of our teaching profession and the efforts of local school boards. However, I believe we can do more in science education in Ontario.

The Science Council of Canada's comprehensive study of science education in 1984 concluded that elementary students are most in need of improved programs. In addition, the science council's report points out that girls require more encouragement and improved opportunities for studying science. If we improve science programs in our elementary schools, it will benefit both girls and boys and increase their scientific interest and skills.

I am pleased to announce today a $3-million program to renew science education in the primary and junior divisions of Ontario schools. This program, which will reflect the excellent work done by the science council's study, will focus on four key areas:

1. The development of science curricula from kindergarten to grade 6 in a way that devotes more time and attention to this important area in the early school years;

2. Support for teachers at the elementary level through training and retraining in science curricula;

4. A public awareness campaign in science education to encourage the support and active participation of parents, school boards and members of the public, including the private sector.

We will be consulting widely in developing this initiative. I am pleased to announce that Dr. Graham Orpwood, who is in the special members' gallery this afternoon and who directed the Science Council of Canada study, has been appointed as my special adviser in this area for the next three months.

One of the central messages in science education must be that science is a part of all our lives. Science is not just for the scientists, the university-bound student or only for boys. Science is for everyone.

If we can successfully convey that message -- and despite the carping of the third party, I believe we can -- our children will be better prepared for the systematic study of science at the intermediate and senior divisions. They will be better able to link the science they study in school to the science in the world they know. Most important, our students will be better able to use science and technology to enhance their lives and those of future generations.

Mr. Baetz: We cannot help but congratulate the government on its intention to develop the science curriculum beginning at a very early age. We are amazed and astounded at the enormous perception demonstrated this afternoon by the Minister of Education in stating that science is for everyone. We had not realized that until the minister told us about it. We can only congratulate him for carrying on in the excellent tradition set by our outstanding Ministers of Education, some of whom are here.

One final observation is that the minister should try to achieve and maintain a balance between science and the humanities. I sensed in the speech from the throne perhaps a little too much of a leaning towards scientists, because he should remember science in itself does not lead to human happiness, which is the objective for all of us. We will look forward to seeing how the minister is going to achieve the balance between the humanities and the sciences with the unmentioned amounts of money he is going to spend on this program.

Mr. Harris: I have one brief comment on the statement by the Minister of Education. He neglected to tell us how much Dr. Graham Orpwood will be paid over the next three months, information I am sure the Legislature will be interested in hearing.

Mr. Rae: With respect to the profound announcement made today by the Minister of Education, I think we will now all call him Dr. Wizard. I remember, and I am sure the minister remembers, watching Dr. Wizard over the years. Listening to the minister, who has his own profound understanding of the world of science and his deep training therein, as much as all members opposite clearly reflect their understanding, it is great to see the minister undertake this initiative.

My oldest daughter is in junior kindergarten. Last Friday her whole school had something called Space Day. We have space day every day here, so for me it is nothing different. On coming home from school that day, she asked my wife and I whether she would be able to go to the moon when she grew up. That is an indication of the very changed consciousness on the part of members.

An hon. member: Put it in the accord.

Mr. Rae: It is in the accord. Wait for it. Do not push it. At the same time, she pointed out that her friend Elizabeth had been to the moon and she wanted to join her. The kids are away ahead of the minister. He is talking about that, and these kids want to go to the moon. I think the minister had better catch up with the kids, the young girls and boys who are far ahead. Join them and the time will come for it.

Mr. Allen: In pursuing this objective, a highly laudable one which I have personally advocated on many occasions as the Education critic for our party, I hope the Minister of Education will take advantage of TVOntario's new enrichment and possibilities to field the whole question of science education through audio-visual devices and programs, as some other countries do most effectively with their young children.

I compliment the minister on his choice of adviser in this respect. He could not have done better. We know the commitment Dr. Graham Orpwood has in this regard, so we are looking for good things in this program.

I remind the minister that some fundamental underlay is needed for this in more than just the creation of a program. The school system, in terms of its textbook capacity and spending per student under the past administration, is the lowest in the whole country. He will have to do something about that. He will have to make sure he has a good supply of science teachers from the core programs of sciences in the universities. It will take some basic core funding improvements to field both the educational initiatives and the broad ambitions of the Premier (Mr.

Peterson) with regard to the whole span of science and technology. The government has a great future ahead of it in this respect, and I hope it will fund it well. Otherwise, it will not work out.

2:23 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Premier and it relates to a quote in the newspaper. Can the Premier tell the House whether he was correctly quoted when he said with regard to the rally in front of Queen's Park yesterday, "Frankly, it is irrelevant to me whether there are 10 or 10,000 or 100,000"?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I was correctly quoted.

Mr. Grossman: I wonder therefore whether the new message handed out by the Premier, in a government which he alleges has no walls or barriers, is that if 10,000 or 100,000 single mothers or 10,000 or 100,000 injured workers wish to demonstrate in front of Queen's Park, the Premier equally does not care whether there are 10, 10,000 or 100,000.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I welcome people to come to Queen's Park to express their point of view. That is part of our democratic tradition here, and it is a legitimate expression of their opinion. However, I remind the member at the very same time that this is not a government that changes its mind with each little poll that comes along. It does not change its mind from day to day. It is not a government that has different views from the member's left-hand man sitting beside him and then from the member the next day.

We do not have that kind of inconstancy. Frankly, with regard to changing our minds, it does not matter how many people gather there or how many people present a petition. We believe we have a responsibility to govern with an even hand and with a degree of constancy. Surely my honourable friend, my worthy friend opposite, would learn the peril of inconstancy which is constant from him and his colleagues.

