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

May 7, 1981

32nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ROAD CONSTRUCTION

FOREST FIRES

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSING APPLICATIONS

GRANTS TO PULP AND PAPER COMPANIES

HOUSING

INTEREST RATES

HOTEL INSPECTION

AID TO PENSIONERS

TRAIN DERAILMENT

CHAMPLAIN SCHOOL

KEATING CHANNEL DREDGING

MENTAL HEALTH PATIENTS

UNIVERSITY ADMISSION

PRESENTATION OF COOKBOOKS

COMMENTS BY MINISTER

QUESTION PERIOD

HOUSING PRICES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

MOTION

REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT

NONUNIONIZED WORKERS PROTECTION ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ROAD CONSTRUCTION

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to table the road construction programs of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the Ministry of Northern Affairs for the fiscal year 1981-82.

In all, an estimated $319.2 million will be spent for construction on the King's highway system in northern and southern Ontario, an increase of approximately $17.1 million over the 1980-81 year. In addition, we will be subsidizing municipal road construction for another $237 million, which will generate about $408 million in total expenditures when the municipalities' shares are included. In total, some $727.2 million will be spent on projects considered critical to preserve the present quality of the existing highway system, a system that ensures the efficient movement of goods and people in Ontario.

Briefly, we are proposing new work on a total of 741 kilometres of the provincial system in southern Ontario, primarily on two-lane highways, including the scheduled construction of 56 bridges and, as part of the government's proposed expansion program under the direction of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, BILD, an extra $25 million is included in the road construction program for work in the Golden Horseshoe.

In northern Ontario, my ministry will continue to carry out the planning, design and construction of some 609 kilometres of provincial highways, a system that I am sure all members know is also the responsibility of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, which allocates funds for capital road construction. Again, the majority of the work is on two-lane highways, although the construction of passing lanes and remote airports is also included in our program.

Details of all these projects and others are contained in the program I have tabled with the Clerk, copies of which will go to all members via the legislative post office. In addition, we are including copies of the ministry's long-range perspective for provincial roads, reflecting this government's viewpoint of Ontario's future highway system, a perspective which, of course, is subject to annual review.

FOREST FIRES

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable members are aware from news reports --

Mr. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I realize the minister probably intended to send me a statement, but I have not received it as yet.

Mr. Speaker: Have the statements been distributed, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Pope: They are being handed out now. I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Laughren: And to me too.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Yes, you too, Floyd.

As honourable members are aware from news reports in recent weeks, we are facing another potentially severe forest fire season in our province. Now that the first five weeks of the official fire season have passed, I want to bring the House up to date on the situation.

The forest fuel conditions remain extremely hazardous in many forest areas as a result of the dry winter weather with a low snowfall. In the potential fire areas, we have enjoyed favourable weather conditions during the latter part of April and early May, with cool temperatures and some precipitation.

As of yesterday's provincial report, fire occurrences across the province were normal for this time of year, and primarily were grass fires. The number of fires to date is 201 and total area burned is 1,424.45 acres. But the favourable conditions have only given us temporary breathing space. The long-range forecast is still for drier than usual weather for the remainder of this spring.

Currently, the serious potential burning conditions are centred particularly in the ministry's northwestern and north central regions; that is, the area west of Lake Nipigon. Accordingly, my ministry has taken many special steps this year to build up our capabilities for fire prevention as well as for early detection and prompt initial attacks on fire outbreaks. The following is a list of steps already taken by my staff:

During the past two weeks, the urgency and importance of fire prevention has been publicized through appropriate news media. This campaign will continue, of course.

Staff in many northern districts has been assigned to the fire prevention program to facilitate contacts with woods, mining and railway operations and those involved with recreational and tourism activities.

The railway companies and the Canadian Transport Commission have been contacted to emphasize the critical need for sound fire prevention practices in their operations.

Major moves have been taken across the province to integrate woods workers into the fire management program this year. Ministry staff have met with woods industry senior and field staff to discuss initial attack strategies, and extensive instructor training sessions have been provided to enable companies to train their wood workers to handle initial attacks on fires occurring on their operations.

Our firefighting force has an additional 30 unit crews, making a total for this year of 175 crews. Each unit crew is composed of five members. Ninety-five of these crews are now on line, trained and ready for duty anywhere in the province. The remaining crews are undergoing training now and will be fully operational by May 15.

All nine Canso water bombers we have on contract have been in place since May 1. Aerial detection programs are fully operational in all regions. The lightning locator system is now operational in the northwestern region, where the incidence of lightning strikes is always extremely high. The system enhances our capability to immediately identify areas of lightning activity and put into gear the appropriate detection and initial attack operations.

Helitack systems have been partially in place since May 1, and all 17 helitack units contracted from the private sector will be in place by May 15.

2:10 p.m.

The ministry fleet of water bombers are all on line, including two of the three recently acquired Twin Otters. These aircraft are being deployed as lake ice conditions permit. The third Twin Otter is scheduled for operational status next month. All MNR pilots have completed their float operation training.

Fire equipment inventories have been bolstered in the northwestern and north-central regions. In addition, casual staff support has been added to enhance the capability to manage and recycle the equipment.

During this spring, meetings were held between the Ministry of Natural Resources fire management staff and their counterparts from Manitoba and Quebec and from the federal and state agencies in Minnesota. The meetings were held to review the agreements about operating procedures for forest fire suppression responsibilities along the respective adjoining border corridors.

Also, the co-operative arrangements with firefighting agencies of all other provinces, with the United States Forestry Service and with the Canadian Armed Forces are in effect.

That is the list to date. I have included some items that might be described as housekeeping, because in an immense forest firefighting undertaking those details are vitally important to success.

Many lessons were learned from last year's severe season, which the staff of my ministry handled so capably with the assistance of others from many agencies and ministries and other jurisdictions. Several reviews were made after the season of the 1981 performance, and the improved and expanded moves we are making are based on the useful recommendations in those reports.

If we experience a normal weather pattern for this time of year, that means there will be some showers every three or four days and therefore the fire hazard will become moderate. However, if we get a period without precipitation associated with warm temperatures, things could become serious. But, as can be seen from this status report, my ministry staff are prepared to cope with the type of forest fire activity that the less-welcome weather conditions could bring.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSING APPLICATIONS

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), I want to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

The Provincial Secretary for Social Development may remember an exchange between the former Minister of Education and myself on November 15, 1976, when we pointed out that they were accepting applicants at teachers' college on the basis of postmark rather than merit. The minister at the time assured me it would be changed and even went so far as to say, "I suggest that my friend will probably fall out of his seat when he hears how we are going to handle the situation this year."

It took five years, but I did just about fall out of my seat at the way in which nursing students' applications are being sorted at St. Lawrence College in Kingston. I ask the provincial secretary to look into this. I refer particularly to the fact that admission there is not based on academic achievement, practical experience or a deep interest in nursing. Rather, it is based on a new method of gambling whereby applications are literally piled on the floor and a person comes and grabs handfuls and armfuls of these applications.

Mr. Havrot: Ah, come on!

Mr. Smith: Yes. I said the same thing: "Come on!" But it happens to be true.

Is the minister aware of this situation? Does she think this is the best method for choosing the future nurses of Ontario and, if not, what is she prepared to do to stop it?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that method of selecting future nurses for Ontario. I certainly will have it looked into right away.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is how they do it in psychiatry. In law they have a lottery system.

Mr. Smith: The Premier (Mr. Davis) seems to feel this is a reasonable system. He wonders if they use that in psychiatry.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I did not say that. I said it was the system they used for psychiatrists, not for nurses.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That's how he selected his cabinet.

Mr. Smith: If the member for Rainy River is correct, if the Premier formed his cabinet on that basis, I can understand his support for the method.

Hon. Mr. Davis: At least I was able to do it; you were not.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Smith, do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Smith: I do have a supplementary, but the Premier seems to feel the fact that he has more seats than we do -- "Na, na, de, na, na" -- is a good answer. He seems to feel that will suffice in a battle of wits for which he comes otherwise unarmed from time to time.

Does the provincial secretary not regard this as an inevitable outgrowth of the philosophy of this government, and one that was started by the Premier when he was the Minister of Education, by which standards, merit and standardized examinations in the school system have all been played down on the basis of some misguided egalitarianism, and is it not time we got back to common sense?

Mr. O'Neil: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: While the minister is checking into the particular case that our leader has mentioned, maybe she could also check into a situation at the community college in our area where, I am told, if the community college reaches over its quota, marks are not taken into consideration and the names are placed in a computer and picked at random.

May I quote from a letter that I received this week from one of the people who would have liked to have been accepted in that course? She states: "Our educational system should not be based on luck. A computer can pick out names, but a computer cannot pick out a good nurse."

Mr. Speaker: A new question, Mr. Smith?

Mr. Smith: I was quite bowled over by the extent of the answers, Mr. Speaker.

GRANTS TO PULP AND PAPER COMPANIES

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I will direct a question to the Minister of the Environment.

Given the report concerning the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment and the fact that its steering committee apparently told certain independent economists that it would rather these economists be not quite so independent in the expression of their views, particularly when their views run counter to those of the large pulp and paper companies or to those of the government of the day in Ontario, will the minister not agree that the royal commission has now lost its credibility totally as an objective body, that it plainly is going to be an apologist for the pulp and paper grants that this government has been making, and that the royal commission should be disbanded forthwith at a considerable saving to the public of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member wants a full response to that question, it might be more appropriately referred to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope).

Mr. Smith: I take it then that the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment does not fall under the Ministry of the Environment. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is in the telephone book under the Ministry of the Environment. But perhaps the northern environment is a different part of the way the government operates. I will be happy to hear the answer from the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment is not within my ministry but I am glad to try to help the honourable member. I assume --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister has an answer.

Hon. Mr. Pope: I assume the Leader of the Opposition noted with the same amount of interest the comments that are alleged to have been made by the chairman of the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment with respect to the substance matter of that particular report.

Suffice it to say that my understanding is that both a draft copy of the report and the report itself were published in an unaltered form, expressing the opinions of the two individuals concerned who made that report. Needless to say, their conclusions are not necessarily the conclusions that others would draw under the circumstances. I would grant them access to more facts.

I believe that the policies of this government with respect to the pulp and paper industry, which were an issue up to and during the events leading up to March 19, provided for some discussion of that issue in the context of those events, and the people of Ontario, particularly of northern Ontario, made their judgement on who was following the right course.

