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

May 6, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L009 - Tue 6 May 1986 / Mar 6 mai 1986

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BUDGET

DAY CARE DAY

CHIROPRACTIC AMATEUR ATHLETIC FUND

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

SPRAY PROGRAM

CANCER TREATMENT CENTRES

MULTICULTURAL EXTRAVAGANZA

TOURISM IN EASTERN ONTARIO

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HUMAN RIGHTS

INSURANCE RATES

VICTIMS OF CRIME

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

INSURANCE RATES

NUCLEAR SAFETY

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

FREE TRADE

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

DAY CARE

ETHNIC PROGRAM

PAPER MILL

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

EXTRA BILLING

FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE

FLOODING

WINTARIO CAPITAL GRANTS PROGRAM

CANRON PLANT

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

DEBT REVIEW BOARDS

SENIOR CITIZENS' SERVICES

PETITIONS

UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

GASOLINE PRICES

INTRODUCTION OF BTLL

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE(CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BUDGET

Mr. Andrewes: I would like to take this opportunity to make a small request of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). He is fully aware that the economy of Ontario continues to grow at a rapid rate, partially as the result of excellent management by previous governments. This booming economy, which is projected to grow twice as fast as the Treasurer predicted last fall, will net the government a revenue windfall of at least $2 billion this year.

Major tax changes announced in the 1985 federal budget will bring an additional $525 million into the government's coffers, even after taking into account the $275 million the Treasurer believes the province will lose as a result of the decrease in transfer payments and the effect of capital gains exemption.

This money, when combined with the massive tax increase of $700 million contained in the Treasurer's previous budget, will give the province a net revenue gain of more than $3,225,000,000 million for 1986.

In the light of this major windfall the government finds itself with, my request to the Treasurer is that he reduce taxes in the upcoming budget, take steps to reduce the provincial deficit and increase funding to a number of critical areas. The Treasurer has the resources and the flexibility to accomplish this. I hope he will take this opportunity to provide some relief to the beleaguered taxpayers of the province and to ensure that the economy will continue to grow at a healthy rate.

DAY CARE DAY

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I rise in the House today to mark Day Care Day in Toronto. There will be a day-long series of activities on the issue.

Day Care Day comes at a time when the federal government has set up yet another committee to discuss the needs of child care despite the fact that the issue is already well known to us. I will be appearing before that special parliamentary committee on child care tomorrow to urge it to finally take the action that is required to guarantee universally accessible child care as a right in this country and not as a privilege.

Day Care Day also comes at a time when the cost to a family that is placing an 18-month-old infant in child care in Toronto averages $5,893 a year. There are some nonprofit centres where parents pay up to $6,760 a year, which is more than the cost of a day student at Upper Canada College.

Finally, I note that the activities of Day Care Day stand in marked contrast to the inaction of this Liberal government on child care. Despite the kind words of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) on the subject, we still do not know what is being planned by the ministry. Words are not enough. They will not serve the crying needs of children for whom there are no spaces or of families that cannot afford the existing spaces. It is time we knew what the government is going to do about day care, and Day Care Day is the perfect day to find out.

CHIROPRACTIC AMATEUR ATHLETIC FUND

Mr. Reycraft: Last Friday the London Chiropractic Society launched a week of activities with its eighth annual Spinal Health Week banquet. The society is using the week to showcase the chiropractic amateur athletic fund which its members have established.

A large number of young Canadian athletes is now training for the 1988 summer and winter Olympics. Many of them have attained the necessary calibre to win medals. However, unless they receive the best coaching and assistance with training, travel and living expenses, they will be unable to participate fully in international athletic events. Because of the current circumstances, the fund has been established to ensure that amateur athletes get the assistance they require.

For years, athletes and chiropractors have had a special relationship. A large number of our finest and most promising athletes call upon the services of chiropractors to aid them in physical preparation. Now London and Middlesex chiropractors are offering citizens an opportunity to help our amateur athletes too.

