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

May 1, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L007 - Thu 1 May 1986 / Jeu 1er mai 1986

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WASTE DISPOSAL

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

VILLA COLOMBO

UNEMPLOYMENT

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

FARM CHEMICAL LOSSES

RECYCLING

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HEALTH APPOINTMENTS

BUDGET DATE

ORAL QUESTIONS

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION

EXTRA BILLING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

HOUSING POLICY

SPECIAL EDUCATION

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

NUCLEAR SAFETY

INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

ABORTION CLINIC

OVERTIME WORKERS

PROVINCIAL PARKS

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

EXTRA BILLING

MOTIONS

TRANSFERRAL OF BILL 34

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS AND AGENCIES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

SIMULTANEOUS TRANSLATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Sheppard: Last Friday the federal Minister of State for Mines, the Honourable Robert Layton, made an announcement concerning the siting of low-level, radioactive waste disposal facilities near the town of Port Hope. I am deeply concerned about the implication of establishing such a facility so close to the shores of Lake Ontario.

Eldorado Resources has proposed the establishment of a low-level radioactive waste dump at Wesleyville, which is very close to Lake Ontario. In the past, citizens of the area and officials from all levels of government have opposed this location as the site for the disposal facility, mainly because of its proximity to a water body that supplies drinking water to the majority of the people of southern Ontario.

In addition to the risk of contamination of this water supply, siting a low-level radioactive waste dump in this area could pose a threat to the health of local citizens. It is a well-known fact that the federal government is looking for a national disposal site for low-level radioactive waste. Residents of the Port Hope area fear that establishing the Eldorado dump in the township could prove to be the thin edge of the wedge towards the creation of this national dump in that area.

Our Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) should provide strong leadership to promote the removal of the waste to a remote location. He should get involved now, before it is too late, and do his utmost to protect the people of the Port Hope area.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired. There are too many private conversations.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Yesterday the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) indicated that the ministry would be hiring additional inspectors. My understanding is that when it has finished hiring a number of inspectors to enhance its team, there will be 235, which is 11 under what it was at one time, when it was 246. There are going to be fewer inspectors than there were previously; yet it is going to be an improved program.

Second, when we were doing our tour, the ministry inspectors were instructed not to come forward to talk to the member for Sudbury East. I am not sure why, but that was the instruction sent out by the ministry. I am surprised by that.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union has indicated to me that at present 80,000 to 120,000 companies have yet to be registered with the ministry for inspection purposes. Of that group, 63 per cent of the companies that are represented by labour have health and safety committees. Only 32 per cent of companies without a union have a health and safety committee.

When is this ministry going to get serious and say to the companies that do not have a health and safety committee, "You are fined on the spot," as it does when somebody in the construction industry, for example, is caught without a helmet? When is the minister going to get tough? Having 11 fewer inspectors is not going to do it.

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

Mr. McClellan: Let the record show the minister refuses to answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

VILLA COLOMBO

Mr. Cordiano: The year 1986 marks the 10th anniversary of Villa Colombo. This week the Villa, as it is affectionately known, will begin to hold a number of events in commemoration of the last 10 years. The Villa has served the Italian-Canadian community as a home for the aged and in many other capacities as well. In addition, to touch on some of those, the Villa has really acted as a focal point for the community in bringing together people from all walks of life.

Villa Colombo, as an important cultural and social institution, has spawned quite a renaissance in the Italian-Canadian community. It has made all Canadians of Italian origin very proud indeed. I understand that His Excellency the President of Italy will be visiting the Villa some time this summer to help in the celebrations. As well, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) will be attending to place a cornerstone to mark the 10th anniversary.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Gordon: I would like to jog the memory of this Liberal government about what it has not done for the Sudbury region in this past 10 months.

We have been battered by a winter of 14 to 15 per cent unemployment. We have 3,000 people on welfare. Two thirds of those people are employable. People between the ages of 25 and 45 cannot find work. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) were informed last August of the grief and hardship that Sudbury region would experience. On numerous occasions, regional officials have met with them. In October they met with them and told them what was needed. As far as short-term jobs go, we got zero.

For long-term jobs, despite an announcement of $5 million last December, a cheque to hire a co-ordinator and open an office has just arrived, six months later.

Where are the new ideas and the programs to meet the needs of the unemployed in Sudbury region? They are just not there.

The people of Sault Ste. Marie now are faced with the same dire predicament as the people of Sudbury region have faced. Why does the government not be honest and up front with these people and tell them that it does not have any new ideas and it does not have any program? Why does it not quit hiding behind these shameful, endless meetings and get down to creating some new programs for the Sault? Why does it not give those people a break?

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Foulds: I rise with a sense of anger and frustration to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the first May Day. I have anger and frustration because today, of all days, the Great Lakes Forest Products waferboard plant in Thunder Bay is closing. Great Lakes Forest Products has taken a crass corporate decision to get out of producing waferboard, knowing full well the markets are there and yet throwing 150 workers out of work.

In April alone, more than 3,500 potential layoffs affecting northern Ontario alone were announced. The time for government action is now.

First, the government should immediately introduce legislation to allow the imposition of a one-year moratorium on plant closures like the one at the waferboard plant at Thunder Bay and the massive layoffs facing the rest of northern Ontario.

Second, the government should introduce legislation to compel companies to open their books both to workers and to this Legislature when closures are contemplated.

Third, having allowed corporations to earn capital from our northern resources, the government must ask this Legislature for the power and authority to have some say in the direction and investment of that capital. Capital earned in the north should be reinvested in the north. It is time this provincial government enabled our workers in our northern communities to take charge of their own economic destiny. The time for begging is over. We need tough legislative action now.

2:10 p.m.

FARM CHEMICAL LOSSES

Mr. McGuigan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to mention stolen farm chemicals at this time of year. Recently, there has been a series of inventory losses and break-ins at farm chemical supply depots in southwestern Ontario, resulting in losses as high as $100,000 this season. These break-ins are currently being investigated by the Ontario Provincial Police.

I suggest that farmers deal with reputable vendors or request unknown vendors to present their credentials and that they be especially careful of cash sales. Farmer members of this Legislature are well aware of the high cost of farm chemicals and they know that the increased costs of insurance add to the production costs of the farmer. Farmer members are also aware that it is very timely that these materials be on hand. If these thefts and losses of product continue, we may find these products are not available in the depots.

RECYCLING

Mr. Andrewes: I wish to raise with the House a matter of some concern, which is in your jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker. This is the matter of the refreshments supplied to members in the west lobby and, I assume, in the east lobby. Tea, coffee and apple juice are available for members and were formerly supplied to them in reusable, recyclable china cups and saucers. We now find that those drinks are only available in Styrofoam and plastic containers. I am sure you will want to correct this flagrant violation of the four Rs of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley).

VISITOR

Mr. Harris: I rise in my place to ask --

Mr. Speaker: On a point of order or a point of privilege?

Mr. Harris: On a point of worthwhile information for the Legislature. I know, Mr. Speaker, you would like to have all of us welcome the agent general for Ontario, Tom Wells, who is in your gallery. We welcome him back to the Legislature. I thought that you and all parties would want to recognize his presence here today.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I want to join with the spokesman for the official opposition in adding my voice of welcome to Thomas L. Wells, the government's agent general in London. I feel it is particularly appropriate during this first week of the new rules to recall that it was when he was government House leader that the background work involved in the development of the new rules was undertaken. All the advantages as well as all the disadvantages of these rules may be attributed to him.

I understand a bill is going to be presented this afternoon dealing with French-language services, which will be of special interest to him. We all know that his statements in this House and in the community at large were always supportive of initiatives of this type.

Mr. Martel: I join my friends in paying tribute to our former colleague. He is better served today than are his colleagues to my right. Things have changed rather significantly since he left, as he may have noted. I note the former minister is wearing a red tie. I do not know whether there is any significance in that.

I hate to say I am still on the same side of the House. As my friend the government House leader has just said, the rules have changed. We have grown up in Ontario. Now we can get rid of night sittings because the members know how to look after themselves. The new government has agreed with us that after 6:30 p.m. we are still safe without being in Queen's Park. Some of my Tory friends of old used to think we could not take care of ourselves at night. We have managed to survive this long this week. I do not know what next week holds for us at night.

An. hon. member: Baseball games.

Mr. Martel: I hope we will not get in too much trouble. We will get to the odd baseball game.

I join with my friends in welcoming back the former minister. We had many an interesting occasion together. The only thing I can think about is the number of times we have put off changing the rules with my friend. I do not know whether he could ever have mustered enough strength over in that motley group to get some cohesion about what we wanted to do, but the rules are changed. We welcome Mr. Wells back and we hope he is enjoying himself in England.

Mr. Speaker: I was wondering when I was listening whether things have changed. I see the members have now found a way to extend the time for members' statements. It is nice to see Mr. Wells here today.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

Over the years, a wide range of French-language services have been developed by the ministries, according to a government policy which began in 1968. During that period of 18 years, considerable progress has been made to ensure that francophones receive the services to which they are entitled in their own language, but much more needs to be done.

Our province has a special responsibility in this regard because Ontario is home to the largest group of French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec. It is for that reason the government of Ontario intends to guarantee through legislation the rights of francophones to receive government services in French.

The various measures contained in this bill are inspired by the basic principles of justice and equality which we value so highly in this province. These are the two fundamental principles on which our country has been built by the two founding peoples. The government of Ontario believes it is now appropriate that this reality and this duality should be reflected in the operations of all ministries.

This government believes the era of struggles, confrontation and concession between Ontario's francophone community and the provincial government should be replaced by an era of justice, equity, clarity and understanding.

In closing, let me emphasize that the bill on French-language services has been drafted after extensive consultations I have had with leaders of the francophone community in Ontario.

Je suis profondément convaincu que les dispositions de ce projet de loi répondront aux besoins des francophones de l'Ontario et contribueront à ce qu'ils bénéficient, dans leur propre langue, de services gouvernementaux d'une qualité égale à celle dont bénéficient leurs concitoyens anglophones.

Mr. Guindon: I would like to respond to the statement by the minister responsible for francophone affairs. I take exception to the last paragraph on page 3 where it says the government believes the era of struggles and confrontation is in the past. It was our government that started, I believe in 1968, the translation of the Statutes of Ontario. Any merit the francophones have in this province at present is due to the Conservative Party.

section 7, the bill states, "The obligations of government agencies and institutions of the Legislature under this act are subject to such limits as circumstances make reasonable and necessary, if all reasonable measures and plans for compliance with this act have been taken or made." My hasty reading of this bill is that it is not worth much more than the paper it is written on.