Mr. Grossman: I remind the Premier that we remember when opting out was at 18 per cent, and he and his party were in favour of extra billing.

Two of his ministers have flip-flopped all over the place on the issue of bacillus thuringiensis spraying. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has flip-flopped all over on the issue of chemicals in the waters. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) has flip-flopped all over on the issue of guarantees of French-language services. No one in this House needs a lecture from the Premier on flip-flopping.

Mr. Speaker: Was your question, "Do you agree"? Was that your question?

Mr. Grossman: No. It was not.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary. Quickly.

Mr. Grossman: At the rally yesterday, where the Premier did not care how many people were out front, Dr. Myers said: "We are prepared to accept a call for a truce. I challenge Mr. Peterson to initiate a movement towards peace in a situation where he has provoked confrontation."

If the Premier heard those comments as he peeked out his window to watch the rally, can he tell us whether he or the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) called the Ontario Medical Association and asked: "What terms? How can we discuss the truce you asked for?"

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me add parenthetically that before the member left government, he arranged for a substantial increase in research funds for all the parties of $2 million, $3 million or $4 million, or whatever it was. We are very grateful, because the entire research department of our party is devoted to tracking the member's various positions from day to day on all the issues. We do need those funds to keep track of where he is on the issues.

Let me respond to the member's particular point. He will recall -- and it is important to go through the history of this situation -- that shortly after we assumed office in July 1985, we contacted the OMA and said we were going to ban extra billing and would like to enter into discussions on how to do that. It was not prepared to talk about that. Finally, legislation came in late in December 1985. There have been a number of meetings subsequent to that time. We have put forward very specific written proposals, and it knows where we stand on the issues.

Just because the member has not been at those meetings does not mean they have not been held. I can assure him that on a number of occasions the tone has been very constructive.

Mr. Grossman: Supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need for another supplementary. New question.

Mr. Grossman: They are waiting for a call for a truce, and the Premier will not call and offer a truce.

DAY CARE

Mr. Grossman: My second question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I hope the minister will have heard by now the very sensible recommendations made by the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) with regard to child care.

My colleague suggested that additional money be allocated to provide more subsidies to low-income families, that provincial grants to licensed nonprofit spaces be matched, that provincial capital and startup grants for nonprofit centres be matched, that the child care expense deduction be eliminated to free up funds to expand services and that incentives be provided for employers and employees to develop work-related day care spaces.

Does the minister not agree that these are excellent suggestions, each and every one of which is worthy of support?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I agree they are excellent suggestions, and I point out to the honourable member who just made them that they are being implemented by this government. I remind him that on taking over this government, we increased the number of subsidized spaces by 50 per cent above and beyond what it had done in 40 years.

Mr. Cousens: While the minister makes promising statements on child care to the press and the other media, his government had only a single sentence on child care in the speech from the throne. Has the minister lost the battle with the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) in making a significant investment in child care?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The critical issues with respect to child care are to have sufficient spaces so that parents can make a choice and to have them structured in such a way that all parents who use child care can afford to do so. That is precisely what the statement in the speech from the throne addressed itself to: first, spaces and the availability of those spaces, and second, spaces provided on the basis of economic equity; in other words, so they could afford them. That was the purpose of the statement, and that is what will be addressed.

Mr. Cousens: It was not as strong as the minister is now. When can we expect this highly publicized white paper on child care that provides for licensed child care spaces to 50 per cent of Ontario's children?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Soon.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier about extra billing. It is time we got on with it.

Given the statement yesterday by Dr. Myers that he does not intend to make any further changes in the position of the Ontario Medical Association and the correspondence between Dr. Scully and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) which has been made public and establishes very clearly that the same positions have been going back and forth not for a couple of weeks but for several months, well prior to December, does the Premier not think it is time to bring the bill out of committee, where the hearings have been completed, and bring it into committee of the whole House?

Let us get on with it. Let us pass the legislation, stop the dithering and confusion and get on with the end to extra billing, which is costing this province so much.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer to the honourable member's question is no. I do not think it is the right time, but it is perhaps getting close to that right time. More meetings are scheduled, in spite of the speeches of yesterday. I read about them in today's press and am aware of what they said. I am also aware of the discussions that have been going on.

I am sure the leader of the third party will be the first one to acknowledge that a resolution to the problem will not be found by shouting at each other on the front steps of Queen's Park. I acknowledge that, and I think the doctors acknowledge that. The minister has other meetings scheduled, and we will have to judge that day by day. If we come to the conclusion that no progress can be made, the suggestion of the leader of the third party will be followed.

Mr. Rae: These discussions have been going on for several weeks now. It is clear not only from statements in the newspaper but also from actual correspondence between the OMA and the government negotiators that there has been absolutely no change in position with respect to the fundamental question on extra billing, either by the OMA or by the government, with respect to what has happened.

Does the Premier not realize that his own indecision is becoming the problem? Does he not realize it is his indecision that is getting in the way? The Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has spoken about the need to bring on the legislation. The Attorney General has made his indications. Does the Premier not realize he is now the person who is standing in the way of reaching an end to this?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to the honourable member with respect that I do not accept that proposition at all. He is quite wrong. If we had followed his approach, if we had just brought it in three months ago and let the devil take the hindmost, the situation would have been a lot worse.

Mr. Martel: What is the difference?

Hon. Mr. Peterson