The chiropractic amateur athletic fund will enable many of our athletes to look forward to meaningful participation in the 1988 Olympics and international sporting events. I want to draw to this Legislature's attention this very fine and noble effort by the London Chiropractic Society.

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

Mr. Sheppard: Because of an overwhelming demand for senior citizens' housing in Cobourg and surrounding municipalities, the Cobourg Legion has incorporated a nonprofit housing corporation called Branch 133 Legion Village. This multi-year building project was laid out in a three-stage implementation. The objective of the entire project was and is to provide a place where people aged 50 and up can reside in the confidence that their changing needs will be met. This facility relieves the residents of anxiety concerning where they will live and how they will cope should they suffer infirmity.

Thus far, phases 1 and 2 have been completed. They are fully operational and extremely successful in fulfilling their mandate. There are waiting lists to get into both facilities at the complex.

Initially, the federal government and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. approved and very warmly welcomed the overall plan for the Cobourg Legion Village with the stipulation that it be built in three phases. Unfortunately, the jurisdiction of this facility has subsequently been transferred to the provincial government and everything has stopped there. To everyone's dismay, including municipal officials, local housing groups and the senior citizen population, phase 3 was not included in the provincial government's 1986 building program nor is it on any sort of a priority list for 1986-87 construction.

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

Mr. Sheppard: The completion of this project was to have been under way right now.

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

Mr. Sheppard: I urge the minister to make completion of this third phase a top priority and to do so now.

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

SPRAY PROGRAM

Mr. Laughren: I rise because of my concern about what is happening within the Ministry of Natural Resources. Members will recall that before the House adjourned for the Christmas break, it was announced by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) that no chemicals would be used in the spraying of Ontario's forests. Since that time, Ontario's executive co-ordinator of forest resources declared before a national conference on forestry in Ottawa that governments and others who refuse to use chemicals in spraying are irresponsible.

I do not know how government members feel about the minister, but I do not feel irresponsible in calling for a ban on the use of chemicals in spraying our forests in order to control the budworm.

It is important to understand that when governments announce policy, people responsible for implementing that policy have a responsibility to do just that. I am not suggesting for a moment that this government use the heavy, arbitrary hand the previous minister in the previous government used when his senior officials spoke out, but as long as senior people within government do not implement policies determined in a very democratic way by the government, those policies will never be implemented. It is time the Minister of Natural Resources had a serious talk with senior officials in his ministry.

CANCER TREATMENT CENTRES

It is imperative that existing facilities in Toronto be upgraded with new technologies and approaches to care and that new facilities be provided in southern Ontario. It is even more imperative that the minister provide the funds needed for community-based programs in other cities across the province. The highly skilled physicians practising outside the Ontario Cancer Treatment Research Foundation must also be provided with the modern facilities they need to serve the people in the outlying communities in the north, as well as in southern Ontario.

The Sudbury cancer treatment centre requires significant funding to meet its mandate. Community-based programs in cities such as Saint Ste. Marie must be funded as well. Funding to be announced by the minister must not be directed completely to Toronto or southern Ontario. Northern Ontario needs modern cancer treatment facilities too. Similarly, funding in the north must be shared among northern communities besides Sudbury, such as Sault Ste. Marie, if the needs of northern cancer patients are to be met.

MULTICULTURAL EXTRAVAGANZA

Mr. Callahan: I want to take a very quick opportunity to invite all members of the Legislature, as well as those who may be viewing us today, to an excellent multicultural extravaganza that occurs in Brampton. One can see a sampling of the entire event on June 30 at the Lester B. Pearson Memorial Theatre at 7:30 p.m. or attend some of the 16 pavilions we will be conducting on July 5 and 6.

TOURISM IN EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr. Villeneuve: I want to make a few comments regarding tourism in eastern Ontario as announced by the government in its speech from the throne. Weed harvesting has been a very positive aspect of attracting tourists from Quebec and New York state. It is my understanding that the chances are that we could lose this project in eastern Ontario. I urge the government to promote tourism by maintaining this very special program.