Mr. Smith: Will the minister not agree that the public of Ontario could very easily obtain the opinions of these economists without having to have a royal commission to sift through it, giving its own opinions about these opinions, and certainly without having to tell the economists to soft-pedal their opinions?

Does the minister not feel that the commission itself has lost all credibility with the people of Ontario and that its very considerable list of expenditures could well be done away with, to the benefit of the public, and that the commission itself should be disbanded forthwith?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Pope: I do not believe the Leader of the Opposition's opinion on one specific incident makes the work of the commission unnecessary.

Mr. Smith: Useless and biased.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Useless. I do not believe that a system of public discussion of policy papers put forward by the northern environment commission and the public participation system in which that commission has engaged over the past few years are things that can be lightly discarded. They mean a lot to certain interest groups in northern Ontario. It has been an important process that everybody in northern Ontario has wanted to become involved in.

For the Leader of the Opposition to say right now that he does not believe that kind of public participation and public discussion on fundamental issues in northern Ontario should take place is just reflective of his attitude towards northern Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since it appears that, despite the efforts of the steering committee of the royal commission to muzzle the authors of that study, the authors have strengthened their conclusion and have come up with tougher conclusions about the industry's ability to pay its way and the fact that the industry did not need those grants from the employment development fund, will the Minister of Natural Resources undertake to ensure that the people of the province get back in stumpage fees what we are giving away needlessly to the companies in terms of employment development fund grants?

Hon. Mr. Pope: First of all, part of the comments with respect to the pulp and paper industry are based on Canada-wide statistics and, quite frankly, do not apply to the situation in Ontario, where our finished product production is much higher than that in the rest of Canada.

Mr. Foulds: You are wrong. They examined particular Ontario mills.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Pope: For instance, our pulp production goes to the following in Ontario: 32 per cent to newsprint, 18 per cent to paperboard, 11 per cent to fine papers and 30 per cent to market pulp. That is not the 86.7 per cent; it is 30 per cent in Ontario.

We can make improvements in terms of finished product; that is one of the aims of our grants to the pulp and paper companies. I believe this is a successful program and one that will continue to ensure for the pulp and paper industry of Ontario that we do have a high percentage of finished product being produced.

Mr. Speaker: A point of order, Mr. Smith?

Mr. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: On the last matter, I simply want to remind the Minister of the Environment that the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment was established under an order in council by the Ministry of the Environment.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the honourable member that, if he thought I was denying what he said, I was not. I simply indicated that the specific question he was addressing would be better answered by the honourable minister to whom I referred it. I did not indicate it was not related to my ministry.

HOUSING

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question to the minister of higher- and higher- priced housing with respect to the minister's statement on Monday that something better than 400 units were available through the Ontario Mortgage Corporation in the Peel and Brampton areas priced at less than $30,000.

Since the minister has now stated in the press that he was wrong to make that claim in this legislature on Monday, and since he said on television last night that one requires a $30,000 income to get a home even in the Peel or Mississauga areas, will the minister now tell the House where families who earn an average industrial wage of $18,000 a year should look to find housing to buy in Metropolitan Toronto or the surrounding regions? Is it not the case that this government's housing policies have totally failed average wage earners in Ontario, particularly in Metro?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, may I say that our policies have not failed the average income worker in this province.

I do stand to be corrected in the remarks I made in relation to the number of units that were available from the Ontario Mortgage Corporation at less than $30,000, and I will correct it today.

In the community of Mississauga, we have 70 units available in the range of $41,500 to $43,000 --

Mr. Cassidy: How many?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If the member wants to add them up, and I trust he will have the capability of doing it --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The minister will ignore the interjections and answer the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Particularly those from the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson).

I said there are available, in Mississauga, 70 units at $41,000 to $43,000; in Bramalea, 180 units in the range of $33,000 to $45,500, of which 150 are less than $40,000; in Ajax, 180 units in the range of $39,900 to $46,500; and in Oshawa, 337 units in the range of $36,500 to $55,000, with three units at the $59,900 level.

If members add those up, I think they will have something better than 700 units in a price range that I think is achievable for most in this province.

The member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) would like to correct me. I trust that I may be given the privilege of looking at his statement of Tuesday, wherein he quoted me as saying that "Perhaps suburban living will become a luxury that we can no longer afford."

If I may, I would like to read into the record exactly what I did say in the particular speech in which I accused the leader of the third party of being able to add or subtract to his liking. I trust he has the speech in front of him. I said:

"Perhaps suburban living and driving" -- he left out the very key point -- "to work in our private cars will become luxuries that we can no longer afford. Concentrating residential development and public transportation will become top priorities for urban municipalities of every size."

Mr. Cassidy: If I may, I want to come back to the houses that the minister said are available from the Ontario Mortgage Corporation for less than $30,000.

Is it not the case -- certainly our research at the OMC indicated that the three-bedroom homes in Bramalea are available for $45,500 or more; that those in Mississauga, with three bedrooms, for which there is now a waiting list, are available for $42,900; that in McLaughlin Square in Oshawa, the two-bedroom units cost $69,000, according to the information we were given when we checked; and that in the rest of Oshawa the three-bedroom homes were $45,000?

Is it not the case that, at the accepted rates of spending for housing, a $45,000 home is accessible only to a family earning $25,000 a year or more? Where does the minister propose that people with an income of less than $25,000, who have two or three children and need a family home, should buy a home in Metropolitan Toronto and region?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am not sure where the leader of the third party got his facts and figures relating to the price of housing. I have read the figures into Hansard today and clearly indicated that, of the 180 units in Bramalea that are owned at this moment by the Ontario Mortgage Corporation, 150 happen to be less than $40,000. I said there were 180 units available in Ajax in the range between $39,900 and $46,500, and I said in Oshawa --

Mr. Cassidy: How many bedrooms?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I will be delighted to get the complete breakdown on the units. I can tell the leader of the third party that they are either two-bedroom units or larger. Basically, we have been looking into two-bedroom units in the condominium operations in this province. Three hundred and thirty-seven units in Oshawa are in the range of $36,500 to $55,000. I understand that these figures are from the Ontario Mortgage Corporation.

As regards the average income earner getting into a $45,000 unit, the leader assumes that individual will move in with a very small or minimum down payment. But we are finding that the experience in the real estate industry today is that there are more substantial down payments being made in real estate purchases now than there were in the past, and that will afford the opportunity for average income earners to move into a higher-class type of unit.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Ruprecht: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I have heard it rumoured that the Minister of Housing is finally ready, willing and able to provide help for people whose mortgages are coming up for review and who are not in a position to pay 18 per cent for mortgages.

I would like to know two things: first, what he intends to do and, second, whether the rumours are true that he is planning special policies to help people who are not able to pay that kind of interest rate.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the member for Parkdale might be trying to design policies to serve only his own ends or, as the Premier said -- and I concur with the Premier's remarks -- he must have been talking to the federal Minister of Public Works, Mr. Cosgrove, who is letting out some secrets that he might do something at the federal level.

I maintain that is exactly the place that is responsible for our interest rates. It goes right back to the federal government and not to the provincial government. If some type of interest subsidy is to be put in place for those who currently own and for those who wish to buy accommodation in Canada, it will be by a federal move and not by this provincial government.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The Minister of Housing has stated that the full responsibility for assisting home owners who cannot afford to renew their mortgages at high interest rates lies with the federal government. Was not the present Minister of Housing in the Ontario Conservative cabinet in 1975 when the Premier made a speech and said that, if mortgage rates went over 12 per cent, he would help Ontario citizens by subsidizing those mortgage rates? Did the Premier not make a speech and say exactly that?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.

At today's auction of Treasury bills, the bank rate went up from 17.6 per cent last week to 18.71 per cent this week, an increase that is one of the largest at any time in our country, an increase that raises the bank rate to the highest level ever in our country and an increase that is going to bring mortgages past the 18 per cent rate, bank loans past the 20 per cent rate and consumer loans to 25 per cent or more.

In view of that, is it not time for the Premier to call in his chips with the federal government and insist that government turn around the disastrous monetary policy that is going to bring agriculture to a halt, that is going to affect hundreds of thousands of home owners in our province and that will have a devastating affect on the economy and the people in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it abundantly clear that I do not have any chips. Chips to me connote gambles, and I do not gamble with the political problems of this province. The leader of the third party may, but I do not.

Mr. Foulds: You invest. You just sell out.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable member is interrupting again. His leader touched him on the shoulder. Is that a benediction or an encouragement?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) says it is a benediction. It is quite obvious who at the moment is temporarily ahead in the sweepstakes over there.

I say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that the issue he raises, which I really had anticipated would be the first question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) but was not, certainly is of concern to every member of the House.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am not one to judge what he is going to ask.

An hon. member: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who the honourable member is suggesting should come to order. If it is me -- oh, it is the Leader of the Opposition he is suggesting should come to order.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am being interrupted again by the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt).

I am not minimizing some of the other important concerns; but, to me, the question of inflation, which is very directly related to the question of interest rates, was, in the minds of a lot of Canadians, their single largest concern. I think it is fair to state, as the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) has said and as the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has said on many occasions, this government is in no way involved in the setting of interest rates. We have no control and we have no say in what is done by the Bank of Canada.

We have argued on a number of occasions the possibility of divorcing this country from the interest rate policies of the United States. I do not minimize the complexity. One doesn't have to tell me that when interest rates escalate in the United States the potential of the dollar flow to go south of the line is there. We know that.

At the same time, I have to say to the leader of the New Democratic Party I have communicated with the first minister of this country. I will continue to be urging a meeting of first ministers related to economic issues, including interest rates. But if he thinks there are some chips out there that one might call down, I guess, to use his terminology -- and perhaps his experience, which I do not have -- I can only tell him this issue goes well beyond that sort of situation and that I do not have any chips outstanding.

While I am on my feet, I want on this occasion to say to the Leader of the Opposition -- and I do not say this facetiously -- I know he is enjoying the many happy returns of today more than he did on March 19. I wish him a happy birthday.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier say what the recommendations are that the government will take to that meeting which will make the decisive break with the present anti- inflation policy of the federal government, which has been to actively encourage the Bank of Canada's monetarist policy of driving the interest rates up week after week after week? Does the government of this province have an alternative to propose which will break the spiral of interest rates and provide protection for home owners who are having to renegotiate their mortgages and for all the other people who are being hit by the disastrous upward spiral of interest rates?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to state that this government has the same concern with respect to interest rates since they affect just about everybody, as has the leader of the New Democratic Party and perhaps even more so, I would say that if there is a first ministers' meeting this province will make whatever suggestions and engage in any sort of discussion that will be constructive. I do not pretend --

Mr. Renwick: What are your specific recommendations?