Si on va dans le Nord et dans l'Est de la province, on y voit des problèmes. Alors, il y a le problème des exclusions, d'abord. Deuxièmement, il y a un délai de trois ans. Je crois que je parle pour notre caucus en général lorsque je dis que nous allons proposer des amendements pour améliorer la situation et pour confirmer que nous ferons encore des progrès.

Je veux profiter de cette occasion pour dire à la Chambre, encore une fois, que dans notre parti, nous croyons qu'il s'agit seulement du premier pas et que l'objectif reste toujours l'enchâssement constitutionnel des droits minoritaires francophones dans la Constitution du Canada et dans la Constitution de l'Ontario, concernant les francophones de l'Ontario.

Je dis au ministre que nous allons continuer, dans notre parti, non pour faire de cette question une affaire partisane, parce que c'est beaucoup trop important pour que cela se passe, mais que nous allons travailler, oui, avec le Parti progressiste-conservateur, oui, avec le chef conservateur, oui, avec le premier ministre (M. Peterson) de notre province pour nous assurer que nous profitons vraiment de toutes les opportunités qui existent dans ce cas, en ce qui concerne les francophones.

Je veux ajouter, finalement, comme je l'ai dit au premier ministre à plusieurs occasions, que nous sommes prêts à travailler ensemble, avec lui, pour nous assurer que cela se passe. Nous allons travailler avec le gouvernement pour nous assurer que nous profitons de toutes les opportunités se rapportant à la réforme constitutionnelle, y compris la province de Québec.

Il nous reste des choses à faire pour garantir que l'égalité entre les deux peuples fondateurs reste quelque chose de réel et de vivant dans notre province. Mais nous devons dire qu'enfin, nous avons une

loi sur laquelle nous pouvons tous travailler, et je dis au Parti progressiste-conservateur que nous somme prêts à travailler avec eux et avec nos confrères du Parti libéral pour nous assurer que nous aurons des changements et des amendements au projet de loi qui feront une meilleure loi que celle que le ministre nous a présentée.

HEALTH APPOINTMENTS

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am pleased to inform the members of this House that, effective today, Russell H. Ramsay has been appointed to a three-year term as the new chairman of the Health Disciplines Board and as chairman of the Denture Therapists Appeal Board. Both boards have been without a chairmen since last June, when Hugh Mackenzie resigned from the posts. Mr. Ramsay's distinguished record of public service makes him particularly well qualified to serve on these boards. He was well known as a public-spirited individual in his native Sault Ste.

Marie prior to his election to the Legislature in 1978 as the member for that riding. He was subsequently re-elected in 1981 and has served this province as Provincial Secretary for Resources Development and as Minister of Labour.

The Health Disciplines Board, which was set up in 1974, is charged with the important task of reviewing decisions of the complaints committees of the five colleges that govern dentistry, medicine, nursing, optometry and pharmacy. It conducts its reviews when either a patient or the professional involved has not been satisfied by the decision of a college's complaints committee. Similarly, the Denture Therapists Appeal Board, which was formed in 1975, reviews decisions on complaints against denture therapists.

In addition, the Health Disciplines Board may review proposed decisions of the registration committees of the colleges in cases where a committee proposes to refuse registration to an applicant, revoke the registration of a member or attach conditions to an existing licence. Such reviews are conducted at the request of applicants or members.

Both boards are composed of lay people who are not provincial public servants and who are not, and never have been, licensed health care professionals. These boards provide an important service to the people of Ontario, and I am confident they will continue to play an important role under Mr. Ramsay's competent leadership.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lincoln.

Mr. Andrewes: I would like to congratulate the Minister of Health on his good judgement in the selection of Russell Ramsay to serve on the Health Disciplines Board. In his statement, the minister alluded to Mr. Ramsay's record of service to this House and to the people of Sault Ste. Marie. That record has been exemplary and speaks for itself.

Russell Ramsay was one of those individuals who did not mind putting in long hours. His long hours stretched from roughly 6:30 in the morning until well into the late hours of the evening. They were spent working diligently, particularly in his job of Minister of Labour, and this province is the better for it.

Those who wished to abuse Mr. Ramsay's time were often dealt with in a curt and short way by being invited to his office at some ungodly hour, such as 6:45 for an early morning meeting. Mr. Ramsay's ability to run committees will stand him well in this job. Those of us who have had the privilege of serving under him as members of committees know he enjoys keeping a committee on

schedule in reaching decisions expeditiously and fairly.

Mr. Rae: With regard to the announcement by the Minister of Health, I will be generous and indicate that we were consulted with respect to this appointment. We were consulted with respect to the individual involved and the timing of the announcement, as was the Conservative Party with respect to the announcements made yesterday and today. That should clarify the matter. All three parties were agreed not only as to the individuals who should be named but also as to the timing of the announcements. In that spirit, we congratulate Mr. Ramsay on his appointment.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I was so taken with the previous statement that I almost forgot one of my own.

Mr. Speaker: I gather the Treasurer is asking permission to revert to ministerial statements.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am.

Mr. Speaker: Is that agreed? Agreed to.

BUDGET DATE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to advise the House that I intend to present the 1986 budget on Tuesday, May 13, at four o'clock in the afternoon.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Health. If he is truly concerned about clear and open access to the health care system for every resident of this province, and in particular for the residents of northern Ontario, will he tell us why the sick and poor people of northern Ontario who do not have $300 readily available to them are going to the welfare offices for payment of medical travel costs that the government is supposed to be paying?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable member knows full well that we pay costs for medically necessary travel to people who have to travel extraordinary distances. There are mechanisms in place to assist those who otherwise have difficulty in paying travel costs, and they are following along in line with receiving assistance from those other social networks.

Mr. Pope: Unfortunately, that answer is not exactly accurate. Many northern Ontario residents are going to welfare offices across northeastern Ontario because this government will not give them financial support for their medical travel costs. The minister is failing to reimburse those welfare offices; he is not honouring the assignments. The welfare offices no longer are going to accept those assignments --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Pope: -- nor are they going to operate under his system, which he has not reviewed at all. What is he going to do to improve it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It would be of great assistance if the honourable gentleman provided details of those items. We are in the process of reviewing any problems that have developed with respect to implementing the program to reimburse the people of northern Ontario for medically necessary travel. I shall be pleased to receive details so we can include them in our analysis of how the program might be improved.

Mr. Pope: Unfortunately, that answer also is not accurate. There has been no review of this process. Neither the ministry nor anyone in the minister's office has contacted any welfare administrator; none. There has been no contact, just a form letter from the Ontario health insurance plan office in Kingston, dated April 17, which said it had not yet made a decision on assignments. In the meantime, the poor people who cannot afford to travel south for medically necessary treatment are being hard done by. They are written out of the system by a conscious decision that we warned the minister about on November 27.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Pope: When is he going to do his job and make sure this system operates to help the people?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have undertaken, and are continuing, to review the workings of this mechanism. The member for Cochrane South recognizes that we continually review how these programs work. He knows that. Other people know we are making considerable efforts to look at any problems that may have arisen. The Ministry of Health is concerned that these mechanisms work well. I hope the honourable gentlemen will provide me with specific details that will help us to get on with that job.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: My question also is for the auxiliary Minister of Health. Given the climate of disruption --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member should be a little more condescending.

Mr. Grossman: We will send the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) into negotiations.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: He has such a delicate touch, I am surprised they did not send him in already.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member should be a little more condescending; let us see whether he can be a little more condescending.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Minister of the Environment please control himself.

Mr. Grossman: Given the climate of chaos and disruption that is developing quickly in the health care system and at least is contributing to the exodus of doctors from this province, is the Minister of Health today prepared to undertake that the government will pay the costs for any patient who needs to travel to the United States to get the services of a doctor who formerly practised in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We will reimburse the patients for their costs on a formula basis with respect to services they can get only in the US. If those services are available in Ontario, we will not reimburse patients; we hope people will use the services provided in our province.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: The minister is saying the government will not fully reimburse patients who have to travel to the US to see the same doctors they used to see in Ontario prior to the time this government came into office. How can he hold out to the public of Ontario that the system is as accessible as it used to be, given that some of the world's best surgeons will be in the United States and inaccessible to Ontario residents unless they pay money from their pockets for travel and medical bills in the US?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The system in place now was implemented under the auspices of that member, when he was Minister of Health, and others. It was concluded that when the case requires it, we will pay 100 per cent of the standard ward charges and the usual and customary fees charged by surgeons for people travelling to gain medical procedures that can be provided only in those other jurisdictions.

The member knows this full well. His government decided not to pay for travel, and our government has not changed that policy. However, there are mechanisms that when emergency procedures are required, ambulances are available to take patients to those medically necessary services. We have not changed that policy. When services are available in Ontario, it is our expectation that the patients will use them.

Mr. Grossman: The minister makes quite a virtue of the fact he has not changed the policy. Having looked at the throne speech in some depth, we agree the government has not changed very many policies at all. Because of the handling of it by this government, many doctors who used to practise in Ontario will be available to their Ontario patients only when the patients have paid travel and other costs to get access to them in Dallas, Fort Worth and Phoenix. Will the minister undertake to change that policy?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think the honourable gentleman knows full well that for the past several years -- in fact, for a long time -- there has been a movement of physicians out of and back into Ontario. He knows full well the result of immigration and emigration has been that we have received a net increase in physicians coming to practise medicine in this province. He also knows we have never paid for patients to follow any of the doctors to their destinations in the United States, the United Kingdom or other places they choose to practise.

I do not choose to put restrictions on where doctors travel. I cannot do that and I prefer not to do that. It is our expectation that we will have a bountiful supply of services here to meet the medical needs of the people in Ontario. Where there is no service for the patients available in this province, we will implement the mechanisms to reimburse them for procedures out of the province.

Mr. Davis: The government chased them out.

Mr. Grossman: The government will drive them out and tell patients to pay out of their own pockets.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I think history will show that the only exodus taking place at the moment is out of the Tory caucus.

Mr. Callahan: That is right.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr. Rae: I think the hippo has been stung; the dinosaur has just moved over.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health a question. In his final answer to me yesterday this level of sensitivity is almost unheard of.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will wait until it is possible to hear what is being said. I can wait; it is your time.

Mr. Callahan: Start it off the same way, Bob.