VISITORS

Mr. Brandt: I ask the indulgence of the House to introduce members of a Sarnia delegation who are in the gallery. This will take me only a moment. They are Mayor Marceil Saddy, Alderman Doug Bain, John Robertson, city manager, and Rick Draker, director of planning. We are pleased to have them here.

Mr. Speaker: I am certain the members are pleased to welcome all guests in the galleries today. However, I must remind members that this should take place during members' statements.

2: 13 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HUMAN RIGHTS

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Most Canadians take for granted the human rights that we enjoy in our country. Now and again, however, we have occasion to be reminded of just how precious those rights really are. We in this House are presented with such an occasion today.

In 1976, there began a so-called dirty war waged by the military junta in Argentina against what it described as terrorism. Between 1976 and 1979, an estimated 9,000 to 30,000 Argentinian infants, youths and adults disappeared. Since then, every Thursday in Buenos Aires, a group of mothers don white scarves embroidered with the names of their missing children and march in the Plaza del Mayo in front of the presidential palace.

This afternoon I have the honour and privilege, as minister responsible for human rights, of introducing to members Mrs. Renee Epelbaum, one of the "Mothers of the Plaza del Mayo." Her three children, aged 25, 23 and 20, were among those who disappeared in 1976. She and other mothers have travelled throughout North America and western Europe when they can, trying to ensure that the fate of their children is not forgotten. I know all members join me in paying tribute to the courage and devotion that she and all the mothers display in the face of grave personal danger.

The commitment and unfailing faith of this group of women, demonstrating peacefully for a full accounting of all missing children, speaking openly and critically in the face of oppression and dedicating themselves to the cause of the disappeared and the cause of human rights in Argentina, serve as a beacon to the world.

Renee Epelbaum and her colleagues deserve our heartfelt gratitude and our unstinting support. Mrs. Epelbaum is in the members' east gallery. I ask her to stand and be recognized.

Mr. Gillies: On behalf of the official opposition, I would like to join the Minister of Labour in a warm greeting to Mrs. Renee Epelbaum. Mrs. Epelbaum and her colleagues probably would never understand that people in a free country such as ours often take their freedoms and human rights for granted. It is our hope in this party, and I am sure of all members, that some day she and her countrymen will be able to step out from the shadows and themselves bask in the sunlight of universal human rights. l am delighted she is able to visit us as a symbol of the courage of an oppressed people.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I wish to join in the welcome to Mrs. Renee Epelbaum. It was approximately five years ago that some representatives of the mothers and grandmothers from the Plaza del Mayo came before our caucus and told us of their fight. We saw at first hand the incredible courage of those women. They set an example in those days and are an example now to parents and families in Chile and Guatemala, where children are also disappearing under repressive regimes. They are a wonderful example to us all, and it is an honour that she has joined us today.

INSURANCE RATES

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to table in the House the report of the Ontario Task Force on Insurance. As members will recall, the task force was established on January 9, 1986, to address issues related to cost and capacity problems in the property and casualty insurance markets.

Dr. David Slater chaired the task force. I am most appreciative of the fine work this task force has achieved. I want to express my sincere congratulations to Dr. Slater, his support and administrative staff, the policy advisory group and general counsel, on a job exceedingly well done. A special mention for their contribution goes to Deborah Coyne, who acted as executive director, and Murray Thompson, superintendent of insurance. Dr. Slater and Deborah Coyne are in the members' gallery, and I ask that members recognize them.

Not only did Dr. Slater present his report on

schedule and on time, something that does not often occur when dealing with a complex subject, but also the material provides us with the opportunity for thoughtful discussion. The task force has set out about 100 recommendations in its 520-page, two-volume report. The public and industry will have the opportunity to provide us with comments until July 31, 1986. In the meantime, my staff and I will carefully review the recommendations, and I hope the members will review the material and find it informative.