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Why does the Premier not acknowledge the fact that every time he talks about going to the feds it is a cop-out? That is all he is doing. In every area in the United States there are fine programs. The most recent one there is a program giving loans at six per cent to low income people, nine per cent to veterans and 10 per cent to all others.

A great boom in housing is coming about through that program. They are state assisted mortgages -- it is called SAM. We could call ours provincial assisted mortgages, PAM. Why doesn't the Premier get off his butt and do something, instead of talking about going to the feds? The government can give a $339-million interest-free loan to Denison Mines. Now they have bought a mine down in Mexico with our money, given to them interest-free. If the government can do things like that, why in the hell can it not do something important for our people here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am perhaps less reluctant to get off my posterior than the honourable member who asked the question, although I do notice he gets up with great regularity, sometimes with relevance and sometimes without.

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn't the Premier answer the question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not interrupt the member when he was so gracious in the way he asked the question. I will give him an interest-free loan to buy a tie if he wants. In fact, I will even go so far as to grant him one.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A new question.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, there has been one supplementary from a non-leader. Surely that is not fair.

Mr. Speaker: There have been three supplementaries.

Mr. Peterson: The leader had one supplementary and we had one supplementary. Surely this question demands more supplementaries than that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A new question, please.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps I could simply join, Mr. Speaker, in wishing the compliments of his birthday to the leader of the official opposition. I wish him many more happy returns, personally, I hope he enjoys this one and I wish him well.

Mr. Smith: I think the record should show, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) also has a birthday today. We share something, apparently, if not a political stripe. I want to thank the Premier and the leader of the New Democratic Party for their kind wishes. I assure them both that this is one year in which I have aged a lot more than one year for reasons which will go unmentioned, but are well understood. I trust that further birthdays will be spent following more pleasant events than the one which this one was preceded by. I do thank them and all members of the House for their good wishes.

HOTEL INSPECTION

Mr. Elston: I have a question for the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. As he no doubt knows, the coroner's report from the Inn on the Park fire was released today. Since the report contains recommendations which are almost identical to those which were made in the coroners' reports concerning the Wentworth Arms fire in 1976 and the New Royal Hotel fire in Paris in 1974, does the minister not feel uncomfortable because of his ministry's delay in acting upon the earlier recommendations, a delay that possibly contributed to six more tragic fatalities?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have not read the recommendations, Mr. Speaker. I have the report. As a matter of fact, I started to read them. I understand from my brief staff report that the recommendations are regarded as very comprehensive and excellent recommendations which obviously deserve a great deal of consideration. They will be given that consideration.

Mr. Elston: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Solicitor General has been concerned about the split jurisdiction concerning hotel inspections for some time, will the minister make a commitment today that he will move immediately to eliminate the confusion that has been fostered by the split in jurisdiction between the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario and the office of the fire marshal, and will he make a commitment to implement immediately the provisions of the new Ontario fire code?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the matter is a complex issue. I do not think it can be dealt with simply on the basis of yes or no, we are going to make this commitment or that commitment. It may be of interest to the member who asked the question and to other members that I am advised by my House leader that the Solicitor General's estimates are to start in about 10 days. I think we will have a good opportunity to discuss all the important aspects related to these recommendations and what might or might not be done. The member might be interested in participating in what I am sure will be some very useful discussions.

Ms. Copps: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Has the minister been so concerned with discussions on this subject he has been unable to call about or inquire as to why a fire marshal's report has not yet been submitted on the evacuation and near disaster of St. Joseph's Hospital of more than a year ago?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the issue the member is referring to.

AID TO PENSIONERS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Revenue. Does the minister stick by his response during question period of April 24 that senior citizens are "not being badgered in any way," and that his officials are being as charitable as possible when overpayments are being made on property tax grants because of his ministry's mistake?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Does the minister not think it is undue harassment when Ministry of Revenue auditors are making unannounced visits to elderly people in their homes with no advance letter or no advance telephone call, just a knock at the door and the presentation of an identification card? Is that not unnecessarily unsettling? Will the minister state unequivocally to this House that he will end this insensitive practice by his auditors who tell me they intend to continue making surprise visits?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: There is no doubt I have had a couple of similar items brought to my attention recently. There have been a couple of occasions when auditors conducting their auditing functions have called at doors unannounced. In the case of a few seniors, I guess it has disturbed them.

We are looking into that policy, keeping in mind the auditors do have a function to perform. They are doing it, I think, in a fair, reasonable and rational way. If there is any way we can overcome this kind of issue that disturbs seniors, we will. I cannot make a particular commitment to the member at this time.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I have asked the minister about the repayment practice which was going to be followed by his ministry. Can the minister now advise as to what terms of repayment are going to be available, rather than these unfortunate demands which will upset senior citizens? Can he not come out with a statement that would give a $5 or $10 a month repayment opportunity, something by which they can more easily work out this obligation which the ministry's errors have caused?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: No, Mr. Speaker. In most instances with which I have been involved, I do not think this kind of set policy has been called for or is needed. In approaching these people who have received a grant in error, we are finding that in many instances they have strictly put it into their accounts. In some cases, they have not even cashed the cheques and are fully capable of repaying it financially in one payment.

In those situations where they have spent the money and where it would cause grief to them, we are working out financial repayments that will suit their particular situations. There is no need, in my view, to have a set policy that it would be X number of dollars a week or X number of dollars a month. Each case is looked at on its own merits in terms of the needs of the individuals involved.

TRAIN DERAILMENT

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment concerning the train derailment near Paris. At 9.20 am. yesterday, 31 cars of an 82-car train on the main Canadian National line were derailed just outside of Paris. Nine of them were tanker cars, eight were loaded with ammonia and one with ethylene glycol. I observed when I toured the site yesterday that a small amount of the glycol appeared to have drained into a stream which in turn drains into the Grand River system.

I wonder if the minister could tell me what steps are being taken to ensure that Brantford and other communities on the Grand River which draw their water from that river have safe drinking water available to them.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the information the honourable member has is essentially correct. To the best of my knowledge from the preliminary reports at least, the only leakage that occurred was of glycol. Staff of the ministry was on the site shortly after the derailment occurred and throughout yesterday monitored the situation and took water samples from the stream as soon as it was realized that a very minor leak had occurred. I am assured by staff on the site at the time, and still on the site, that no hazard exists with respect to the stream or water supply for Brantford. Further testing is going on today to further ensure that.

As soon as I have a final and complete report on the situation, I will be pleased to share it with the honourable members.

CHAMPLAIN SCHOOL

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Now that the minister has decided to close down Champlain school in Alfred instead of relocating it, which is what I suggested, resulting in the loss of 70 full-time and 15 part-time or contract jobs, can the minister tell us what special efforts are being undertaken to ensure that employees will be relocated without loss of salary? Will the minister also undertake to give a special severance pay to the contract employees, some of whom have been there for many years?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I must admit relocating rather than closing is something new to me. The government will make every effort to find employment in the government service for those affected by this closure. If there are terminations because of lack of employment in the government service, those terminations will be handled under the normal government procedures.

When people rise in this House and draw to the minister's attention that he is supposed to move something out of an area, I would very sincerely suggest they consider the repercussions of such demands before making them.

Mr. Boudria: Is the minister telling us he is not aware of this document which I have in my hand, indicating three potential sites to relocate the Alfred training centre in the constituency -- one in Clarence Creek, one in Casselman and one in Alfred -- in three smaller, 6,000-square-foot homes? The

schedule for completion of that is in my hands. Is the minister not aware this is going on?

Hon. Mr. Drea: There were plans looked at over a period of time about how best to provide service for the young offenders in the training school. But we should get some facts on the record for the sake of the taxpayers. There are 13 young offenders in the Alfred training school and more than 70 employees.

At the end of June this year, those 13 would be going back into the community, perhaps not all directly to their own homes, but into other staging areas. Why in the world would I, this ministry or the hard-pressed taxpayers of this province want that kept open when we have vacancies in other training schools?

Surely the member is not going to stand here and say, "There has been a deinstitutionalization program concerning young offenders in this province which has been mandated not by this party and not by this ministry, but with the full acceptance of this entire House. Now, Mr. Minister, go and build three mini-institutions even if you haven't got young offenders to put into them."

Surely, he is not suggesting that I start placing young offenders into mini-institutions just for the sake of having to build institutions.

Mr. Speaker: A new question, Mr. Charlton.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We did have a supplementary.

Mr. Roy: You did not. You just had one supplementary on this side and no further supplementaries.

[Later.]

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order pursuant to standing order 28(a), I request that the question I posed to the minister today be debated at adjournment tonight. I am forthwith submitting to you, as per the same standing order, a written request for same. I will file with the Clerk my reasons for doing so before eight o'clock tonight.

KEATING CHANNEL DREDGING

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment regarding the Keating Channel.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: We want an even hand in this place.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Charlton has the floor with a new question.

Mr. Eaton: The member for Ottawa East should stay around until tomorrow and ask the question then. It will be nice to see him on a Friday.

Mr. Charlton: The minister is no doubt aware that last fall, as a result of proposals for dredging in the Keating Channel, Dr. Chant wrote to the Premier (Mr. Davis) suggesting that a hearing of this specific issue should be held as soon as possible and before any irrevocable approvals are given to the request for exemptions under the Environmental Assessment Act and Environmental Protection Act. The Premier responded at that time by saying: "I concur with Dr. Chant's recommendations and will be taking the necessary steps to initiate such an inquiry."

Is the minister aware that as a result of the decision to make that inquiry a private inquiry, an inquiry where the commissioner will discuss privately with the bodies concerned, the issues involved in dredging the Keating Channel but will not hold any public hearings, Dr. Chant has on May 4 written again to the Premier very clearly pointing out the difference between a hearing and a private inquiry?

Is the minister now prepared to change his mind and make the inquiry into a public hearing in which not only the public can be served with information but where the proponents of the dredging can be cross-examined and witnesses called so that the process is full?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the honourable member is aware of two stages in this process. There is a commitment that has not been backed away from with respect to a full environmental assessment hearing on the dredging of the channel. The purpose of the consultations going on under Dr. Lorant at the present time is a very highly technical matter to determine whether or not the degree of risk of flooding that some people have alleged to exist does exist and whether, in order to prevent perhaps a very serious accident in that area as a result of flooding, it will be necessary in the interim to do some dredging in order to minimize the impact of that.