Mr. Rae: No, I will be a good boy this time.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: I am quoting the minister: "For those patients who feel that there are problems, they ought to go directly to their physician. They can go to their physician, as they have been told. They can come to me and I will do my best as well to intercede for those people."

I wonder whether the minister would not recognize that is simply a repeated invocation of the same spirit of charity medicine that has been so decisively rejected by the people of Ontario. Can the minister stand in his place today and tell us the steps he is going to take to ensure that patients do not suffer as a result of the government's inability to grasp the nettle and bring a bill to this Legislature to end extra billing?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have to disagree with the honourable gentleman. He obviously does not understand the essence of the bill that has been the mechanism under which we will end that practice. We have to work under the system we have to deal with at this time. He knows in a democratic process we have certain things available to us, and I am prepared to do my best to work under that mechanism. I can tell the member, others here in this House and the public that we are working through Bill 94 to bring an end to extra billing and that we intend to pursue that.

Mr. Rae: Is the minister aware that yesterday in Welland at a meeting attended by his parliamentary assistant and by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) from our party, in response to a question, his parliamentary assistant said extra billing would be ended in the province in six weeks? Is that the case, and can the minister give that assurance to the people of this province today?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have been dealing with this matter through negotiations, and it has been honestly reported through the media and other places that we have made progress. It is unusual to be able to give the precise date -- as the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said, there is no precise date -- but it is not unusual to anticipate that progress will be made several weeks hence.

I can tell the people we are working very sincerely and directly towards putting together a package that will accomplish those items. Upon passage of the bill, I am sure all people will realize that our position is firm, clear and direct towards ending extra billing.

Mr. Rae: Since the minister has so clearly and decisively rejected the commitment made by his parliamentary assistant, is he in a position today to explain why the patients of this province should suffer as a result of the government's refusal to act? Why should delay be the friend of extra billing? Why should it be allowed to continue when the means are there for the government to move and it has failed to move?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We are moving as a government should in this jurisdiction and in this forum. We introduced a bill on December 19 and we have brought that bill forward. It has received second reading in this House and it is now before a committee. We are using the mechanisms available to this party and this government.

In addition to the legislative mechanism available in a democracy, there is the ability to talk, consult and work together constructively with such people as the Ontario Medical Association members to negotiate a way that may bring this problem to a conclusion. The democratic process is well served by this government and it is well served by the proper forward movement of the policy we are pursuing.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Reville: My question is for the Minister of Housing. There is another exodus which is more serious, and that is the exodus of affordable housing from this province. Since 1981, 8,700 units have been lost in Toronto alone, 629 go on the block tonight and about 2,700 more will be lined up for tomorrow. This crisis did not happen overnight.

Can the minister justify to this House his failure to act to protect the tenants of Ontario, or does he somehow feel this brinkmanship is in the interests of tenants?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The reason we are not announcing a position we are taking is not a matter of delay. It is a matter of discussing it with my colleagues. In a very short time I will be making a statement here that will take care of the member's concern.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Reville: It is the discussion that concerns me. Let me quote today's Toronto Star: "A freeze...has been put on hold, apparently because of internal bickering in the...cabinet." Those bickering most are the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). Apparently, the Treasurer told a Toronto alderman they were all nuts to be concerned about this problem.

Will the minister tell the House if he has dropped the ball, if he has been bushwacked, or if he wants to refer the question?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I will not refer the question, as the member requests. This is a very serious and sensitive issue. It is an issue that would take the wisdom of Solomon to solve immediately.

An hon. member: Or a Liberal government.

Hon. Mr. Curling: That is right. We do not have a Solomon in one person in our cabinet, but we have many men and women with such skills.

Mr. Breaugh: Name names.

Mr. Davis: How about a minister?

Mr. Grossman: Roll the tape.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Curling: There is no one individual who has the ultimate solution, but we have in our cabinet men with such knowledge and legal brilliance, as our Attorney General, with whom I consult. We have such sensitive, socially conscious members as the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro), with whom I also consult. I could go on with the talented people --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: No, no. We want to hear. We have lots of time.

Mr. Speaker: Lots of time? I wish you would all show a little heart, the way the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) does.

Mr. Reville: Tenant leaders, whose participation in the Rent Review Advisory Committee the minister has lauded as historic, say they will not support the new rent review policy they helped to develop in the absence of controls on condo conversions, demolition and co-ownership schemes. Is the minister now abandoning the tenant leaders, or is he going to leave the door open just long enough to let Bretton Place escape as a favour to cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I thought it was the practice to assess and make sure one knows where he is jumping and what he is doing before he acts. We do not intend to make any statement in this House unless we are very serious about it, and are backed by good legislation. The anxiety that is shown by the tenants and all those who are concerned is understandable. It is understandable because of the accumulated neglect that happened here, and they expect decisive decisions now.

Mr. Gordon: Since it is obvious the condominium conversion bill is not going to come in today, can the minister tell us whose right he is going to protect? Is he going to protect the right of the tenants to have affordable housing, or is he going to protect the right of an individual to own property?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am not at all surprised that member would ask me that question. This government is sensitive to all and fair to all, not to one side or the other side. That is why I take that side.

Mr. Gordon: I think the Housing critics and the House have been quite fair to the minister, given that he has not answered any of the questions we have asked him in 10 months. Is it not true that the assured housing policy he announced with such fanfare late last year is now beginning to crumble and that he does not have the influence to push affordable housing through the cabinet at present?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If the 600 or 700 social housing units approved under this government is a crumbling housing policy, I do not know what the member is calling crumbling. More social housing will be built over three years than his party did. We are committed to our program and we know it will be successful.

Mr. Reville: Surely the minister realizes that government policy must not only be right, but it must also be timely. Will he pick up the phone today and call Toronto city council and ask it to postpone its hearing on Bretton Place while he gets his act together?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I thought my friend would know that we do not govern by my taking up the phone to make legislation there. We are coming out with a statement that will address not only Bretton Place, but also all the other issues and concerns we have that we are losing affordable rental units.

Mr. Reville: I remind the minister that the municipal politicians did not have any concern about picking up the phone and calling him and asking him to hold off with his policy. Does he not realize that while he dithers around trying to sort out power structures within the cabinet, tenants are having extreme anxiety all across this province?

Hon. Mr. Curling: There is no dithering around at all. Consultation may be seen as dithering by the member. It is a way in which we can get out a very comprehensive and a very fair policy. There is no dithering at all. I know how anxious he is. I ask him to be patient and we will address those concerns.

HOUSING POLICY

Mr. Gordon: I have another question for the Minister of Housing. In the calculation of capital improvements by the landlord, how will sweat equity be factored in?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am glad the member seems to have got around to reading the report from the tenants and landlords. He can also join the committee. He can come to the committee and put his concerns to it, and we can answer all those questions. He will have all his time there to address that.

Mr. Gordon: A member raised the whole question of elderly women from Sherwood Avenue, who are being evicted because their units are being renovated from within -- and they are really being demolished from within -- and who have nowhere to go. This week in this House the minister made some very strong statements, indicating he was going to bring in legislation to cover condominium conversions, co-ownership and demolition.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Gordon: When is he going to get down to the business of housing in this province?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I thought the member was awake. We got down to the business of housing a long time ago. On December 16, we announced one of the most comprehensive housing policies. If my dear critic was asleep at the switch, I draw his attention to that policy. We got down to a housing policy when we announced and approved 600 or 700 social housing units in Ontario. We are down to business in housing, not like in the past when his government was making many deals with individuals.

3 p.m.

Mr. Gordon: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, that kind of accusation thrown out in this House about making deals with certain individuals is very serious. I ask that the minister either withdraw that statement or explain it.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry; I did not hear the member say that. Did the minister accuse someone of making a deal?

An honourable member: Yes, he did.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: He said there were deals made.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Read Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will look at Hansard.

M. Rae: J'ai une question pour le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones. J'aimerais que le ministre nous explique pourquoi le projet de loi exclut les municipalités et les conseils locaux et peut-être le plus important, comme le ministre le sait très bien, les établissements psychiatriques. Est-ce qu'il peut expliquer de telles exclusions dans la loi?

Mr. G. I. Miller: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). I am concerned over comments made by the Agriculture and Food critic for the official opposition --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry; I cannot allow the member to address a question, because he is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of Education has a response to a question placed previously by the member for Cochrane South.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Hon. Mr. Conway: The defeat and the divisions of York East weigh poorly on the official opposition.

Mr. Grossman: The minister used to be quicker than that.

Mr. Villeneuve: Where is the answer?

Hon. Mr. Conway: There is nothing more distracting than a Tory cacophony.

I would like to respond to a question raised Tuesday by the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) regarding the availability of speech pathology and related language services for students in northern Ontario and to his suggestion that an official in the Ministry of Education suggested in a telephone conversation of January 17, 1986, that a parent unhappy with the availability of such services move to southern Ontario.

I have spoken with the official in question, Don Werner of my ministry, and he has assured me most emphatically that he at no time made the statement attributed to him by Mrs. Grant.

My officials have again looked into the situation of Mrs. Grant's daughter, and they inform me that as of March 21, 1986, Shelly-Ann has been receiving and responding well to a special program in accordance with the recommendation of the identification and placement review committee.

I also understand Mrs. Grant has been provided with the appropriate forms to be completed by the family's medical doctor that would allow the home care program of the Ministry of Health to consider what, if any, additional services might be provided.

On the question of the availability of speech pathology and related language services, I agree with the member for Cochrane South that this is a problem affecting many communities throughout Ontario, particularly in the north. I note, however, that significant progress has been made in providing these services through the implementation of Bill 82 and the efforts of home care programs within the Ministry of Health.

The solution to the shortage of speech pathology and related issues involves the training and education of more people in this field, again especially in the north. My ministry is continuing to work with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities to address the need to provide additional training programs in this area.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Because of the length of the response, I am going to add a minute to the question period. I believe that should have been given during ministerial statements.

Mr. Gillies: The minister should know better than to rattle on.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Brantford should control himself.

Mr. Pope: I can assure the minister that Mr. Werner made those statements.

Second, it is not a question of filling out an application form. This child has been receiving speech therapy services from the Porcupine Health Unit in her preschool years. It is a question of translating that service into the special education setting for primary schools in northern Ontario.

Will the minister abide by memo 81, which was signed in the fall of 1984 by the Minister of Education, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services, and provide to the people of the north those services to which northern Ontario boys and girls have the right under law?