Mr. Runciman: Members will appreciate that even a Conservative cannot digest a 200-page document in half an hour. I am certain there will be further opportunities to debate the Slater task force report. I would like to convey my sincere appreciation to officials in the Ministry of Financial Institutions for allowing Lorrie Goldstein and the Toronto Sun a sneak preview of the Slater report. I would prefer that these reports were released here in the Legislature, but I will take advantage of the minister's leaky operation to make a few comments.

Many months have passed since my colleagues and members of the third party started questioning the minister on insurance. Whatever its merits -- and I compliment Dr. Slater, there are quite a few -- this report is too late for the swimming school in Markham, the architect in Willowdale, the tour operator in Brockville, the riding stables in Port Carling and municipalities such as Thorold and Ancaster, to name but a few.

As I stated earlier, there are many merits to this report, and I hope the minister will not wait much longer before adopting many of the recommendations. However, it ignores many pressing problems. There is much to be said for a privately run, no-fault insurance plan. It is significantly better than a government-run plan. Any system must have checks and balances. If it were up to Dr. Slater, individuals would lose the right to sue for personal injury from automobile accidents, no matter how serious. As well, damages for pain and suffering could be obtained only by purchasing additional coverage. In the longer term, there would be no access to the courts for any accidental injuries.

The task force is recommending a no-fault scheme for everyone. The insurance companies will get a predetermined

schedule of payments, probably on the low side, and no obligation to pay for pain and suffering. What a field day for Ontario's insurance companies.

Where is the assurance that premiums will go down? We are asking the individual to give up his right to sue and to have his personal damages individually assessed. We are giving insurance companies the stable environment they require to price their product effectively, yet we are getting nothing for the consumer in return. There is no assurance that premiums will decrease or level off, no assurance that additional coverage will be highly affordable and no assurance that the amount of no-fault payment will be adequate or that the areas of coverage will be sufficient.

There are more errors of omission. There is precious little about the problems Ontario has had in the reinsurance market and nothing about penalties for frivolous claims or about a simultaneous prevention and safety campaign. We also find nothing about establishing a consumer advocate in the office of the superintendent of insurance.

Many months ago, following the establishment of the Slater task force, this party expressed concern that there were only two representatives from the insurance industry on the task force and that there was no one from consumer groups or small business. From a cursory examination of the report, we suspect our concerns were well founded.

In

summary, we hope the minister does not heed socialist calls for government-run insurance. He still has much work ahead of him in coming up with a comprehensive proposal for dealing with the insurance crisis. Members of this party will be making many constructive suggestions, and we trust he will take note.

Mr. Swart: I wish to reply to the statement of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on the Slater task force. The Slater report, if implemented, will make some improvements to the present system, but overall it is a pathetic answer to a horrendous problem.

Apart from that, the minister's statement on tabling the report is void of any grasp of the present crisis. He states, "The public and industry will have the opportunity to provide us with comments until July 31, 1986," which is three months from now. That leaves any remedial action until at least the fall, which is six months from now.

There is no mention by the minister of any interim action to deal with the crisis of volunteer organizations cutting back on services and of events being cancelled. There is no mention by him of requiring insurance companies to justify the present rates, which continue to be applied, and further massive rate increases.

Our insurance task force went out in the real world, which the Slater task force never did. It identified seven major problems in the auto insurance system, all very major ones. The Slater report, if adopted by the government in total, and that is doubtful, will resolve only two of these problems: more adequate no-fault insurance and the elimination of penalties for age, sex and marital status. Apart from not solving the other problems, if the report is adopted, it will further escalate insurance rates. The private companies will pass on to the motorists the costs of increased no-fault insurance as well as their losses from the excessive revenue now received from good young drivers.

This would not have been necessary if they had gone to the model of the public plans in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia. They already have the two benefits of no-fault insurance and age and sex parity, with rates far lower than those in force here. The savings that could have been realized by the public auto insurance system, as documented by every independent study made, including Ontario's own 1978 select committee on company law report, would have absorbed these additional costs and left substantial funds for reducing premiums generally.