I don't know that a commitment was ever made that the proceedings Dr. Lorant is conducting, to come to a technical determination of that question and to provide advice, was to be a public hearing.

Furthermore, the gentleman who is doing that work was selected primarily because of his expertise in that particular area. When one seeks that kind of advice from someone with that expertise, I don't think the quality of the advice is enhanced by virtue of cross-examination of witnesses before a public hearing. There will be a public hearing through the environmental assessment. In the interim, to determine the technical question with regard to the threat of flooding, Dr. Lorant is carrying that out. Anyone who has any submissions he would like to make to him or any advice he would like to give to him may do so, but it is not a process involving public hearings.

3 p.m.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the fact that the present process deals with exemptions to allow dredging while the environmental assessment is being done. The minister over there goes through the process with a great fanfare of applauding the experts his ministry appoints. Dr. Chant is also well aware of the process that is being conducted at this point. Is the minister prepared, on his recommendation, to see that the present inquiry in the present circumstance for exemptions is made public so that the process is open and full and so that all of the evidence is heard in relation to exemptions while the environmental assessment is going on?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member misunderstands the process again in terms of his talking about evidence and cross-examination and so on. The conclusions that Dr. Lorant comes to will be public information. There is no question about that.

If the member's question is: Am I prepared now to say there will be public hearings to determine whether or not there is risk of flooding? the answer to that question is no. I do have responsibility to make certain policy decisions on this side. I have made that decision -- that decision, in fact, was made by my predecessor -- and I will stand by that decision. No, I am not going to change the course of that exercise now.

MENTAL HEALTH PATIENTS

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying for three days now to get the Minister of Health in his seat. Apparently, I cannot get him in his chair, so instead I will ask the honourable member here --

Mr. Smith: Here he comes.

Mr. Ruprecht: Oh, he is coming.

The Minister of Health has assured this House that all is well in the mental health field and not to worry; things are going to be improving a great deal. In spite of the fact that I have tried to get an answer from the administrator of the Queen Street Mental Health Centre, who tells us that no one on the inside of the centre is supposed to speak to anyone on the outside, everything is well and things are improving.

Mr. Speaker: A point of order, Mr. Timbrell.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I thought this was question period and not a time for speeches, Secondly, what the honourable member is stating is quite incorrect. No one at Queen Street has ever made such a statement.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ruprecht, would you ask your question please?

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, in doing a little research, one finds that over 10,000 hospital beds have been shut down in 10 years, over 500 people have died in our mental institutions and that the return rate of treatment has risen from 65 per cent to 70 per cent. I have a report here from the --

Mr. Speaker: Would you ask your question, Mr. Ruprecht, please?

Mr. Ruprecht: That is my question, Mr. Speaker. I have a report here from the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry. That report indicates -- that is the question -- that 43 per cent of the patients need aftercare, but only 12 per cent are referred to community and health programs. I am asking the minister why that figure is permitted to stand.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all this may be a long answer and you may want to add something to the question period. Every time I listen to that honourable member I cannot help but think of the age-old question, why it is there are more horses' asses in the world than there are horses' asses?

To proceed to the issue at hand, it is quite true throughout North America over the last two decades the incidence of institutionalization and the lengths of stay in psychiatric hospitals have gone down. There is no denying that. There is also no denying the reason for it: the improvements in treatment that exist, including the development and use of many more drugs to stabilize and control mental disabilities in the long term.

Our average length of stay in the psychiatric hospital system is approximately six weeks. I still take it from what the honourable member is stating, that it is his view that one should lock people away until it is possible to sign on the dotted line that absolutely 100 per cent they will never have another problem. That is just not possible. He is totally unrealistic in expecting such a thing.

In addition, the honourable member refers to the fact that a certain number of people have died over the years in the institution. The fact is, we do have a very high number of psychogeriatric cases -- a growing number, in fact -- and basically the 10 hospitals and more than 4,000 beds in the provincial psychiatric hospital system are tertiary care facilities. They are for the chronically mentally ill. We do end up with a lot of people who end their days there, unfortunately. They do not die necessarily by their own hand, which I think is what the member is trying to suggest; they simply end their days there.

The report to which the honourable member makes reference is a report that my ministry commissioned and funded. We have already acted upon the first and basic recommendation of it by funding the proposal from Community Resource Consultants for a program to better co-ordinate the staff at Queen Street with social service staff in the community in the best interests of the patients. The whole point of that report was to identify ways in which we could improve on discharge planning and on aftercare for patients.

I think the honourable member at least should give the ministry some credit for having commissioned the report and for having acted already on its first and major recommendation.

Mr. Ruprecht: I have a report here from the Metro Toronto social services and housing committee that indicates the same concerns I have raised in this House consistently, namely, the impact of people leaving psychiatric institutions on the community and the impact of no programs for aftercare.

Why will the minister have people pushed out of hospitals into our area? And when will he come up with a policy that will address itself to the question asked by the Metropolitan Toronto council of why people are being discharged when they should not be and why people have no aftercare programs when they should have?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There is absolutely nothing on which the honourable member could base the allegations that people are being discharged when they should not be. He knows full well -- I have told him this repeatedly, but apparently he will not accept it -- that the question of admission and discharge is basically a medical decision using the best judgement that individual can apply at that point.

Second, the honourable member knows full well that over the last five years we have developed an extensive system of community mental health programs. In fact, in the last two years alone our spending on community mental health programs has doubled, and it will continue to expand in the future.

I am well aware of the concern of the people of Parkdale for their community. I think the very forthright action taken recently by my colleague the Minister of Housing in approving and reapproving the amendment proposed by Metro council will go a long way towards alleviating those concerns.

That, combined with continued growth in community mental health programs and continued growth in utilization of community hospital psychiatric facilities, with Queen Street and hospitals like it serving as tertiary care facilities for the chronically mentally ill, will go a long way to address the concerns of the honourable member's constituents. With respect, though, I have yet to hear a single constructive suggestion from the member for Parkdale.

3:10 p.m.

UNIVERSITY ADMISSION

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Education and in the absence of the Premier, I will ask a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

Will the minister assure us it is public policy that the Ontario university system should be accessible to all people, including members of ethnic communities, by specifically dissociating herself and her government from the position stated by a member of the York University budget committee, who is reported in a memo by the dean of Atkinson College, Mr. Harry Crowe, to Ian Macdonald, to express support for cuts in the funding for Atkinson College, the university faculty for part-time students, by declaring "his unhappiness with Atkinson's successful outreach to Toronto ethnic communities."

Getting away from the argument about the autonomy of universities, will the government insist that our universities shall be as accessible to students from ethnic communities as they are to others?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the policy of this government is that every student has access to all our post-secondary institutions in Ontario. There is no doubt about it.

The minister has perhaps seen the ad in this morning's Globe and Mail, if she has had no other information through the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) about the cuts that are going to be made at Atkinson College this year.

Will the minister not accept the fact that the $340,000 cut in the Atkinson College budget from the 1980-81 level will seriously damage the post-secondary education available to working people, many of them from ethnic communities, by requiring that 75 to 80 courses be cut and that between 2,800 to 3,000 students not be admitted?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The honourable member's question is full of speculation. If he is trying to suggest that this indicates our policy does not make post-secondary education available to everyone regardless of ethnic background, then I resent it very much. I find his comments very offensive.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

PRESENTATION OF COOKBOOKS

Ms. Copps: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: In view of the recent admonition by a certain member of the government party to get back to the kitchen, I wish to advise that I did so yesterday and managed to unearth a couple of books. To the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) and in absentia to the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy), I am happy to present personally autographed copies of a cookbook entitled "Great Grits' Recipes."

I wish to point out to the honourable members that on this enlightened side of the House our members not only let women into the Legislature but also contribute in the kitchen; to wit, recipes by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) and the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), among others.

I am only sorry to report that there is no recipe for egg on the face. I invite the honourable members to add their own recipes to our Liberal compendium.

COMMENTS BY MINISTER

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the honourable member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht), I wonder if I could get your ruling on whether he is what the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) described him to be -- that is, the rear part of the anatomy of a horse -- whether that is parliamentary and whether the minister should withdraw that remark about the honourable member.

Mr. Speaker: I will take that under consideration. The minister is not here and, quite frankly, I did not catch that remark.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: As a member of this assembly, I can understand your various rulings to cut down the number of supplementaries and allow the greatest number of questions in this Legislature.

While I quite understand that, I want to bring to your attention that there are provisions in the standing orders, including standing order 27(a), which states clearly: "The minister may take an oral question as notice to be answered orally at a later sitting but where any reserved answer requires a lengthy statement, the statement shall be given under 'Statements by the Ministry.'"

As was the case again in this question period, the Minister of Health stated, in fairness to him, that he had a lengthy answer. These answers can probably be given --

Interjection.

Mr. Roy: That's fine. Whether or not they are in response to a question, the standing orders are there.

Interjection.

Mr. Roy: What is that good-looking member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) saying now?

Mr. Speaker, if you expect members on this side to abide by your rulings as to supplementaries and to have respect for the chair, I suggest it is important that the chair understand as well that when ministers get up and answer by making lengthy statements there are provisions under the standing orders to make these statements at other times.

A precedent was set in this House by your predecessor that, when statements take too long, either the minister is admonished to give his statement at a time when statements are open or additional time is added to the question period. I think it is only fair and even-handed that, if the members on this side co-operate to make the question period work, we should expect the same co-operation from ministers on the other side.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, my friend the member for Ottawa East says he understands your desire to include more members in the question period. I must say, I have had serious difficulty in the last two weeks understanding what your desires are in the chair.

It would be helpful for all members if you would declare what your intentions are as the presiding officer in this House. It is my judgement -- and I say this respectfully, but there is no other forum in which I can say it to you -- that there has been exercise of discretion which in my judgement has not been consistent or fair.

I wanted to say that so that in your considerations in presiding over this House, when it is so important to you to have the full support and co-operation of all members, you can perhaps declare what your policy is, what your view of presiding over this House is, so we can all abide by it and you will have universal support.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have been in this place for 20 years now, and over the years I have had some trying times, but we are coming into the worst period in history in this province.

When matters of great magnitude are before the House, I do not think it becomes you to decide that there can only be one supplementary question. If the matter is important, we have had as many as four, five and six supplementaries allowed. There are matters very important to me and my riding on which I cannot get even one supplementary.