Hon. Mr. Conway: After a lengthy discussion with Don Werner, who assures me he had several conversations with Mrs. Grant, who indicated to Mr. Werner throughout those conversations that she felt satisfied with the advice provided, I can assure the honourable member that Mrs. Grant's daughter at this moment is receiving the full program recommended by the IPRC. That is the reality, and I want the member and the House to know that.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Pope: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: That is not the reality. She is receiving special education --

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

An hon. member: Take another minute off.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate all the help; however, I will do it myself.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the minister who said, "Anyone who has problems with the health care system should come directly to Elston for help." It is for the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I will undertake to look into that question and report back to the honourable member. We have been pursuing means by which we can instruct people to improve equipment allocations to locations in the north. I do not know about this one in particular. I will get back to the member on that.

Mr. Harris: Since the minister does not know how he is going to do it, let me quote from a statement he made last year: "Capital and operating funds will also be made available to help equip facilities that the specialists will need...."

Can I also indicate --

Mr. Speaker: By way of supplementary.

Mr. Harris: -- by way of supplementary to the minister, that the chairman of the North Bay Hospital Commission wrote to the minister last January requesting action. I wrote to the minister last February requesting action. It is not a new issue. He has had three or four months to look into the matter. I have read him the statement in which he said the money is there. Will he now provide the funds? Is he saying the program does not exist? That is what his ministry seems to be saying. When can North Bay and Dr. Bullen expect even an acknowledgement of the January letter?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have told the member I will look into the particular question he raised about North Bay. I also told him that a program is being put in place with respect to it. I told the member I will report back to him, and I will report back to him in that respect.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Solicitor General, who told the House yesterday that a nuclear emergency plan for Pickering had been developed and was in place; however, there appear to be some serious flaws in the plan.

The plan seems to depend on local radio and cable stations and police vehicles with loudspeakers to alert the community in case of an emergency. However, no mechanism is in place to trigger people's attention to the fact that they should be tuning in to get instructions on what action to take.

As well, the plan has identified evacuation centres and routes to take to get to those evacuation centres, but nobody in the community is aware of those kinds of details. Will the minister ensure that a trigger mechanism, such as sirens, which are used in most emergency programs of this nature, is added to the plan? Will he also ensure that an educational --

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

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I assure the honourable member that in the very near future he will be able to look at the complete details of the provincial nuclear emergency plan. He will find what I consider to be adequate means of informing the public. The means used in post-war years of sirens has not proven to be effective because of maintenance problems. We believe we have effective means of communicating the need for the implementation of such a plan to the public.

Mr. Charlton: I hope they are not all asleep, with the media outlets turned off, when the emergency occurs.

Apparently, the plan also calls for supplies of potassium iodide pills to be stored at fire stations and for firemen to hand deliver them door to door in the case of an emergency. As well, they obviously will be asked by the people in the community, "What is going on? Give us some details," as they are attempting to do that. The time required to accomplish that would be horrendous.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Charlton: Will the minister consider a plan where the pills will be distributed to all the households in the emergency plan areas along with instructions for their use and an educational package to inform people what they are supposed to do if an emergency arises?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: The matter of distribution of the potassium iodide pills has been debated at great length. It is felt that the free distribution of these pills might cause more panic than comfort among the citizenry. There is also the matter of the shelf life of the pills. The supplies are there, not only with the fire department but also with all the generating stations. The delivery is effectively carried out by people who are on duty 24 hours a day.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Colleges and Universities has a response to a question asked previously by the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson).

INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Yesterday the member for Burlington South raised a matter with me concerning the posting of advertisements for the Ontario public service internship program within my ministry. I said in response that I would have my officials look into it on an emergency basis and if there were any element of unfairness, I would have the situation remedied immediately.

I did that and I found the honourable member was correct that the postings had not been advertised in every post-secondary institution in the province. I then took steps to delay the closing of the competition for two weeks and ensured that the positions would be advertised in all the institutions that had not received notice of the postings.

I note, however, that the member in his great concern for students has issued a press release stating that I as minister had rejected fairness as a matter for this competition and had categorically rejected leaving the competition open. I wonder whether the member, in the interest of fairness and to ensure that the students know the competition has been extended for two weeks, will be interested in issuing another press release.

Mr. Jackson: I am pleased to hear that the minister, although catching the selective invitations of the various ministers of this government, did not succumb to selective hearing and got to the bottom of the matter so quickly.

I still stand by the statement I made. Has the minister closed off or has he extended the competitions yesterday for three positions in the Ministry of Correctional Services and one position in the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs? Will the minister specifically look into the postings by the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling), which I found particularly objectionable, given that the minister was able to circulate those closed competitions to his --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not responsible for posting the advertisements of competitions in other ministries. I rhetorically ask the member whether the press release he issued was issued before or after he asked the question. I encourage him to spread the word that the competition has been extended. In the interest of students, that is the only fair thing to do.

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr. O'Connor: I have a question for the Attorney General, who has recently created considerable public confusion by his conflicting statements on the crown's intention in the second Morgentaler trial. On the one hand, he indicated that the ministry and the government are prepared to proceed to prosecute Dr. Morgentaler on that second offence. On the other hand, he indicated in this House on one occasion that is not their policy. Can he clear up that situation and advise us once and for all what the government's policy is on this matter?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am grateful for the question and sorry the honourable member was confused by what had happened. I will do what I can to clarify that.

As he knows, each case that is listed at the general sessions or at the sittings of the court for trial is called either quarterly or biannually. That is so in the case of the second charge against Dr. Morgentaler. The first issue upon such call of case is whether the parties in the case are technically ready to proceed with it; that is, are equipped, have interviewed witnesses and have complied with all preliminary proceedings. We have indicated on a number of occasions that we have complied and are ready to proceed in that sense.

Mr. Justice Evans, former Chief Justice of the High Court, has ruled it would be useless to proceed with the second charge until the Supreme Court of Canada has decided the appeal in the first case. That ruling was confirmed by Associate Chief Justice Callaghan at the last sittings of the court. Of course, we submit entirely to those rulings.

Mr. O'Connor: By way of a supplementary, perhaps I could read from the transcript of the last court appearance. The senior crown attorney who handled the matter said to the court, "I would simply indicate for the record that the crown is prepared to proceed to a trial on this matter." Similarly, the Attorney General himself is quoted in the Toronto Star of April 18 as saying, "We are prepared to prosecute the second charges." He is also quoted as saying, "We were prepared to proceed with the charges at the time, but the judge would not permit it."

Would the Attorney General not agree that what has happened here is that he has attempted to satisfy both sides of this very contentious issue by telling them what they wanted to hear, but has got caught at it?

Hon. Mr. Scott: A selective reading of the transcript is not only not helpful, but it probably is not fair to any of the participants in the case. If my friend goes on, he will see in that transcript the Associate Chief Justice makes plain that to proceed in this circumstance would be absolutely useless. Crown counsel conceded that was so and indicated we would abide by the ruling of the court, as we have always done. As the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has said, we are ready to proceed when the courts indicate the case can be tried.

OVERTIME WORKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: Will the Minister of Labour tell this House what he is doing about the excessive amounts of overtime that are being worked at number two rod mill at Stelco in Hamilton. This is a matter that has been brought to his attention a number of times by the workers involved, by myself and, most recently, by a letter to his ministry on April 22.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am aware of the concerns raised by Local 1005 of the United Steelworkers. My friend has sent a letter to me indicating his concern over the response sent by the employment standards branch of the ministry to Local 1005 regarding the overtime worked at this part of Stelco. I too am not satisfied with that reply. I had a meeting with my staff today on this. Whether this is a matter of excessive overtime over and above the 100 hours that is allowed is another question. I do not think it is adequate to explain to the union that the solution to this allegation of excessive overtime is a task force. Those stand separately, one from the other.

Mr. Mackenzie: We cannot seem to move on plant shutdowns; surely we can move on overtime. Does the minister realize that in just three and a half months this one mill alone has had more than 10,564 hours of overtime; that a number of employees have been working more than 100 hours above the regular work week in three and a half months; and that a worker who raised a grievance in that mill has been disciplined for refusing overtime?

Does the minister accept this kind of attitude on the part of the company? Is he prepared to deal with it, or is the committee he set up just an excuse for not dealing with it and not laying charges?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: That last comment is just plain silly. I do not mind saying that. If we can, this government would like to reach an agreement between management and labour on where we ought to be going in the latter half of the 1980s and in the 1990s on hours of work and on what constitutes overtime and excessive overtime. That is what the task force is in place to do.

In the meantime, I say to my friend -- and I hope he will go back and look at my earlier statement on this -- we have put new rules in place for applications for the so-called green permit. That is for more than 100 hours. Among those rules, the employment standards branch of my ministry must consult with, in this case, Local 1005 of the union as to its feelings on the legitimacy of the employer's request. I will concede to my honourable friend that I understand such a request from Stelco will be forthcoming at the very early part of next week. Given the fact it is very early in the year, I am sure the branch will be looking at that very closely.

Mr. Pope: My question is to the minister responsible for francophone affairs. On page 3 of his statement today, he indicates that the bill he is tabling proposes the adoption of "statutory guarantees," to quote his words. In reviewing this piece of legislation, we see references not to statutory guarantees but to cabinet decision-making and regulation throughout. We see it specifically with respect to subsections 5(1) through 5(4),

section 7, subsections 8(1) and 8(2) and sections 9, 10 and 11. Where are the guarantees?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am glad to hear that the honourable member can count, but he cannot read. There is provision in that bill to create a commission, and that is the responsibility of the commission. The member should read between the lines; there is his answer.

Mr. Pope: There is nothing between the lines and there is nothing in this bill to guarantee French-language services.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: That was not a question, but I can tell the member again that it is the responsibility of the commission and cabinet. If he reads all of the bill, he will get his answers. He can present himself before the committee and bring changes if he wants to. The Conservatives never had the guts to do it in 42 years and now they are criticizing us. They never had the guts.

[Later]

Mr. Pope: I would like to go back to the minister responsible for francophone issues. I have been carefully reading between the lines. Perhaps the minister can help us. Can he indicate what sections in his legislation fall within the guidelines of statutory guarantees as he stated today? Will the minister please read it out?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I made a statement today that the bill will be introduced. It has not been introduced yet and I do not have a copy before me.

Mr. Pope: I will send one over to the minister. I am tempted not only to read the bill to the minister, but also to read between the lines, if that is what he needs to answer the question properly. He is the one who made the statement today that he was providing statutory guarantees. Is he now saying he does not know what they are?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: That was not my answer. My answer was that I will be introducing the bill later this afternoon.