It is regrettable and unforgivable that Slater simply skirted and avoided the much lower costs of the public systems. The recommendations on liability insurance lack the same imagination and answers to the real problems. The impact on society of this current liability situation is enormous. Dr. Slater said, "Insurance penetrates everything in this life." The penetration at present is one of bloodletting. The long-range proposals may improve the system, but nothing is going to change shortly or substantially. The public plans that operate in competition with private plans in the west have shown that rates are kept reasonable by the competition. Dr. Slater should have recommended that here.

Let there be no doubt that Ontario's current crisis in insurance is the direct responsibility of the insurance industry and of the government's hands-off policy. No one else is to blame. One commentator said that Slater was giving the private insurance industry one more chance. They were given that chance by the select committee report in 1978. Now it is time motorists and other insurers were given a chance in this province. Instead, what this report does, which will undoubtedly be implemented by the government, is to make the insurance market safe for the private insurance companies but not safe for the people of this province.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Hon. Mr. Scott: Later today I will introduce a bill to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act. The legislation demonstrates in concrete form this government's commitment to providing compensation for the innocent victims of crime. It contains significant amendments that will have a major beneficial financial impact for these victims.

To reflect more accurately the real cost of injuries, the bill will significantly increase the maximum amounts that can be awarded to a victim of crime. The maximum awards for one victim will be increased from $15,000 to $25,000 for a lump sum award and from $500 to $1,000 per month for periodic payments. The maximum awards for all victims in respect of any one occurrence will be increased from $100,000 to $150,000 for a lump sum payment and from $175,000 to $250,000 for periodic payments. No changes have been made in this act by the party opposite since 1971.

The bill will also harmonize the compensation for victims of crime program with the family benefits/general welfare assistance program to minimize the disadvantage experienced by victims of crime who are general assistance recipients. Each program now deducts the amount received from the other program when determining the amount of an award or benefit.

The present net result is that general assistance recipients who are victims of crime may effectively receive no compensation for being the victim of a crime. This anomaly is rectified by the legislation, which will require that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board no longer deduct welfare benefits when assessing compensation.

In preparing this legislation, we considered at great length the issue of whether government should make provision for compensating the victims of crime for grief and sorrow, independent of the existing entitlement to compensation for pain and suffering. This was a particularly difficult question for me.

The government fully recognizes that grief and sorrow are the inevitable result of any crime. However, given the limitations of a publicly funded compensation scheme, it has decided it would not be prudent to provide compensation beyond the established boundaries of pain and suffering. Even the common law and the courts have not recognized such a claim. In a program the purpose of which is to assist the victim with pecuniary losses, it would be a marked departure to introduce compensation for a highly variable factor such as grief and sorrow. Frankly, I regretfully doubt whether money can compensate for this kind of emotional pain.

The bill will also give the board more flexibility and the ability to recover its award from the criminal who caused the injury or death. In addition to its present right to maintain an action for damages against the criminal in the name of the victim, the bill gives the board the right to bring its own action in the name of the crown. This amendment reinforces the important principle that criminals have responsibilities to their victims. The fact that the government has established a program to compensate victims of crime does not alter the principle.

The legislation will require recipients of compensation to provide whatever information and co-operation they can to assist the board in maintaining an action against the offender. The bill also will give the board more flexibility to deal fairly with cases where the applicant has not co-operated with the police. In this circumstance, the board will have discretion to reduce the amount of compensation to be awarded. Currently, under the present statute, the board only has authority to refuse to make an order for compensation in such a case.

This legislation will also allow the board to hold an in camera hearing where the applicant has been the victim of child abuse and where a public hearing would be prejudicial to the final disposition of the trial of the person who caused the injury or death.

In addition, the legislation will provide that, under certain circumstances, the board can award interim payments for funeral expenses. Under the present wording, the act authorizes interim payments only in respect of maintenance and medical expenses.

The legislation we are proposing will put Ontario in the forefront of North American jurisdictions which seek to compensate their citizens for the costs of violent crime. Along with other initiatives we are taking to deal with victims of crime, the victims of child and spousal abuse in particular, these measures will mark a new beginning in our government's quest for compassionate and equitable treatment of people who are the victims of criminal conduct.

The chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Mrs. Margaret Scrivener, a distinguished former member of this Legislature from my own riding of St. David, is present in the members' gallery. I ask her to rise. I know she will be as delighted as I am in the introduction of this progressive legislation.

Mr. O'Connor: We applaud the initiative of the Attorney General in bringing in substantive amendments to the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act. Victims of crime must be adequately compensated, and today's announcement is a good start, but we must not turn a blind eye to the other, apparently forgotten victims, the family members of the crime victims. To ignore the terrible anguish of the spouse, children, parents and siblings is to say that crime affects only the individual on whom it was perpetrated.

We acknowledge by way of the Family Law Act that family members should be compensated for damages and other circumstances, having set this out in five separate categories. To ignore such a precedent in amending this act is to demean the importance of the family unit. To encourage the isolation of family members by saying, "You are not involved and this case does not concern you," is to add a second assault or a second injury. It is a flaw in this bill that is fatal.

Ms. Gigantes: On behalf of New Democrats, I welcome the statement by the Attorney General that there will be amendments to the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act. It is high time the act was changed. Public opinion has called for a change in the attention we give to victims of crime, and the announcement that we will provide greater compensation is welcome. I hope the minister will see that previous compensation, which was not adequate, is reviewed immediately the amendments are put into effect.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Before I call for oral questions, I wish to inform the members that in the east end of the Speaker's gallery we have a distinguished guest from a province to the east of us, the Honourable Richard French, Minister of Communications, from the Quebec National Assembly. Welcome, Mr. French.

2: 34 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. How is it that the Urban Transportation Development Corp. , in which the taxpayers of this province have invested more than $160 million, which projects a profit of $23 million over the next three years and which is expecting more than $4 billion worth of sales as a result of Expo 86, now has had its sale to the private sector so mismanaged by the minister and by Mr. Kruger, special adviser to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), that, in the words of an anonymous high-level government official, "Lavalin is now offering to take it off your hands for a washout" -- no money for a $160-million corporation?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am pleased to see that even the Leader of the Opposition has reduced his anticipated profit from the Urban Transportation Development Corp. from some $40 million in his March 25 release to $24 million. I cannot give much more credence to the balance of his question than to his previous statements.

Mr. Grossman: I might say to the minister, whose arrogance is showing through loud and clear --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: The taxpayers of Ontario want to know how it is that the minister, Mr. Kruger and the Premier have so mismanaged the sale of this corporation that they are about to get zero dollars as they dump it off out of government hands.

Let me quote from John Kruger. In the Globe and Mail on March 8, 1986, he reported that Bombardier "tried to make an exclusive deal for the company in early December for $54 million, even before it had seen UTDC's books.

"The new Liberal government," Mr. Kruger went on to report, "did not want to risk the political fallout of a secret deal with Bombardier.... In the process it angered Bombardier, which withdrew from the bidding."

The government had a $54-million offer in its hands, by Mr. Kruger's admission. Now, as a result of the government's mismanagement, the taxpayers are going to get no dollars for a $160-million investment. How does the minister explain that?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The Leader of the Opposition knows far more about arrogance than anyone on this side of the House. As the minister responsible for UTDC, I would be irresponsible if I responded to a question that refers to some unknown source in the newspaper.

Mr. Gillies: The Premier's arrogance is catching; that is obvious. Absolutely appalling.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: Fifty-four million dollars and he does not think it merits an answer?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Maybe the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) would control himself.

Mr. Gillies: It is difficult.

Mr. Grossman: The minister cannot hide from the public for ever on this issue. He is going to have to answer these questions. I invite him to answer them in this assembly, where it is his responsibility to do so.

The minister alleged, through Mr. Kruger, that he was getting a $36.7-million guaranteed bid, not subject to withdrawal by Lavalin, for this company. Without signing a final agreement, he then commissioned Wood Gundy to do this study in an attempt to justify politically the price he had got. Wood Gundy then reported it might be worth between $24 million and $30 million.