To be perfectly fair, matters of importance to the economy are important to you and to us. I know you are trying to be fair, but I wish you would bear that in mind.

Mr. Speaker: I am pleased that this particular matter has been raised, because I think it is important. You will notice that in the last few days I have been trimming the supplementaries, because they tend to be repetitious. Members from all sides tend to dwell on the same topic, on the same subject, and indeed ask similar questions.

Getting back to the original point of order raised by the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), in actual fact you will have noticed if you were keeping time that I have been very lenient in extending the time for question period beyond that provided for in the standing orders. And I did so today. Maybe I should get up and announce that, but actually the question period has exceeded the allotted time every day since I have been in the chair.

3:20 p.m.

Having said that, I think the member for London Centre brings up a valid point and indeed many members have brought it to my attention and to the attention of this House through their speeches in the reply to the throne speech. I think the problem quite simply is that when we get into a question that is of interest to many members, there tends to be a general desire for everyone to become involved.

What I would rather see, with respect to all members, would be to keep the supplementaries to a minimum, have a new question asked and give the back-benchers a chance to become involved as well.

Mr. Martel: But the length of the answer is important.

Mr. Speaker: The length of the answer is indeed important, but just as important, with all respect, is the length of the question itself.

I ask all members to bear in mind that the question period is for the benefit of all members, and not just for those who sit on the front benches on either side. I suggest that some consideration should be given by all parties to those people who sit in the last two rows.

HOUSING PRICES

Mr. Mancini: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Earlier today, during question period, I rose on a point of privilege to point out to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) that some time ago it was the Conservative Party's policy to subsidize interest rates. I noticed that the Premier (Mr. Davis) was shaking his head, almost implying that I was not telling the truth --

Interjections.

Mr. Mancini: I would like to be able to finish my point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Mancini: I noticed that the Premier was shaking his head, implying that I was not telling the truth. I want to inform you, sir, and members of the House, and I want to remind members of the cabinet who were also members of the cabinet back on September 11, 1975, when the Premier delivered a speech entitled "A Clear Choice," that on page 11 of that speech the Premier stated: "If, however, the federal government fails to respond within 30 days, Ontario" --

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Are you in the leadership race too?

Interjections.

Mr. Mancini: I could finish quickly if I were not interrupted, sir.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. let Mr. Mancini finish.

Mr. Mancini: "If, however, the federal government fails to respond within 30 days, Ontario will have no option but to act once again in our own best interests. For rest assured that this government" -- those Tories over there -- "is not prepared to stand idly by to give up its housing objectives and to give up the jobs and the homes to a federal policy which gives in both to increased unemployment and inflation. What we would propose, if we are forced to act, is to extend tax relief to the present and prospective home owners through a new tax credit which would offset three quarters of the mortgage interest costs which are above 10.25 per cent."

Mr. Speaker: I would like to point out, with respect to the member who rose on that point of privilege, that when he rose originally he did not have a point of privilege. In fact, he raised a new question. Again, I find him out of order.

Mr. Mancini: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Surely, when a cabinet minister implies in the House that the government has no responsibility in an area, when he implies that it has never undertaken to have such a responsibility, and when there is evidence --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the member please take his seat?

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: I wish to inform all members that pursuant to standing order 28, Mr. Boudria, the member for Prescott-Russell, has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) concerning the closing of a facility at Alfred, and this matter will be debated at 10:30 p.m. tonight.

MOTION

REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding the standing orders and practices of the House, the eighth report of the select committee on the Ombudsman of the thirty-first Parliament, dated December 1980, be placed on the order paper for adoption to be called for debate under standing order 30(c).

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of Bill 52,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have just introduced a bill entitled

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act. In addition to a number of housekeeping amendments, the bill contains provisions to rectify the situation caused by a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada overturning

section 238(3) of the Criminal Code. This made it an offence for any person to drive a motor vehicle while his or her licence was suspended under any provincial statute or regulation. As a result, there are no longer any sanctions against motorists who drive while disqualified, except for those contained in

section 30(

b) of the Highway Traffic Act.

Section 30(b), however, does not provide adequate penalties to act as a deterrent; neither does it provide for the automatic six-month licence suspension that previously resulted from a conviction under the Criminal Code. We intend, therefore, to amend

section 30(b), making it an offence to drive while disqualified under any Ontario law and beefing up penalties as well.

Under the amendment, drivers convicted under this

section will automatically lose their privilege to drive for six months and will be liable to fines ranging from $250 to $2,000 for a first offence and $500 to $2,000 for each subsequent offence within a five-year period. Motorists convicted of driving under suspension will also be liable to imprisonment for up to six months.

The bill also amends

section 100 of the Highway Traffic Act, prohibiting any passing on the left shoulder of the highway. At the moment, police are almost powerless to stop motorists driving down the left shoulders of freeways to pass stopped traffic. There is, of course, an exception for some emergency vehicles.

In addition, a new

section is being added to make it an offence to back up a motor vehicle while on a freeway with a speed limit in excess of 80 kilometres an hour, because police have reported numerous accidents as a result of this dangerous practice.

Finally,

section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act is being amended to empower the police to escort pedestrians found on a controlled-access highway to the nearest intersecting highway where pedestrians are allowed.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of Bill 53,

an Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

Motion agreed to.

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have just introduced an amendment to the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act. Briefly, the bill is designed to reduce Ontario's dependence on petroleum by encouraging municipalities to use electrically powered vehicles for public transportation.

Under existing legislation, the Minister of Transportation and Communications is authorized to subsidize public transportation at the rate of 75 per cent for capital expenditures and 50 per cent for operating costs, regardless of the fuel source. The amendment will permit the minister to pay a subsidy of 90 per cent of the capital costs of electrically powered vehicles and associated equipment.

Mr. Sargent: You just got $300 million for that last year. You are doubling up there.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No change is proposed in the subsidies for operating costs or for the capital costs not associated with fuel conservation programs. Mr. Speaker, this does not apply to Grey-Bruce.

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of Bill 54,

An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I will not discuss this bill in detail, but I wish to point out that we intend to amend

section 3 of the act to empower the ministry to refer ambiguous or unclear operating licences to the Ontario Highway Transport Board for clarification. This amendment, which is designed to promote better understanding of the privileges contained in operating licences, will benefit shippers, carriers and the public while providing for equitable enforcement of the PCV Act.

I also wish to advise the House that we are adding a new

section regarding the provision of documents. At the present time, enforcement officers have no recourse but to charge the driver of a vehicle with an offence of failing to produce documents, even though the holder of the operating licence has failed to provide the driver with them. This is clearly an inequitable situation. Therefore, this amendment provides that the holder of an operating licence may be charged with, and convicted of, any offence that his driver may be charged with under the act.

MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of Bill 55,

An Act to amend the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, a

section has been added to this act to require all snowmobile operators to stop when approaching or overtaking a school bus that has stopped and whose red signal lights are flashing. This is similar to the requirements applicable to drivers of other motor vehicles with respect to school buses as set out in the Highway Traffic Act.

In addition, a

section is being added to the act to require snowmobile drivers to stop when approached by a motorized snow vehicle with flashing red lights, operated by a police or conservation officer.

The bill also sets a new and more realistic limit for snowmobiles involved in reportable property damage accidents. Under existing legislation, a snowmobile operator is required to report a collision if more than $100 worth of damage occurs in the accident. This will be raised to $400.

Finally, the bill contains two amendments designed to bring our snowmobile legislation in line with the Occupiers' Liability Act and the Trespass to Property Act passed in this House last year.

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved first reading of Bill 56,

An Act to relieve Persons from Liability in respect of Voluntary Emergency Medical and First Aid Services.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to relieve persons from liability in respect of voluntary emergency first aid assistance or medical service rendered at or near the scene of an accident or other sudden emergency.

NONUNIONIZED WORKERS PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved first reading of Bill 57,

An Act respecting the Rights of Nonunionized Workers.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide a low-cost mechanism whereby nonunionized workers may obtain a review by the Ontario Labour Relations Board where the worker is discharged or otherwise disciplined for cause and the contract of employment is silent on matters of discipline.

At the present time, a nonunionized worker who is dismissed or otherwise disciplined for cause may have no right of action against his employer, notwithstanding the fact that, having regard to all circumstances, the discipline is unduly harsh.

The bill provides for a two-stage process reviewing complaints involving harsh discipline. Initially, a labour relations officer would be appointed to effect a settlement, which would be reduced to writing and which would have to be complied with according to its terms.

If no settlement is reached or if settlement is not likely, the Ontario Labour Relations Board would inquire into the matter. If the board is dissatisfied that the complaint is justified, it will have the power to make an order substituting such penalty as seems just and reasonable in the circumstances.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved first reading of Bill 58,

an Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide a mechanism whereby the Lieutenant Governor in Council can order a 60-day suspension of any strike or lockout and order a return to work where the strike or lockout constitutes an immediate and serious danger to life, health or safety, or seriously disrupts the economy of the province or any area of the province.

The bill provides that the Minister of Labour must appoint a conciliation officer where an order suspending the strike or lockout has been made and may subsequently appoint a conciliation board where the efforts of the conciliation officer to effect a collective agreement are unsuccessful.

If conciliation efforts are unsuccessful, the strike or lockout may be resumed without a further strike vote. An order made under the bill would be enforceable as an order under the Supreme Court.

3:40 p.m.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to the following questions standing on the Notice Paper: 1 to 3, 5, and the interim answer to questions 6 to 59.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to 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. Andrewes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a junior member in terms of service in this House and to this caucus, I am indeed honoured to make comment in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of this session.

With all due respect to those members opposite who may think otherwise, it is with a degree of humility that I approach this opportunity as the member for the riding of Lincoln.

At the outset, Mr. Speaker, may I affirm the congratulatory remarks made by my colleagues in this assembly towards your appointment as Speaker and to wish you well in your role and offer my pledge to you that my conduct in this House will be in keeping with the high level of decorum you might anticipate from all members of this caucus.

I would be remiss if I failed to pay tribute to the former member for Lincoln, Ross Hall, who served this House, his caucus and the riding with honesty and dedication throughout his years as a member of this assembly. Indeed, the constituents of Lincoln riding have enjoyed a great tradition of dedication, having previously been represented by the Minister of Energy and Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch). It is in this tradition that I will continue to represent my riding.

For those whose travels throughout the heartland of this province have not brought them in close touch with the euphoria of Lincoln, let me briefly take this assembly on a tour of what many Ontarians might describe as a remnant of Adam's garden.