[Later]

Mr. Pope: I have given the minister responsible for francophone affairs a copy of his own kit. I have even underlined the sections to which I was referring. Can the minister now tell the House where the guarantees are?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: As I mentioned before, the commission that will be in place for three years will be working with the ministries on programs to be implemented. After three years, or within the three-year period, these services will be in place and will be guaranteed.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) is being very patient.

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning his intention to impose regulations on our wilderness parks that will govern activities in those parks. Why is the minister so intent on imposing on our parks inadequate and inappropriate regulations that are opposed by groups such as Parks Canada, the environmental groups, the general public and, as a matter of fact, by members of his own cabinet, as I understand it? Why is he so intent on rubber-stamping a parks policy that is inadequate and that was suggested first by a previous minister from a previous government?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The reason I support the position that was put before me is that there are a tremendous number of people who now want to use our parks and the agreement of this government is to regulate many more parks. When we look at the uses, we have to consider all the people of Ontario, who have every right to be in our parks and use them as they see their recreational needs. In fact, we have addressed ourselves to those areas where we would have complete wilderness parks for those people who enjoy that type of involvement. We would not have designated so many parks if we had not taken into account all those uses.

I think the member for Nickel Belt, all members of the Legislature, and my cabinet and caucus colleagues will play a role in deciding where we go with the regulation of those parks.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Laughren: That is a very strange response. Can the minister tell us whether he really believes that in a wilderness park -- and I stress that these are wilderness parks, not day-use parks to which I am referring -- it is appropriate to have logging, mining, trapping, hunting, tourist operations and hydro developments? Does the minister think we can have a wilderness park worthy of the name and have those activities going on in it?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is appropriate that the last use the honourable member mentioned is one I am very much in favour of. We look at the threat around the world, and I am looked to as Minister of Energy to find other ways to generate power. We cannot have it both ways. I hope we will be able to generate every bit of electrical power there, particularly in northern Ontario. That is an excellent use, but it will only be done when we can investigate and make sure of the impact, and after I have talked to my friend the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) to make certain he is satisfied. I will do all those things.

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Some months ago, the ministry embarked on a program of purchasing houses on McClure Crescent that are situated on radioactive soil. Having acknowledged the existence of radioactive soil by purchasing them, why is the ministry now renting out the houses it has purchased, taking advantage of people's desperate need for housing to house families in homes other families left because of the problems?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I did not get the question. I do not understand the question.

Mrs. Grier: Why is the Ministry of Housing putting on the market for rent the homes on McClure Crescent that it purchased because they are built on ground where radioactive soil has been discovered?

Hon. Mr. Curling: When we gave the people on McClure Crescent the option to sell us their houses, it was not in recognition that the soil was dangerous.

Mr. Sterling: Why did you buy them then?

Hon. Mr. Curling: We gave them an option.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have answered the question. There was a supposed supplementary question that was out of order.

Mrs. Grier: May I ask the minister why he has not taken advantage of some of those homes being vacant, as a result of his purchase, to remove the contaminated soil?

Hon. Mr. Curling: As I said, we gave those people an option. We are trying to find a place to move the soil to. Until we locate a place in which to put the soil, we cannot move it.

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. McNeil: I have the signatures of some 400 constituents from the great riding of Elgin, who are requesting the government of Ontario "to reduce gasoline tax by 1.1 cents a litre from 8.3 cents a litre to 7.2 cents a litre immediately and to phase in further reductions over three years to 5.4 cents a litre by 1989."

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Cousens: To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"The undersigned beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario strongly opposing the unilateral actions of the Liberal government of Ontario, which have created an atmosphere of adversarial confrontation with the health care providers of this province. We deplore the destruction of our world-renowned system of private and public health care by the imposition of a state-controlled health care system.

"We therefore respectfully petition the government of Ontario to begin immediate and meaningful consultations with the health care providers of this province in a manner that will sustain the quality and excellence of health care for the people of Ontario."

MOTIONS

TRANSFERRAL OF BILL 34

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that Bill 34,

An Act to provide for Freedom of Information and Protection of Individual Privacy, be transferred from the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, and that the evidence and documents received by the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions on the said Bill 34 be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS AND AGENCIES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the order of the House on July 10, 1985, appointing for this parliament the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions be rescinded.

Motion agreed to.

SIMULTANEOUS TRANSLATION

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly review and report on the provision of simultaneous translation services to the House and its committees, and that the evidence and documents received by the standing committee on members' services in the first session be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 8,

An Act to provide French Language Services in the Government of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Rae: I appreciate the chance to participate in this debate. It is always a pleasure to participate in any debate, but it is particularly an opportunity for us to reflect on the government's proposals as announced in the throne speech and, in the spirit of constructive opposition, for us to present some alternatives.

I do not intend to engage in a detailed parsing of the throne speech. It can well be said it was done yesterday by the leader of the Conservative Party who, if I may say so, definitely plumbed the depths of this throne speech. At some considerable length and in considerable detail, he attempted to trace the patrimony or matrimony, or whatever, of each individual proposal laid out in the throne speech. If I thought it was worthwhile, I would do that, but that has never been my approach on these occasions, and I do not intend to change as a result of having listened to the speech by the leader of the official opposition.

Having heard that speech, I must confess I was more than a little bewildered because, as I understood it -- and I was here for the vast majority of that speech -- he spent the first half saying how terrible it was and the second half saying they were all Tory ideas anyway. If I could possibly sum up in one sentence what the leader of the Tory party said yesterday, it would be, "The throne speech was so bad that we thought of it first."

That may be an effective epitaph to the speech given by the leader of the official opposition. It is fair to say that I found it a rather bizarre contradistinction. If the Tories want to lay claim to the rather second-hand pot-pourri, this stew of various high-tech clichés which the government of William Grenville Davis used to deliver upon us, and if they want to insist these ideas are all theirs, then this is a particular dispute with respect to paternity or maternity, and I do not think the New Democrats need to trouble themselves about it. We are happy to give it to whoever wants to claim it, and we will leave it at that.

The throne speech talked about three major issues and three major themes. It talked about what it calls competitiveness; it talked about education; and it talked about health care. I suggest in each of these fields the government has given us a vision which is far narrower than the one it signed in the accord. It has adopted a rhetoric which is very sadly reminiscent of that contained in so many Conservative throne speeches in the past and if, as somebody and many reporters have suggested, this throne speech reflects the the personal stamp of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), then who are we to differ with that attribution?

I personally feel -- and I know that on reflection most people who listened to it will feel -- that as a description of our situation, it is completely inadequate. As a call to action, it is, to put it mildly, one-sided and badly biased with respect to the balances that need to be struck in a province of this complexity and diversity and with a history and tradition such as Ontario has. It is a very narrow kind of world that the Liberal Party is presenting to us as the one it wants to create for the 21st century.

The phrase "world class" occurs about 12 or 15 times. I tried to penetrate the speech long enough to add them up and I was not able to do that exactly, but it certainly is a recurring phrase.

Nothing in the throne speech surprised me particularly. Many reporters have asked me whether I was surprised or disappointed. I was neither surprised nor disappointed, because both those things are dependent on expectations. I have not been here as long as many members, but I have been here long enough to serve in opposition with the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson). I have heard him speak on many different occasions, in many other throne speech debates and other debates, and I have read his speeches over the years.

The business bias and the Babbitt-like rhetoric which have a bizarre appeal for some elements in the Liberal Party, apparently now the dominant elements in the Liberal Party, have always surprised me. Having heard Liberal rhetoric both here and in Ottawa -- and I hope now that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) is on the other side he will not continue to heckle me whenever I use the word "Ottawa" and refer to that place -- none of us in this party is particularly surprised or bewildered by the approach and the position taken.

I see the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) is walking out, but I understand he is coming back. After what I said about him, I do not know why he would want to leave. I thought I was being nice.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Not a very pretty arrangement. What do they do? Go to the movies in the afternoon?

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer is reflecting, no doubt, on his own experience in opposition and is assuming that is how everyone behaves today.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I used to empty the House too.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer will have ample time to reminisce after the next election.

I do not know whether the cameras will show the large crowd facing me on the other side. It is bigger than a lot of audiences I have addressed. I see the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan). I have spoken to smaller crowds in Brampton and I am happy to speak to this one here.

Mr. Callahan: At least they do not go like an accordion, as the official opposition members do.

Mr. Rae: The member's turn on the camera will come; he will get his turn.

The government is following a long tradition of throne speeches. A magic conversion takes place one or two days before a throne speech. As ordinary members of the Legislature, we are not privy to these speeches. We do not see the speech until it is released, although I saw my copy in the lockup, as I am sure some members will be aware.

The papers always have a leak. I do not know how in this age of tight government security. I see the Minister of the Environment shaking his head. There are gnomes at work in his ministry who, just prior to some major announcement, magically manage to get it out, often to one or two papers with which we are all familiar, which have a record of loyal support for one political persuasion or another.

We read the headlines. I saw the headline about a $1-billion high-tech fund, and reporters asked me, "What do you think of this exciting venture, David Peterson's personal vision of a $1-billion high-tech fund?" We had to wait until the throne speech to understand precisely what was being referred to. One has to understand the way throne speeches are sold or marketed or exported to understand what is in this document. The government is not proposing $1 billion of new money.

3:50 p.m.

I see the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) listening carefully. I think he will agree that if one saw a figure of $1 billion, one would expect that to be $1 billion that was not there before. It would be unfair to say that is coming from other programs. We do not have in the throne speech a $1-billion fund; in fact, we have a fund over a decade. It is a 10-year fund; so, first of all, one divides by 10 and gets $100 million. There are those who had plans for five, 10 or 1,000 years. Rome had its own particular vision of what its empire would look like over many centuries.

If Julius Caesar or one of the fellows at the end just before the Visigoths came down in 442 AD, or whenever it was, announced his budget and announced a program of so many drachmas over so much time, it might be a 500-year program that would amount to trillions of dollars.

The Liberal Party has been far too modest. If it had announced a 50-year program, it would have been a $5-billion fund. If it had announced a 100-year program, it would have been a $10-billion fund. It has been far too modest in its description of the fund. We should have seen a headline, with print so fat that it never appeared before in the Toronto Star, saying, "Premier announces $20-billion high-technology fund." Then we would have to wait until page A17 before we appreciated that it would be funded over a period of 200 years.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Why are you taking on the Toronto Star?