Is the minister prepared to acknowledge this afternoon that, to justify his political sale, he has embarrassed Lavalin, which is now saying to the government: "Your own evaluation says we paid too much. Now we are not going to pay you anything."

2: 40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I suggest that the evaluation of UTDC and the controversy surrounding it best reflect the manner in which the previous government established a corporation and in the ensuing manner in which it did the bookkeeping.

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the minister responsible for francophone affairs. Last Thursday he introduced a bill respecting French-language services. On that day, he announced that there were statutory guarantees in that bill. We asked him to point out the statutory guarantees, to enunciate them in this House and to point out where they were in the bill. He could not answer those questions.

It has now been five days since he introduced that legislation. Can he now, today, point out what those statutory guarantees are and where they are found in the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I refer the member to

section 5 of the bill. I also point out that the commission that will be in place for the next three years will determine these services and make its recommendations known to cabinet and to this House.

Mr. Pope: On advice from the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), the minister is aware that a decision of that commission and a decision of cabinet by no stretch of the imagination constitute statutory guarantees. I pointed out last Thursday to the minister the multitude of exemptions and regulations from sections 5 through sections 11 of his own legislation which virtually make the entire offering of French-language services not a statutory right, not a matter of statutory guarantee, but a matter of discretion of the cabinet. Does he disagree with that

interpretation?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: My answer is the same as that given previously. The commission will evaluate the present services and make recommendations. After three years, these services will be guaranteed. This is much more than the services that have been given to the francophone population for the last 43 years.

Mr. Pope: With respect, that is no different whatsoever. There is no change. There is no statutory guarantee, even though on page 3 the minister promised the francophones and the people of this province there were. There are no statutory guarantees in the law, contrary to the minister's own statement in introducing the legislation.

My final supplementary is this. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) said the minister would delay the introduction of this legislation until there were francophone professionals available to provide the service across this province. What has changed since February 13 to make it possible to introduce this bill now'? Has he now got the professional services available and is that why he is introducing the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I told the former minister responsible for francophone affairs, who did not do a thing while he had that responsibility, that the commission will evaluate these services and produce the needed guaranteed rights.

Mr. Rae: It is refreshing to hear someone say the bill is so bad it is just the way it was for 42 years.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Rae: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It concerns car insurance. Now that we have the report, and given that in Saskatchewan premiums fell by seven per cent in 1985 and are going to be frozen for 1986, and in Manitoba they fell by two per cent in 1985, as they did in British Columbia, given those clear facts, coupled with the harsh reality that in Ontario rates have gone up by as much as 20 or 25 per cent depending on the driver, can the minister tell us why his government continues to refuse to embrace the logical, fair, democratic and eminently reasonable idea of public automobile insurance in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The leader of the third party makes statements that reflect his party's philosophical answer to insurance. We established a task force headed by Dr. Slater, who is a very well respected gentleman. He looked at all the information that the leader of the third party just outlined. In his determination, that was not the answer.

We have received his report; we are going to look at it and we will then make our determination. I can tell the member now that Dr. Slater comes out very emphatically that in his investigation of all the provinces that have their own car insurance business, there are more problems than there are solutions. That is his position and, at this moment, that is the position we are maintaining.

Mr. Rae: It would take a Liberal to be astounded by the fact that my question reflects the philosophy our party holds. I know a Liberal finds that difficult to understand, but yes, I confess, the question does reflect my point of view. It reflects a sincerely held point of view.

It also reflects the facts, and it is in connection with those facts that I address a second question to the minister. Can the minister tell us what assurance a driver, young or old, man or woman, rich or poor, has today that this government will take steps to ensure that rates in Ontario will and can come down and not go up'? What steps is the minister prepared to announce today to protect the real interests of consumers in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: To respond to the first part of the member's question, the mere fact that it reflects that party's point of view does not mean it reflects that of the province and of the population of Ontario. Otherwise, they would be in a majority situation.