Stretching southward from the shores of Lake Ontario and rising through the heights of the Niagara Escarpment, the area is unique in its climatic and geographic character, thus lending itself to a broad range of agricultural endeavours. Below and immediately above the escarpment grow the famed tender fruit and grapes that give the area its notoriety.

Moving still further south from the escarpment face, the moderating effects of Lake Ontario are less prevalent and the agriculture scene shifts to one of cash crops and livestock.

Let us not neglect to mention that Lincoln is the home of some of the largest poultry operations in this province. For those members whose agricultural concerns are more intensive, the riding is proud of its many well organized and productive greenhouse operations.

Lest the honourable members get the impression that we in Lincoln are without cosmopolitan influences, let me add that the riding is proud of its four communities that can boast all of the benefits of urban life without the preponderance of problems of a metropolitan centre.

As a member of a family that has been farming in this province for several generations, I should like to make some comments on the farm community. I would like to set the stage for my remarks with some background information on Ontario's agriculture and food industry.

Most people think of Ontario as Canada's industrial heartland. I am not talking about people from other provinces; most Ontario citizens see their province that way. Too few of our citizens realize that their province is the nation's largest producer of agricultural products, that their farmers produce some 200 commodities. In 1980, the value of that production was in excess of $4 billion. It is estimated that for 1981 it will exceed $4.5 billion. To the rest of the country that represents 30 per cent of Canada's total output.

Ontario has a population of more than eight million people. Only a very few of us are farmers. A little more than 340,000 people live on farms in this province, which represents just over four per cent of our population. When you think of the size of the output from Ontario farms in comparison to the number of farmers, you get some idea of just how productive this small group is. The agricultural industry of this province has the capacity to supply virtually all of the requirements of the people of Ontario in those commodities which are commercially produced here.

I am very optimistic about the future of agriculture in Ontario. From my experience during my farming career and from many observations over the years I feel that we can be confident about the future and the continued productivity of our agricultural industry.

Growth and productivity do not just happen. They are the result of a lot of hard work and dedicated effort on the part of many people and many organizations. One of those organizations is government. The government of Ontario has developed numerous programs over the years in support of agriculture. There is a lot to be said about what government should do, whether it is about land, prices or emergency programs. But the government's major responsibility in agriculture is to help to ensure that our farmers can earn a decent living.

If farming remains viable, if farmers can support their families at an income level commensurate with the work and investment they make, there will be no need of elaborate government programs to ensure our food supply. The farmers themselves will ensure it, because that is their business.

The approach this government has taken over the years is just that. All our agricultural programs have been designed to assist the farmer to do the thing that he does best, namely, produce and market food. We do not need complicated land preservation legislation to preserve agricultural land; we just need a climate in which farmers can make a decent living. I do not think anybody in this House would say that is an unworthy goal.

I am not going to review the programs that have been running for many years; most members and certainly all farmers are well aware of them. They have served the agricultural community well and in so doing they have served the province as a whole. Instead, I want to talk here for a few minutes about the new initiatives and recently developed programs.

The best possible way to make farming a viable undertaking is to ensure markets for farm products. It is not only a great deal less expensive than instituting fancy programs to shore things up; it is the only answer that businessmen or farmers really want. They do not want handouts; they want to be able to sell their products at a fair return.

In evaluating the markets for Ontario farm products, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has done a great deal of research into domestic food production and imports. Its work has shown that Ontario's imports are in great amounts and growing. In fact, a couple of years ago a leading chartered bank predicted that Canada would be in a food deficit position in little more than a generation if present trends continued. It is only Canada's large export of western grain that keeps this country in a positive trade balance in food right now.

As a result of that condition, the government of Ontario determined it was essential to attempt to reverse the trend. In the spring of 1977, the government announced that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food would embark on a new consumer-oriented program, the objective of which was to increase consumption of Ontario agricultural products by Ontario citizens. This is the program known as Foodland Ontario.

3:50 p.m.

The program has two thrusts. One is to inform people of the variety of high quality food produced by Ontario agriculture. The other is aimed at Ontario retailers and people in the food service industry, such as hotels, restaurants and institutions.

Consumer research carried out each year on the program has shown that progress is being made. For example, endorsement of the program has reached 87 per cent. One in two people are more aware of the high quality of Ontario food and they are becoming aware of the need to buy Ontario and keep this province healthy.

The Foodland symbol is now recognized by 61 per cent of Ontario's consumers. This program began in 1977. In the fall of 1978 the Ministry of Agriculture and Food was reorganized to give even greater emphasis to the marketing function. I think it is worth noting that since then similar reorganizations have occurred at the federal level and in other provinces.

In the future, import replacement is going to have an even greater urgency. Transportation costs just keep going up. In the future it may become too expensive to import food. Other nations may very well wish not to spend their scarce energy resources on shipping food to us. They may well find themselves in a position where production for export is not possible. We have no control whatever over any of these possibilities, so it is crucial that we have other alternatives available.

I have heard a lot of talk about the cost of producing food here as opposed to the cost of producing it in, say, the southern United States. But studies show it costs just about the same, for instance, to produce peaches from an acre of land here as it does in California. It is not the production cost that makes the difference; it is the productivity. But that does not have to be the limiting factor.

Let us look at corn, for example. No one, 30 years ago, would have believed how much corn we could grow in Ontario today. Now we are a major corn producing area and we did it with research. We did it by developing highly productive hardy varieties and we have done the same thing with soybeans. I don't think it has to end there. There are all kinds of crops in this province with the potential for increased productivity. I don't think it is too fanciful, for instance, to look forward to a day when our peach industry is nearly as productive as California's.

It is well established that a strong research and development program is an essential component of a reliable agricultural industry. It is fortunate that here in Ontario we have a strong and effective research and development program for agriculture. It is obvious to me that with a thrust towards significant replacement of imports of fruits and vegetables, it is imperative that a continuous flow of new technology be assured. This new technology must be forward looking in order to support an expanding and effective horticultural industry.

Research by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food at the Vineland Research Station, which happens to be in the riding of Lincoln, on the effectiveness of protective environments for peaches and, through industry, on storage and packaging systems, both aimed at extending the period and availability of fresh peaches, are examples of the forward looking research and development programs of this government.

Studies on long-term storage systems for both fruits and vegetables are on the high priority list for research and development activity for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food at Vineland, Simcoe and Bradford research stations and at the University of Guelph.

This discussion of expanding and improving our storage facilities brings me to the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program. As members are aware, the government introduced BILD in January of this year with a number of agricultural components. These are designed to give the kind of support to agriculture I was talking about a few moments ago.

Grants are being made available to cover one third of the construction or renovation costs to storage facilities. Also included are grants to upgrade packing and grading equipment. This program is being funded with $20 million over a five-year period.

In addition, a major tender-fruit tree replanting program will receive assistance. This program is designed to increase the production of fruit for processing, especially clingstone peaches. Bartlett pears for processing will also be included and $1.5 million has been aside for the program. This program will not only help raise production of Ontario fruit; it will help expand the processing industry.

Another area the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) has identified as having import replacement potential is that of asparagus. Under the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, $1.5 million is being made available over five years to assist farmers to expand asparagus production. This is an investment that could lead to a return of something like $4.2 million a year in replaced imports. Similar assistance is being provided in the dairy sector to increase production and further improve quality.

There is a BILD committee working on all these projects right now. It has members from the BILD secretariat, the Ministry of Industry and Tourism and the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, as well as senior representatives from Agriculture Canada. The committee is chaired by a senior staff member of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. It is the committee's responsibility to evaluate proposals under BILD and to promote BILD projects throughout the agriculture and food industry. We can expect to see some interesting developments quite soon.

I mentioned my experience in agriculture at the beginning of my remarks and I would like to expand on one aspect of that at this time. I have been associated for several years with marketing and, in particular, with marketing boards. Marketing legislation was passed in this House some 44 years ago and it has proven its worth over and over again.

All parties of this Legislature recognize the fundamental right of farmers to organize themselves to improve the marketing of their products. I do not think anyone in this chamber would dispute that right. Nevertheless, from time to time there is criticism of marketing boards and this is particularly true of those boards which operate under supply management programs. I would like to put into the record a few figures on that subject.

Last fall a report was prepared on price increases. The findings were instructive because between 1975 and 1979 the farm gate price of eggs rose 27.8 per cent and the price of chickens rose 13.4 per cent. In that period turkey prices went up 33.7 per cent and milk 23.6 per cent. In the same period, the consumer price index rose 38.1 per cent and the food component of that index rose 45.4 per cent.

In view of these findings, I do not think accusations against marketing boards can be justified. Perhaps their biggest failing is getting their story across, because not enough people realize that marketing boards are among the most progressive groups we have.

Their role is to improve the marketing of their products. They participate actively in many programs aimed at increasing sales for producers all the way from advertising campaigns to new product development. One measure of their enthusiasm for promoting their products can be seen in the way they have participated in the Foodland Ontario program. They have backed this program strongly and have joined the ministry in many cost-shared campaigns.

I have dealt with a number of issues in my remarks. There are many facets of the agriculture and food industry but it is a highly interdependent industry where activity in one field quickly affects events in other areas. The programs designed by the government to assist agriculture are, in consequence, closely coordinated to achieve maximum benefits all through the industry from producer to consumer. A secure, safe and plentiful supply of nutritious food is the goal of everyone involved and that is clearly reflected in the programs of this government.

4 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Andrewes, and now the honourable member, Mr.--

An hon. member: Mr. Sargent.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Just call him the shooter.

Mr. Sargent: The one who drinks.

Mr. Speaker, may I say at this time that this large gathering reminds me of the small church up our way. Its congregation is dwindling very seriously and on one particular Sunday, the bishop himself came to take the service. After he started his sermon he noticed, much to his chagrin, that there was an even smaller congregation than was there before.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Sargent, this is obviously in reference to the throne debate, is it?

Mr. Sargent: I will get to that later.

He turned to the minister and said, "Did you tell them I was coming?" The minister said, "No, I don't know how in hell they found out." So this large turnout may be because of the fact that I am on the floor. What were you saying, Mr. Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: I was just inquiring whether this was in reference to the throne debate.

Mr. Sargent: I have a very wide range in this. You must know that. As a new Speaker, we have to train you. You will catch on.