Mr. Rae: It is the one that occurred to me at the time. I do not know why; it just came into my head. Do not ask me when I am in full flight, please. Would anybody interrupt Mozart when he is composing? Come on; show a little respect.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Van Horne) with responsibility for the elderly will get his chance. He will be able to introduce a white paper this year. That in itself deserves a round of applause. Let us hear it for another white paper from the Liberal Party of Ontario. It will not be a task force, but a white paper. That is liberalism in action. He is on the cutting edge of liberalism today -- not a green paper, a blue paper or a brown paper, but a white paper. That is the cutting edge of liberalism in 1986 in Ontario.

To get back to this $1-billion fund, which I think is far too modest, let us look at what it is. It is $50 million this year of additional money.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is a lot of money.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer says, quite correctly, that it is a lot of money. However, with due respect, it is not $1 billion. It is one twentieth of that, one in 20.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Go back to Rome. Rome was not built in a day.

Mr. Rae: Did the Treasurer say that Rome was not burned in a day? I did not hear it.

Mr. McClellan: It did not fall in a day.

Mr. Rae: It did not fall in a day? That has been my line over the years. Anyway, it took about a month for us to do that one.

I have to congratulate the Liberals. In assuming the mantle of William G. Davis, they have managed, by whatever magic it is, to convert $50 million into a $1-billion headline. As public relations artists -- and, Lord knows, the Tories wrote the book on PR, how to sell it and how to package it -- it was so --

To divert for a moment, I must confess it was so touching to hear the former Treasurer, the former Minister of Industry and Tourism, the former Minister of Health, the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, now the Leader of the Opposition, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), say --

Another walkout by a member opposite. I can take it. This is what we call an exodus.

It was touching to hear the plea and the statement from the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the Tory party, saying, "Tories, we do not have any style, but we have substance." I sat here for four years when he was minister of everything. He had white papers, consultation papers, budgets with programs that never happened and headlines that said they were going to be doing this for seniors and that for health care. They had it all packaged. They had more studies going and they had it all worked out, but nothing happened.

Here is the leader of that group -- those who are left and who are still here today, though there will be fewer tomorrow no doubt, and that is a definition -- saying, "We do not have any style." He said to one of his own members that they do not have any style. Imagine saying that about one of one's own members. If Saul Korman said that about me, I could take it. However, to say about some of those Tories that they do not have any style, but they sure have substance, all I can say is that it is a refreshing change from what we saw during the past 42 years.

I want to speak seriously for a moment about the competitiveness argument because I think it is a bogus track for the Liberals to become obsessed with. To talk about competitiveness in that broad use of the phrase without understanding and appreciating the kinds of institutional changes, the kinds of relationships between labour and management, the kinds of inequalities which exist in our society, and to say simply that this has got to be the direction and the way to do it is to create far more of a free market economy than we have today is a very sad illusion.

The Premier may genuinely believe that rhetoric about entrepreneurship and handing over whole aspects and whole slews of government programs to the chamber of commerce is somehow going to resolve Ontario's economic difficulties, but that notion strikes me as bizarre.

It also strikes me as exceedingly strange that the document, the first part of which deals with the economy, in which the government is expressing its sense of where we are at as an economy, fails to discuss or even mention the free trade obsession of the federal government. I had the impression from reading certain newspapers and from watching certain media that the Premier of Ontario was nothing less than Captain Canada when it comes to being opposed to free trade.

I had the distinct impression that this man was there single-handedly standing between a comprehensive free trade treaty and a totally independent country. Alone among the Premiers, he was prepared to lie down on those railroad tracks and stop Brian Mulroney. I had that impression. I would have thought that if that were true and not just so much soap, we would have seen some reference to this major economic discussion taking place now between the governments of Canada and the United States. Instead, we do not have anything which refers or relates to those discussions. I find it, to put it mildly, bizarre.

The language of competition has been used by many international businesses to take their money from this country and run. The language, ethic and morality of international competition as applied by many of our corporations has been used to drive down the standard of living, to eliminate jobs, to destroy the standard of living of many working people, and to shut down factories and take them to Mexico, Japan and Korea. That is the reality. That is the real world out there in respect to what this particular word has come to mean to so many working people of this province.

To say the answer to our problems is for us to be more competitive is simply silly. It is silly for two reasons. First, we agree that we need to have an economy that is productive and competitive. Nobody wants to have an economy that is unproductive and uncompetitive. To suggest that simple pursuit of international competition is going to solve our problems is nonsense. It is not. One does not create a productive economy by creating a mood, an atmosphere and a marketplace that are full of fear.

One does not do it by driving wages down, by destroying trade unions, by reducing living standards or by creating more part-time work and less full-time work. I will be coming to all these issues in a moment.

In the view of our party, it is done by generating an economy that is committed to fairness, just as it is committed to efficiency. For the government to fail to address this question of economic fairness, economic control and what is really taking place in our economy today is irresponsible and inadequate.

4 p.m.

They then turn from the field of competitiveness to the field of education. When I listen to the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway), whom we in this party have always thought of as being the Demosthenes of this Legislature, with his general world view of the 19th century, I think that I am sitting in the British House of Commons around 1886, which was the high period of British liberalism.

I listen to him and to the flowery language, and then I see to what depths the Liberal Party is reduced. The minister is simply becoming a shill for the chambers of commerce, coming in here and describing his education policy. It was a sad day, a sad moment to hear that kind of pathetic, narrow view. George Babbitt could not have expressed it any better in 1925.

What is the purpose of an educational system that makes everybody fit like cogs in a machine into the business world and the business civilization? Is that the vision of modern liberalism with respect to education? Is the answer simply to prepare the bridges to business? It is an indication of the vaporization not simply of idealism, but of an understanding.

I see the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) here. Perhaps he can explain to me why streaming was mentioned in the speech the Premier gave soon after he signed the accord. There is no mention of streaming in the throne speech, which is an indication of what the government intends to do. I will tell him what the bridge to business is in my constituency today among my working-class kids. The minister knows perfectly well what I am talking about. The bridge to business is the world that goes out at grade 10 into a low-paid job and into a part-time job. That is what is taking place.

That is the real world for those kids. To say the answer is to make our school system safe for Junior Achievers, which seems to be the vision now of the Liberal Party, is a pathetic indication of its understanding of the degree of the difficulties facing our kids, and our older people too, who need such access to the world of work.

They mention the training problem. As a background to the throne speech, they even have the nerve to produce a report saying less than three per cent of employers are offering training programs, which we have known. We have documented it; we have had reports; we have all had task forces -- the government had a task force on it. My colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) and my colleague the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) have been involved. We have sat down with the trade unions and we have talked with businesses. Time and again, we have been through the lack of training programs in the world of business for people who want to advance within the company.

What is the answer of the Liberal Party to that problem? Is it a levy on employers, insisting that we pool our programs to make sure we are not having a beggar-thy-neighbour approach to training? Is it to deal with the continuing scandal of our failure to create an ethic of respect for the skill trades and a world of entry into apprenticeship programs? Is it to deal with the fact that today fewer apprentices are being trained than there were four years ago? No. The answer is something called a "skills bank." I do not know what the hell a skills bank is. It is something you put into a computer and it sets no obligations.

I see the Minister of Government Services and Chairman of Management Board (Ms. Caplan) is smiling. Quite sincerely, I tell her those things are words. It is the same kind of buffalo meat we got from the Tories and their programs for all those years. Until we establish a clear obligation to train on the part of employers, they are not going to train employees. All the talking, the computerized programs and the offerings from government are not going to make a tinker's bit of difference unless we say to employers in the province, "You are going to train and you are going to have to train," and use the carrot and the stick.

When it comes to the field of health care, which is the third major pillar of this throne speech, again we have the statements. I do not think any of us can disagree that there are major challenges to face. People are getting older and we have a crisis of ageing. We have a crisis of technology in our system. We have this dangerous and troubling epidemic of cancer, which continues to grow and to be a far more major factor than even health care experts were predicting five years ago. We have a need for better programs of preventive and community medicine.

That has been the consensus in this party for the last 15 years. If the Liberal Party is saying it now is recognizing that, all I can say is that is great, but we have heard this song before. When I became leader of the party, one of the first things I did, because I came from being a member of Parliament, was to read Tory throne speeches going back to 1971. I admit it was painful. There are aspects of this job that are more difficult than others, but I did and it was interesting going over those speeches. It is not something I would urge anybody else to do unless he has to do it.

I would, however, suggest to the minister -- and the minister was in my position, coming in too -- that she should do it, because she would find that the same civil servants have been drafting the same rhetoric for at least 15 years.

Do not think that when Tom Wells of blessed memory, who is now our agent general and who is here today, was Minister of Health he was not talking about the same degree of concern in his speeches in the late 1970s about a similar issue. Do not think that the Leader of the Opposition, who was Minister of Health for a brief period of a year or so before he moved on to become the Treasurer, had it only in the throne speeches. Let us not forget that this is the same government that promised us home care in 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984, and it did it in its last gasp. It was a record for promises, and it was in its last throne speech, the one that took place after the election of May 2.

To hear that description of our problem and to have the government tell us that our response to the problem with respect to seniors is going to be the presentation of another white paper, I think if all our critics got together, we could probably go all the way up to the ceiling with the papers, the studies and the reports that have been kicking around the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. There are studies on the relationship between that ministry and the Ministry of Health. There are studies on the standards in nursing homes and homes for the aged.

There are papers with respect to what a community health care program would look like. There is no political will to do anything about it.

To hear as the Liberal contribution to this problem of moving the health care system and of dealing with the vested interests in the system, "We are going to be proposing a white paper," I think it fair to say that it is to laugh -- and you have to, or else you cry.

With respect to some ideas that were not there, I was glad the notion of the health care tax was not repeated. That was the tax the Premier wanted to put on those who are sick. He said it was an idea that came into his head and was not policy. This is my first opportunity in the House to say to the Premier that if you have a stockbroker with cancer and a stockbroker without cancer, the idea that the stockbroker with cancer should pay a higher rate of tax than the stockbroker who is healthy is offensive to everything this party believes in.

The idea that one should somehow link one's use of the health care system to one's level of taxation is offensive. It is offensive whether it is tied to income or whether it is not tied to income. It is an idea that, as soon as it is uttered, should simply be rejected. The fact that it has been kicking around in the Premier's head for so long until he finally expressed himself on it is a sad statement.