I would like to say at this time and place that it is a time for reckoning. The arrogance of this new government after the last election is of great concern to the people of Ontario. The blatant spending during the election was a shocking thing. Just as important, I believe, is the fact that we must assess the position we are in now with the beautiful resources we have here in Ontario. We shall have problems.

Election promises have always been a part and parcel of the Tory program for getting elected by the Big Blue Machine. In the last election we had a list of the previous campaign promises of the Tories, and there were about $900 million worth. In this last campaign it was much more than that. Here we have probably a billion dollars' worth of promises, which is a total fraud.

In the last week, members may have received a copy of the orders in council. They want to pass now, to continue in business, a $4 billion bill that we have no chance to study or review. This is spending by the cabinet with no recourse by the elected representatives of the people.

That reminds me of the zebra who went into the barnyard and saw a bull. He said to the bull, "What do you do around here?" The bull said, "Take off your pyjamas and I will show you." The same thing has happened to the people of Ontario in my book.

No one is denying that. The Premier (Mr. Davis) decided to fight the election on his leadership ability -- his leadership, his ability as a leader. I would like to point to a list of events that would make ex-President Nixon look good compared to the leadership of this party in Ontario.

Before I start out, I will tell you the motivation behind the Big Blue Machine, Mr. Speaker. This government is not run by the member for Brampton at all. He is a good politician, a good figurehead and a good con man, but this Tory party is controlled by a group of millionaires called the think tank. They meet every Thursday in the Park Plaza Hotel to direct the plundering of the treasury of Ontario.

They tell the Premier exactly what to do. They told him what to do in the election. He was not to appear on the platform with the two leaders of the opposition parties, because they all knew that the Premier could not answer the questions and the public of Ontario would see him with his pants down. Those fellows would not be sitting there today if he had had the guts to face the electorate in a public debate. That was the gutless position the think tank took -- not the Premier. He had no control; he was told what to do.

When the election was called, everything was in the can ready to go. The government spent 50 per cent of its yearly budget for advertising in Ontario in the first two months of the election -- total skulduggery and misuse of the public funds. They even arranged for their buddy, Mr. Bassett, who owns CFTO, the most powerful Canadian TV station, not to agree to go along with the debate and to tell the people of Ontario they had no right to know what was going on.

That same station appointed only one reporter to cover the whole three parties, and last week that great Conservative friend was appointed by the government to be in charge of the new multi-billion- dollar convention centre development. They pay their friends. Even Global TV was in on the act not to cover the election. The people of Ontario were totally uninformed on the issues.

Hon. Mr. Welch: A fine Canadian.

Mr. Sargent: The Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) is the last man who should say a word when I am speaking. He has sat in that job, which had four ministers before him who had the guts to try to answer a question. When I questioned this minister, he had the nerve to give me some crap about "looking into the matter." It is an insult not to answer questions raised in this House.

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask the member to be more orderly in his references to his colleagues in the Legislature.

Mr. Sargent: I am running this. It is a wonder you got the job in the first place, so don't you talk to me.

Hon. Mr. Welch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Let the record show that the honourable member who is now speaking has not asked a single question of the Minister of Energy this session, so why is he talking about answering questions? The only question he has asked me was in a note yesterday to the effect that he was having trouble responding to reporters of a certain radio station. I assured him we would be glad to give him all the information he needed. That is the only question he has asked, and that by written note. What is he really talking about?

The Deputy Speaker: We remind all members that we do indeed allow some latitude in the Legislature, but let us not get out of hand.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, you are going to see a lot of this in this session. I am not going to take from any minister the crap I am getting from him. I have repeatedly asked him questions -- all the opposition knows that -- but he never answers a question.

The Minister of Energy has never told us what happened on the $7.5-billion scam with Denison Mines. He gave them almost $500 million as an interest-free loan.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The estimates of this ministry will be before the committee.

Mr. Sargent: The minister always says that, but he does not know his portfolio. He is a joke. The reason he is there is that he will not answer questions in the House. The government has the biggest, most expensive portfolio in the cabinet run by a dummy like him. He has managed to sweep everything under the rug. I am incensed over the fact that I, who have sat in this place for 20 years, and the taxpayers, do not know what is going on. He has tricked us all.

He has allowed the Premier to open up the cash bag and to spread millions of dollars in any place he can buy votes for the past four years, all the while preaching total restraint. Since February 2, when the writ was issued, the bag has been open. The think tank decided how to spend the money and everybody marched along like little soldiers, giving away about $1 billion, bribing the public with its own funds.

One voter said to me, "Here we have the Premier boasting about his leadership while 143,000 of our young people under 25 years of age, representing 50 per cent of the population of Ontario, are walking the streets because they cannot get a job, nor do they have hope of ever getting a job." The unemployed rate of 14.5 per cent represented by that group of 143,000 people is the highest in the free world.

4:10 p.m.

The Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) told me that was a lie. I told him to look it up and gave him the page and the date in his own publication from the economic council. He did not apologize at all. There are no job training programs to any extent; there are no apprenticeship programs; and now we are importing thousands of skilled workers into Ontario. And the Premier calls this leadership.

The name of the game for him is think-tank advisers and controlling the money flow for the establishment. Every single day they can stay in power, whether in a minority or a majority situation, they are making more millionaires. Someone asked Willy Sutton, the bank robber, why he robbed banks. He said, "That is where the money is." That is what the think-tank guys are doing. This is the big ball game, and they are running the show and pulling the strings. Name one guy on that think-tank adviser group who is not a multi-millionaire.

The first time I became amazed at the arrogance and skulduggery going on here was during the Fidinam affair. A reporter gave me a cheque for $50,000, which was cancelled, that had been paid off by Fidinam to get a construction contract for $20 million for the Workmen's Compensation Board building. No bids were called. I produced this $50,000 cancelled cheque in the House, showing the payoff from this Fidinam group. A firm that could not pay a $1,500 account that year was furnishing a $50,000 cheque to the government. They got the $20-million contract and also a $15-million loan.

I produced the cheque in the House, and they bounced me out of the House. In the meantime, they had an investigation, rapped a few knuckles and found they should not have done it. That started the ball game.

The next time we had the Premier and his friend Mr. Moog. He is a wealthy construction man who is a great buddy of the Premier. They got together and decided to build a classy, new Moog-an-Davis hotel here -- the Hydro building. Mr. Moog and the Premier took a trip to Germany to raise the funds. The Premier told our committee hearing about it. He said, "When they were raising the funds, I stayed at the other end of the room. I did not want to hear what they were talking about."

They came back and they let the contract. No bids were called. They got the contract for a $43-million building down here -- and nothing wrong with it. We had an investigation about that. They investigated themselves and they had a majority of their members on the committee; so nothing happened. A $20-million deal and away we go. I do not know how much Moog made out of the deal. The same guy, Moog, got the OISE building contract for $20 million with no tender bid. And he talks about leadership.

Last year Ottawa promised to give Ontario a $500-million equalization grant because we were a have-not province. The Treasurer (Mr. F.S. Miller) said, "No, we are not a have-not province. We do not want the $500 million." A half a billion dollars he turned down.

Mr. Riddell: Boy, could the farmers use that right now.

Mr. Sargent: You are damned right they could, and so could we at our hospital.

Mr. Riddell: We could keep the farmers right in business with that money. It is just a crying shame. It really is. It boggles the mind.

Mr. Breaugh: Just one speaker at a time.

Mr. Sargent: He is right on target.

Mr. Riddell: I love to get in on it because there is a dry rot over there.

Mr. Sargent: I am going to make a phone call.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Sargent has the floor, I believe.

Mr. Sargent: I do not know. Sometimes I think you are trying to take it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. The standing orders specifically state that Speakers are not to take

part in the debate.

Mr. Sargent: You can keep your head up.

Last year the Premier hurried a deal through the Legislature to meet a February 28 deadline. It was a $7.5-billion contract for uranium. At that time, uranium was selling for a dollar a pound at the mine head, but this contract called for a price of $40 to $60 a pound. They gave them a contract to the year 2010, and Denison Mines was guaranteed a profit of $2.5 billion regardless of what happened in the marketplace. That contract stood. On top of that, they gave them a $339-million loan, advanced interest- free for 40 years. This was signed by the Premier and hurried through the Legislature.

It was a situation parallel to what Westinghouse had in the United States. Westinghouse renegotiated the contract with a cartel and won the case.

Mr. Kolyn: Who made the cartel?

Mr. Sargent: Trudeau, Denison and the guys. The honourable member is totally right, but the villain in the case is the fact this government could give a total package like that at unbelievable prices. They knew there were more finds in Saskatchewan, South Africa and Australia. What happened? Denison took our $339 million and bought a uranium mine in Australia with our interest-free money.

We cannot get a hospital in Owen Sound. We were promised a $5-million hospital 20 years ago. It was up to $10 million 10 years ago. Then it was up to $15 million. Last year it was $25 million. This year it is $35 million. In 20 years, what they are going to give us has gone up to $35 million but we never get the money.

They are always promising. It is no wonder I am angry. Here in the opposition we are being discriminated against, and I am fed up with the whole process. I do not know whether the question period means a damn thing or whether I should get up to speak and make a lot of enemies, but someone has to tell the truth. This will be the most corrupt situation in North America. It will make Watergate look like peanuts because they are going to have a blank cheque and no one can stop them. That is a fact. Who is to stop them?

John White, the former Treasurer of Ontario, was here and said he wanted to build a new city in Haldimand-Norfolk. He had a dream and he spent $60 million of our money to buy land.

An hon. member: A nightmare.

Mr. Sargent: A nightmare is right. What did he do? He had 20 visits in his apartment downtown, without the press, with the vice-president of A. E. LePage. He made a deal that L.ePage would get the whole contract. LePage got a $5-million commission but there was no contract, only a handshake. That is how the whole deal happened. That was the Treasurer of Ontario under the Premier's leadership.

Mr. Bob Macaulay used to be the minister of energy and was legal counsel to Ontario Hydro. The chairman of Hydro is Mr. Hugh Macaulay, who is the brother of Bob Macaulay. Bob Macaulay, as counsel for Hydro, had a bill for one year of $176,000 in legal fees. We have the family compact looking after its friends. I could go on right down the line.

The fact is retired cabinet ministers who had front seats in the Legislature have all got jobs at about $51,000 a year. They are on different commissions and are getting a $31,000-a-year pension on top of that. They are getting $82,000 a year because they sat in the front row and because they looked after their friends.

Our friend, Mr. John Yaremko, is making big bucks. He made a $1-million land deal the day before the Niagara Escarpment thing was to go into effect. He made the date for closure the day after he made the land deal and made $1 million.