The other thing he has proposed is the $53-million slush fund for doctors who now extra bill. Other suggestions he has made are that we have more injected into the health care system from the private sector, that some kind of committee be established and a study done -- yet another study -- that will look at the parameters of health care going into the 1980s and 1990s.

I have no opposition to governments consulting widely. I know the Premier has called me this week, among other complimentary things, a socialist dictator, unilateral, draconian and other things, for the simple reason that we have suggested it would be in the interests of everybody if the government were to take itself out of its misery, get on with the extra billing matter and put it on the legislative agenda.

4:10 p.m.

I have been called many things in my time, but I must confess to being somewhat baffled by the Premier's comments.

I cannot for the life of me understand what is dictatorial about suggesting that, after a government has been in for nearly a year, after we have had a widespread process of consultation in the fall, an extensive period of debate in this House, one of the longest periods of hearings I can recall in living memory with respect to an area where there are really a limited number of issues to be settled and discussed, it should bring that legislation forward now so that it can be amended and ultimately debated and passed on third reading in this House.

The premise that this is somehow dictatorial reflects a very curious definition of democracy.

I regard democracy as widespread consultation but also, decision at some point. At some point, the government has to recognize that a decision needs and must be made with respect to health care. All I can tell the Premier is that we do not need studies or task forces. What we need is a commitment to act on behalf of the people of this province and to create a universal health care system that will continue to be among the best in the world.

I am troubled by the inadequacies of the throne speech, but to be quite blunt about it, I am not sufficiently troubled by the rhetoric and bombast surrounding the speech to be diverted from our central task. Let us not forget what the real agenda is going to be this spring. I say to the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, who is here, that it is important for all of us not to be diverted from what is going to be on the agenda this spring.

This spring we are going to be dealing with legislation that flows and continues to flow from the accord negotiated between our party and the Liberal Party last May. All I can say to the Liberal Party is that before it can get to the Tory program, it has to deal with the program negotiated with the New Democratic Party in the accord. It is going to have to deal with the commitments that have already been made.

I know it will be sad and I know it will be hard for the Tories not to wrestle with the issues they failed to deal with over 42 years. Before the Liberals can get to the Tory agenda, which they laid out in the throne speech, they are going to have to bring in the legislation they promised to bring in. They promised the people of Ontario they would bring it in. In our view, the legislation can and needs to come this spring. Let me lay it out.

I have already discussed extra billing. The government is committed to rent control, demolition control and condo conversion. First-contract legislation is in committee and needs to come out. Other measures should include equal pay for work of equal value in the private and public sector; pension reform; Workers' Compensation Board reform; a genuine shift in child care away from welfare orientation and towards a recognition of the needs of the 20th century; and affirmative action, not only for women but for the minority and the handicapped.

That is the spring agenda. That is a good, healthy dose of work for the Legislature of Ontario this spring. That is the agenda that is going to have to be addressed by the government, not the phoney agenda it brought in in the throne speech.

Three other issues that we have been pushing hard are pensions, insurance and overtime. These three questions, which the government has in front of it and which it has refused to deal with and face up to thus far, but which it is going to have to face up to, relate directly to the working people of Ontario.

I hear the government say it is really interested in talking about beer and wine in the corner store. I was interested to read one of the columns the other day by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter). He was attributing views to us and the Progressive Conservative Party. He has not discussed this issue with me or with my critic, and I do not think he has discussed it with the Leader of the Opposition. I would be delighted to sit down with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to tell him why I think it is a bad idea.

If he asks the working people of Ontario whether affordable car insurance is more important than beer and wine in the corner store, I know what the answer will be. If he asks whether they think pensions that not only stay with them when they change jobs, but that will be indexed to the cost of living are more important than beer and wine in the corner store, I have no doubt which way they will go.

That issue, a peculiar obsession of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and of the Premier himself, is a nonstarter as far as I am concerned. Sometimes the minister says the New Democratic Party is in the thrall of the unions. Have members ever heard that accusation before?

Mr. Breaugh: Once or twice.

Mr. Rae: Have you heard it in Bellwoods? The members should come to York South. We hear it everywhere. The Tories used to say it too, but there is a certain mean-spiritedness to the way Liberals say it. They have this peculiar antiunion thing, which the Liberals have always had and which some experience in office may have tempered slightly. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations says, "I can understand the NDP position, because it is in the thrall of the unions," whatever that means. "They are completely beholden to the trade union movement." There is somehow an animal out there that continues to bark whenever I open the door, and then I bounce back and say, "Yes, sir."

Let me describe to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, since he has never asked me and he is not here today -- I am sure the cameras will reflect on the empty seat -- why I think it is an idea that will not wash. I will describe it for the record.

My reasoning is very simple. This is not 1950 and it is not 1960. It is not an era in which we feel a need to rebel against blue laws or something of that kind, as some generations have. It is a different kind of era. It is one in which more of us understand some very basic realities.

One, and perhaps the most basic, is that alcohol, which is widely consumed in our society, is a mixed blessing. It is something all of us -- I do not say all, but most of us -- imbibe from time to time, but if we imbibe too much, it causes problems. If young people imbibe too much, it causes problems, and if old people do, it does as well. If people imbibe and drive at the same time, it causes enormous problems and often death on the road.

That is my view. It is fair to say it is also the view of the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation. Our researchers and I have been talking to those people, and it seems to be the consensus of expert opinion that is what will happen. If that is the case, I do not think it makes sound public policy in the 1980s for us to be doing that.

It happens in Quebec; it happens in Europe; it happens in the United States and so on. All I can say is that we are faced with a situation in Ontario today where we can make a choice. We have a fairly good marketing system for beer and wine. There are problems with the way it works. There are some ways it can be improved, but if you ask me whether I think there is a clamour out there for a wholesale change in the way people have access to beer and wine, the answer is that I do not.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: There are Tories in all parties.

Mr. Rae: I do not think so. I say to the Treasurer in all sincerity, my view is this: If the effect is to increase consumption among kids and people who already have a drinking problem and the view of every authority I have talked to seems to be that will be the case -- it is wrongheaded public policy for us to be going in that direction. That is my opinion.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will say, "Bob Rae is speaking because the unions gave him a phone call." I have had this view and I have had arguments with members of my party and members of my family on this question. People have different points of view. That is how I feel.

4:20 p.m.

I also feel, and I do not think this is unreasonable, that if a government has a choice between creating stability in employment and forcing a technological change, or whatever one wants to call it, that will produce very substantial unemployment among a certain group of people, as much as 2,000 or 3,000 jobs, it has nothing to do with unions; it has to do with jobs and with people.

I am going to come back to this. I have already had letters. I am getting letters on pensions from people who work for Conrad Black and from people who work in insurance. There are questions on overtime. My office continues to be filled with people in their 40s, 50s and 60s from whatever industries they were working in who cannot get a job, who cannot get work. There are young people who cannot get jobs.

I do not think it is wise for us to be sitting around in our constituency offices with rows of people who have been working at Brewers' Retail and Liquor Control Board of Ontario places saying, "I have just been laid off because the government thinks it is a great idea to change the whole marketing arrangement."

My God, if a government has a choice as to whether it is deliberately going to create industrial dislocation, why do it? There is no great public pressure to do it. I do not understand why it would want to do it.

I go back to what I started to say. If the agenda of the Liberals is this kind of 21st century bumf, and that is all it is, coupled with a kind of decision to give the high school system back to the chamber of commerce, to make the elementary schools safe for junior achievement and to turn the whole of our educational system into a training ground for Amway salesmen, that is fine. That is its approach. That is its decision. If that is its vision of the future, it can go ahead. That is fine; it can try to package it and sell it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: You want to make them hotbeds of socialism.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer is getting positively excited, which is a good sign. It shows there is still life there. It is good; it is healthy. I am told it is the joy of stress. I was reading a book the other day, The Joy of Stress. I will send it over to the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: What is it called?

Mr. Rae: It is called The Joy of Stress. The Treasurer will get off on it. It will be good for him. Get it all out. Let it hang out. Do not bottle it up. By all means let it slide.

If that is the agenda they want to take to the people, I wish them well. To the reporters who say, "The Liberals are going to get the biggest majority of all time, if an election were held yesterday, it would have 612 seats," I say, "Let history unfold and we will see what will happen."

I want to say to the Legislature today, to the Treasurer and the people who are here, not in any great depth because there will be ample time for that, what the alternative is going to be and what the alternative really is. There is another program and another agenda in addition to the one I have discussed in terms of the accord that needs to be addressed. Rather than a tired and pretty fatuous technocracy, we need a tough-minded populism, a populism from government that understands what the people of this province are going through, what they really want and aspire to and look to see in their government.

I know of the Treasurer's concerns. I ask him to look at what is going on in the economy today. I ask him to look at the degree of speculation that is taking place, at the amount of paper activity. When we open up the business

section of the newspaper, what do we read? Do we read about a new investment, or a new invention or about entrepreneurship in the sense of people saying they will take a risk?

We see a process of acquisition, merger and paper activity that rewards the clever but does nothing to reward innovation, does nothing to reward productivity and does nothing to reward the creation of work and the creation of jobs. That is what the people of Ontario want to hear. They want to hear a government speaking from the business heart of this country say to the people of this province: "Much of what passes for business in this province is not business. It is pure and simple paper activity that does not produce a single job, does not put a single person to work and does not provide a single opportunity."

When Conrad Black and Dominion Stores take $62 million out of a pension fund and refuse to pay any severance pay, rather than have a minister like the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations say there is nothing immoral, nothing illegal and nothing wrong and nothing unethical about what has happened," the people want to have a government that says, "Surely to goodness there is something wrong with the moral basis of an economy which rewards people whose only skill is their ability to shut down plants, take the money out, disappear and go off to England because they aspire to a position in the House of Lords and want to imitate Lord Beaverbrook or Lord Thomson." Let them go; let that exodus take place; let the speculators and ripoff artists go.

I am tired of them, and I say that with all sincerity.

I went to the Canadian Labour Congress convention yesterday. As I walked through the door, a woman came up to me and gave me a button. It was a funny button about Conrad Black. She started talking to me and she started to cry. She is 61 years old, she worked for 24 years in Dominion Stores and she now has nothing. She says she is going to lose her house and she has got nothing coming. We see that happening in this province. When we have a minister in this government saying there is nothing immoral and nothing illegal about that, there is something wrong with the capacity of that government to understand what the people of this province think is fair.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Does she not have a pension?

Mr. Rae: I am saying to the Treasurer --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Speak to the Pension Commission of Ontario.

Mr. Rae: Try it.

The Treasurer is in a position to do something, to express a sense of fairness and a sense of what is the guts of an economy. It is not people monkeying around with money here and speculating there, buying up this and acquiring that. That is not what makes an economy work. What makes an economy work is jobs, a commitment to production and a commitment to productivity.

What in God's name is productive about so much of what passes for business and economic behaviour? That is the contradiction we are going to have to deal with, and we are going to have to deal with that as government. We are going to have to recognize, when we look at what is happening across northern Ontario, for example, that the commitment of big business to big job creation and to big projects is not there. It is not there for a whole bunch of reasons.

Who owns Algoma? Canadian Pacific owns Algoma. I talked to the president of Algoma, and we had a good conversation. He emphasized that he has lived in Algoma and he is third generation. I am not taking anything away from him, but as I was talking to him, I reflected on the fact that his shareholders are not the workers at Algoma or the people living in Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa. His shareholder is CP and it tells him what to do. It is a bottom line for them; it is this thing here. What is there? If that does not work, we do this. If a worker is no good, then out he goes too. Off with his head. That is the approach.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Like politics.

Mr. Rae: If the minister looks at the forestry industry, what is happening with respect to a number of different plants in this province and what is happening in western economies, the preoccupation has to be to say, "If the private sector is not able to generate the kind of productivity and the kind of development and growth that is necessary, it is time the working people of the province and the people together pool some of their resources and started to invest in this economy."

I do not understand why workers have so little access to their pension money and why working people have so little control over their pension money. We see those things as playthings. A few people who are professional investment experts say, "We will put it here and put it there; if it makes a lot of money, we will take it out," and off it goes. The people who are affected by all these changes that are happening are almost like the people at the bottom of the sea. It is all a mystery to them.

4:30 p.m.

They get the news on a pink slip on a Friday afternoon. They are told that this is the way of the world. They have ministers who say there is nothing immoral about it, nothing illegal about it and nothing unethical about it. I think there is. It is time we created an economy that responded to people, to where they are really at, to what they want, to what their fears and their aspirations are. It is time we had an economy that looks at the Ontario family as a family and says: "We have to find and generate the means to regain greater control over our own economy. Whatever needs to be done, let it be done."

If it means more community control, then let that happen. If it means giving workers more access and more responsibility and, yes, a little more power, then let that happen too. But we cannot continue with a world in which fewer and fewer people are making decisions and things just happen to everyone else. We cannot carry on in a world where people are genuinely powerless in affecting their future. That vision is being given to us by the other parties.

Earlier in my speech, I said the question of streaming was not even mentioned. I get annoyed, to put it mildly, when I see this bridge to business stuff and all this about the chamber of commerce and Junior Achievement and the need to have classes in entrepreneurship starting in grade 3 and so on. That does not relate to the people I represent, and I do not think it relates to the majority of the people of this province.

We have a problem of illiteracy in our school system today. We have to face up to it. We have tremendous problems with respect to opportunities for people. We have problems with streaming. In many cases, we have a whole generation of immigrants who are simply slammed into dead-end jobs and positions and dead-end training. We have to deal with that problem and address it. We do not address it by talking nonsense about how all the world will be safe if we can have more classes in entrepreneurship. That is not the problem.

The problem is a school system which has left too many people behind. The problem is a failure to address the educational needs of people, not simply between the ages of six and 18, but to recognize that people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s are going to need continuing access to an education system -- and not simply to a system. They will need recognition from their society and their government that they matter as people and that whether a 40-year-old person can read or not is important.

We should not have to go through 65 government programs and 22 welfare rejects before it is finally recognized that there is a problem. That is the reality -- not this nonsense about Junior Achievement and all the rest of it.

We have heard from our critic the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and from my colleague the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) about the related problems of health and safety in the environment. It is a question of what kind of power, access and control over their lives we give to people. The evidence is growing -- and we will be documenting it daily -- with respect to the health care and health needs of our people and how they are being ignored by their employers and by polluters who pollute and continue to get away with it.

I go back to my point. I strongly believe it is a question of power and control and the ability of people to affect their futures and their lives. It is an emotional question. No doubt, the House will be shocked, as I was, not simply to hear the statistics, but to talk to the shells of people in Timmins and Kapuskasing and across this province, who came up to us and talked about what happened to them in the work place, and to realize that 25 years ago the government of Ontario had information with respect to the levels of radiation in the gold mines.

That information has been there and has been collected by the companies and by the ministry. Workers were exposed to levels of radiation which they should not have been exposed to, and nothing has happened to change the basic laws and the basic sense of fairness with respect to compensation.

Is this a social issue or an economic issue? Living alongside factories are people whose health care continues to be ignored. We still do not have a structure of environmental law worthy of the word. In the speech from the throne, the mention of the environment was negligible; clearly an indication that the activist tendencies of the Minister of the Environment have been put on hold. He has been told to put his sword back in its sheath, to sit at his desk and his deputy minister will take care of everything. He will go out and talk to people and he will resolve the problems.

Whatever degree of activism was once there has been quieted. That is sad because we had an opportunity in this province, and we continue to have an opportunity, to face the reality that as long as it is cheaper to pollute than to clean up, companies will continue to pollute. Those are the economics.

It is the same thing with respect to health and safety. The record of the Ministry of Labour is 80,000 charges and 50 convictions. Look at the Ministry of Labour; it is pathetic. They cannot enforce employment standards and they have given everybody a holiday over the last three years for any overtime infraction that has taken place. That is gone. We have an occupational health and safety branch that has 50 convictions after 80,000 charges, and the minister comes in here and says in all seriousness on April 28, "Occupational health and safety is the most important part of my ministry and my most important responsibility." It is to weep because it is not being done.

Is that a social issue? Is that an economic issue? It is both because it is costing our economy and it is costing people in terms of their ability to produce and live rewarding lives. The alternatives are so clear: Give more power to people; give more responsibility to working people themselves to enforce the law; create a class of inspectors who can do things; create a greater degree of power in communities to deal with the levels of pollution in those communities and we will begin to resolve the issue.

Finally, the tough-minded populism that I think our province needs so badly will tell it like it is with respect to taxes and with respect to discrimination against women, the disabled and minorities. It will not be afraid to address the fact that in this cosy economic world that is out there there really is an incredibly unfair distribution of benefits, of opportunities and of chances, and all the rhetoric in the world is not going to overcome that.

The government slides off the words "affirmative action" and "employment equity." The record of this government and governments in the past with respect to the hiring of the disabled is pathetic; it is abysmal. The number of people hired in the public service of this province who are disabled is abysmal. The opportunities are there and the needs are so great. Again, where is the will? Where is the sense that this is what is troubling this province, not some nonsense about a world-class this and a world-class that for the 21st century?

What is troubling and what is at the heart of this province is a sense that we can do so much better as a people if we can only pull ourselves together and work far more effectively as a team, recognizing that we are all diminished when people are treated not as people but simply as commodities.

That is the economy we have produced. That is the economic order in which we live. We seek not only a better world but also a different kind of economy. I say to all those who have observed the events of the last year and all those who will observe the events of the next year that there is an Ontario out there that is waiting to be heard. There is a sense of what our economy and what our province could be like.

Our party pays its respects to productivity and efficiency because we live in a world where those things have to be important if we are to make our way, but we recognize that those places in the world that are truly world-class are those which provide justice for all their people, that recognize that the dignity of individuals is recognized when we give them power, when we give them the means and the ability to do things.

4:40 p.m.

A Portuguese woman who is 45, illiterate and works as a cleaner in the Toronto-Dominion Centre is forced to work six or seven hours a night, the second job that she does. At one moment she asks the government to change legislation so she can have a little bit more bargaining power with the Reichmanns, Olympia & York, the Bank of Montreal or whomever it may be.

We look forward to the day when there is a government in Ontario that will not simply respond by saying, "We will try to take care of your individual problem," but will say: "We will change the law to give you the power to do what you want to do. We have a government that wants to recognize the claim and the right of that person to a place in the sun." That person's right is just as great as anybody else's.

We must recognize we cannot have that place in the sun unless we have a government that is prepared to be tough, that is prepared to be the people's advocate and not simply the apologist for a corporate and economic order that has lost its sense of its own morality and its sense of where it wants to go.

Mr. Speaker, you will be hearing from our party about these issues. I suspect you will not be hearing a great deal about beer and wine in the corner store or about the other issues that flit across the agenda of the Liberal Party and are here today and gone tomorrow. You will be hearing about the gut issues that matter to the people of this province, that trouble them, move them, make them laugh and make them cry, make them sing and make them feel they are truly human. That is what politics is all about and that is what our party will be all about in this session.

Ms. E. J. Smith: The other day when I had the pleasure of listening to the throne speech, I had to pause and say to myself: "Are these not exciting times to be living in Ontario? In particular, are they not exciting times to be governing in Ontario?"

It was not just the speech itself that made me think this, but my knowledge that in the past year this government has proved it can do more than talk. Indeed, when it says it will do something, it sets out on a course to act. We have seen a session in which we received royal assent to 39 bills, many of them important. We know how many important bills are in committee at present and what a difference these will make in the province.

It is not only the fact that we do things that made me excited, but the way we do things, with openness and public input. I point particularly to that most contentious bill we received as our first piece of business, Bill 30. We took that bill out of the secrecy of the dark rooms of the ministry, where none of us could find out what was in the drafts, and brought it out into the open where it was discussed and available for people to see. We heard more than 500 delegations in committee. I am proud to say that as time went on, I heard tremendous reports about the attention paid to those delegations.

This was reinforced for me when the minister submitted to the committee several amendments of consequence that he was going to propose for this bill that were the result of the public's participation and suggestions. This is openness of a kind not equalled before, and I am proud to be part of it.

I am proud as well because this is not just a throne speech that talks, but a throne speech that moves on to action. In this regard, I would like to mention the spills bill, which was passed in 1979 and left sitting around by the Conservative government for six years. The first committee meeting I had the pleasure of attending after I was elected was in the main committee room. A bunch of insurance agents and businessmen were telling us, as they had been doing for six years, why it was absolutely impossible to pass this bill.

That was within the first three weeks of the election, when the Conservative government was still in place. When the government changed, we got action. We got a spills bill. It was talk, talk, but the talk stopped and then resolve took over. Fortunately for Ontario, we made great strides for the environment.

The