I could go on down the line. We had Mr. Darcy McKeough here. He was a power, a real wheeler and dealer. He was at a cocktail party one night and promised Mrs. R. W. Todgham, the wife of the president of Chrysler, that he would look after $600,000 tax she had to pay on $2-million profit on a deal. Darcy said to her at the cocktail party: "I will look after you. I will cancel the tax for you." He cancelled the tax. I brought it up in the Legislature and was tossed out. She did not pay the tax. She has never paid the tax. That has been going on in Ontario for years and we still think it is good government and a good way to run an operation.

4:20 p.m.

The current scandalous thing I am trying to talk about is what is going on at Ontario Hydro. We have a 40 per cent surplus of power, so they are going to build a $600-million line under Lake Erie to feed power, cheaper than what we pay for it, to the Three Mile Island group across Lake Erie. They are going to spend $6 billion on Darlington, despite our 40 per cent power surplus, when the overrun for all nuclear plants across the world ranges from 25 to 400 per cent. A case in point is the last unit put into effect at Douglas Point, which came on stream about three months ago, was to cost $280 million, but it cost $880 million -- a half a billion dollar overrun.

We have an overrun of maybe 500 per cent on the $6.6 billion on Darlington. We have the interest on the money, we have the $600 million to cross Lake Erie and now we have a new tax coming on -- and acres and acres of spent fuel rods in swimming pools. They have to have a life protection of 2,000 years. They don't know where they are going to put them; so they keep on making more swimming pools and putting these spent fuel rods in there.

They are going to take $59 million a year out of our pockets for Hydro to put into the kitty so that in 1995 or 2000 they will have enough money to go out and find some place to put these spent fuel rods. It is totally irresponsible. We are looking at $15 billion, with interest, for all the build-ons and all the add-ons for Darlington with a 40 per cent power surplus. And they are talking restraint. It is mind-boggling. I could go on, but I don't want to go over my time.

Our farmers are in trouble. The last speaker hit on some of the high points. Our rural farmers are paying 29 per cent higher hydro rates than those charged to city residents. The cost of electricity to the farmers of Ontario is the highest in Canada. The farmers' net income in Ontario declined 32 per cent in 1980. Their 1981 operating expenses are forecast to grow by 19 per cent and depreciation charges by 14 per cent.

In Owen Sound we have two and three pages of farm auction sales every weekend -- sometimes daily. I had a call the other night from a very successful farmer near Port Elgin. He started to tell me the whole story of what was going on. I said, "Just a moment. Do you mind if I tape this?" and I taped our conversation.

The bottom line was there were 24 farms on his line and his was the only one left. They were all prosperous areas. He said, "The only reason I can hang on is I have a good job at the Pittsburgh plant and I have my son running the show. But God knows how long I can hang on." Regardless of the price at the farm gate, they can't meet the high cost of money at the bank, the interest rates.

We have a great pride in OHIP, but we have a great shortage of hospital beds. I have had two serious things happen in my family related to terrible hospital conditions. Our garbage goes up and down in the same elevator as the surgical team going to operate. It is the worst hospital in the country. We have the best staff, but we can't get money from the government. They said in our election that if they voted for Sargent they wouldn't get a new hospital. I told the Premier many times that I would resign my seat if he would give us a hospital. He wouldn't fall for it. He wouldn't go for it. What a way to run a province.

I think it is scandalous. The people of Ontario don't know what is going on here. They don't know how the members opposite are running the show. We are proud of OHIP. It is the envy of the United States. They are trying to copy the program.

It is the right of every citizen to have a hospital bed in time of need. But the shocking fact is that many people are dying unnecessarily because they can't get hospital beds, even though they are paying for them with their OHIP. That is another form of fraud. They pay for them, but they can't get hospital beds. June Rowlands is one of the most important aldermen in Toronto. I think she is in charge of budget here. Her mother tried 12 hospitals in Toronto and couldn't get a bed. And Mrs. Rowlands is a top authority in that field in Toronto.

I say that the Premier has his priorities all mixed up. He will never sit in this House and let us tell him what we think of him. As a man he is a great guy, but he runs a corrupt machine; that is all he does. That is bad enough. I told him one time in the House that if one is in the States and is running a corrupt machine one goes to jail. That is what would happen. But this is corrupt. There have been enough commissions over the years to vote this government a clean bill of health.

The $6 billion being squandered on Darlington would build 100,000 new hospital beds in Ontario. It would keep the farmers in business. The priority in my life is to see some justice along this line.

The shocking fact is that there are no jobs. I believe the situation that has developed today is the result of the troubles that are being created by the lack of jobs for our kids, our people and our farmers. The full package, the full price of the plant closings, the shutdowns, and layoffs that have reverberated through much of the Canadian economy, is beginning to be paid. It is being paid in the coin of human misery, in the broken dreams, in the wrecked lives of many who find they cannot cope with unemployment and rising inflation. The interest point today is around 20 per cent and it is going to go to maybe 24 per cent or 30 per cent. I think we are facing a very serious recession.

In the past year, 68 plants and industries have closed in Ontario, in some cases throwing entire communities into the chaos of mass unemployment with all of the social problems that come in its wake.

There are now 320,000 jobless people in this province, where inflation is pushing 12 per cent and interest rates are now at 20 per cent. An increasing number of Ontarians are finding it simply impossible to deal with the rapidly escalating mortgage payments -- I am talking about today's food and energy costs -- or with the stress of watching their families do without because the main provider can no longer bring home the bacon. The toll of human tragedy and suffering is tremendous. It is reflected in the rising suicide rate and the incidence of wife- beating, child abuse, alcoholism and mental disorders.

In the Oshawa-Whitby area, one of the areas of the province hardest hit by the plant shutdowns, the number of suicide cases has jumped from 21 to 35 in one year. That is a challenge that can only be met through co-ordinated and comprehensive employment strategies at both the provincial and federal levels.

The realization that unemployment is not solely an economic concern, but a social one that affects the quality of life for everyone, and ensuring full employment in Ontario and in Canada would require a stable industrial policy with widespread job training, apprentice programs, retraining programs and co-operation of business, labour and government. Leave the think tank out of it and the millionaires who are making their fortunes on nuclear power. Leave them alone; they have had enough. They have put us in the spot we are in now. The messes that have been created for the people by regional government and school consolidation programs have cost unnecessary billions.

It is a task we cannot afford to put off any longer. The experience in Ontario sadly demonstrates that unemployment means more than embarrassing statistics. It means that people who desperately want to be productive, happy members of society find themselves caught in the web of economic circumstances beyond their control, out of work and frustrated as they are today. We can thank this government for many of our problems.

I am concerned, as I said before, about the plight of youth. I am very concerned about it. This ministry has a challenge to do something to put our kids into apprentice job training programs. I do not know what the future holds. I do know the future of Canada and of Ontario depends on our young people, and it is time we did something about it.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise and join in this debate -- I use the term loosely -- on the speech from the throne. It is usual, when one rises, to congratulate various people around the building and the club. First, I would like to congratulate some of the old boys who survived, rather than the new boys and girls who entered.

I have some very strong memories of my own first speech in this Legislature in debating the speech from the throne back in 1972. I was looking at it the other night and I was immediately filled with an enormous sense of depression because my response to this speech from the throne is very much like my response to that speech from the throne.

Unlike most of my colleagues on this side of the House, I was not disappointed in the speech from the throne because there was nothing in the speech from the throne. One cannot be disappointed if there is nothing of substance in it. I was struck also by an enormous sense not exactly of powerlessness, but of what drives us to rise in this place, in this marvellous theatre of the absurd, when the benches are overflowing as they are this afternoon? What do we think we are accomplishing?

That speaks to something very profound in Ontario politics because there has been an enormous deterioration of the respect in which the Legislature has been held by the government of the day, particularly under the present Premier (Mr. Davis).

For example, this afternoon there is not a single cabinet minister sitting in his place. I do not take that as a personal insult, but I take it as an insult to the Legislature that not only is the Premier not here, but not a single cabinet minister is here. I take it as an insult to the Legislature that there are fewer Tory backbenchers, when they have a majority, than there are NDP members of the House. I take that as an insult to the Legislature because I see the Legislature as a place --

Mr. Shymko: Where is the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy)?

Mr. Foulds: Where is the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis)? Where is the member for Brock (Mr. Welch)? Where is the member for any of those 26 ridings where there are cabinet ministers?

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Shymko, Mr. Foulds has the floor.

Mr. Foulds: I take it as an insult to the Legislature that nobody in the cabinet thinks it worth while to listen to the debate of their own back-benchers.

Leaving all that aside, I think we might just take a look at a few words that were spoken by William Faulkner when he had the honour of accepting the Nobel Prize for literature. He said: "It is easy enough to say that man is immortal simply because he will endure; that when the last ding-dong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening; that even then there will be one more sound, that of his puny, inexhaustible voice still talking." One of the reasons --

Mr. Shymko: I think he wants a Nobel prize for oratory.

Mr. Foulds: The honourable member is an insult to the people of High Park-Swansea with that kind of contribution.

Mr. Shymko: The people of High Park-Swansea made their opinion well known.

Mr. Foulds: That is right, and the people of Ontario made their opinion well known. Fifty-six per cent of the people of Ontario voted against the honourable member's party. Just let him keep that in mind.

Mr. Shymko: They voted against your former member.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order, Mr. Shymko.

Mr. Grande: The honourable members in that party should be ashamed of themselves for the kind of election that was run.

Mr. Philip: If there was ever an example of patronage to incompetence, the member for High Park-Swansea is that example.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Mr. Foulds has the floor.

Mr. Foulds: When Faulkner was speaking, I think he was trying to illustrate that one of the few tools we have as human beings that does not lead to destruction, one of the few tools we have to bring about change, is man's voice, his words, because they express his thoughts, his desires and his dreams.

My friend the former member for Lakeshore, Pat Lawlor, was fond of saying --

Mr. Shymko: He is after the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn) now.

Mr. Foulds: Why doesn't the member for High Park-Swansea just excuse himself?

He was fond of saying that we in the Legislature are essentially wordmongers, people who exchange and, it is to be hoped, change things with our words. That is why we engage in this kind of debate and that is why it is for me an honour, as it always is, to rise and participate in this forum.

First of all, I happen to think this forum is a good and honourable place in which to work, and I think it is a forum for work. I think it is a bit insane at times and when we have done away with the zoo period of our a