To answer the member's question, the marketplace is working. The situation in Ontario is relatively unusual. We have no indication that government insurance would help the problem. We will look at the total, overall insurance problem as a result of this report and we will act accordingly.

Mr. Rae: I am glad the minister is where he is; that is all I can say. I am just delighted.

I would like to ask the minister this question with respect to automobile insurance. Can he simply announce today what steps he is prepared to announce? Alberta has a privately controlled system, but it at least has a government board that regulates the price of insurance. Is the minister prepared, at least on an interim basis, to announce measures today that will ensure that motorists will no longer be ripped off to the extent to which they are being ripped off today in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The very simple answer to his question is that I am not prepared to do that today.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Energy with respect to the implications and impact of the accident at Chernobyl. He has now had some time to consider a response. Can he point to one change in public policy, one shift in point of view in his ministry, in Ontario Hydro or at any other level that reflects the implications of the accident that took place some 10 days ago?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The problem I have in replying to that kind of question is that no one knows what happened at Chernobyl. I think we would be less than responsible if we did not wait to see exactly what happened and how we should respond. I am not sure that what happened in Chernobyl with a graphite reactor is something that could happen here.

I tell the member, with the greatest commitment we have on this side, that when we know full well what took place at Chernobyl, we will be up in the Legislature reporting to the assembly.

Mr. Rae: The minister's view seems to reflect that dangerous complacency that simply says, "It cannot happen here."

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, it is not.

Mr. Rae: That is what I heard from the minister's statement. That is the answer I heard very clearly.

Mr. Mancini: That is not what he said.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Rae: If the minister has a different answer, let him give it. Can he explain why no steps have been taken after his statement last week with respect to the need for a systematic study of safety and of the implications of a serious accident with respect to any of our plants? Can he explain why no steps have been taken in that direction, why no indication has been made of a need for an independent study and no steps been taken on the need to change and shift Ontario's policy? Is the minister saying no steps will be taken with respect to what has happened?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: This government has taken many steps on where we will go. We are looking at alternatives such as hydraulic generation, conservation and cogeneration. We are not going to put all our eggs in one basket. We are looking at all those options.

The member is aware that a former New Democratic member, Donald MacDonald, was the chairman of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs which looked into safety. I am sure he was satisfied at that time, and right up to the present, that our reactors are such that workers feel safe working in them.

Mr. Rae: Since the minister has referred to that report, let me remind him that recommendations from both the Porter commission and the select committee chaired by Mr. MacDonald, to which he referred, suggested a thorough examination of the likelihood and consequences of a serious nuclear accident. The minister must know that the specific recommendations with respect to the implications of a nuclear accident were systematically ignored by Hydro, by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., by the Atomic Energy Control Board and by the government of Ontario.

Since the minister apparently has endorsed that report today, is he prepared at least to take a minimal step and undertake such a study or review to assure Ontario citizens that a province that will be 70 per cent nuclear dependent by 1990, thanks to his government, its decisions and priorities, will at least have the safest system in the world?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: My first response is that this was not our decision. It may be our responsibility now, but it was not our decision when it was entered into. I am very willing to accept what the member is saying. Part of the responsibility is that of the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes), who has very seriously taken that into account. Certainly, we are going to do the things the member is suggesting.

One thing that gives me some comfort is that the Hydro workers themselves say it all. Members of Local 1000 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees work in the plants and they are the strongest supporters of the safety of the nuclear plants in Ontario. I am not going to their defence to the point that I will not look into the alternatives, but I think the workers in those plants say it all.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: I have another question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I want to give him the unfettered opportunity to explain what happened to reduce a $160-million investment to zero.

The minister, together with Mr. Kruger, stated with quite a fanfare several months ago that he was getting an alleged $71 million for the sale of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. to Lavalin. Can the minister explain to the House and the taxpayers of this province what has transpired from that day to this to cause Lavalin to withdraw its offer and the government to lose an alleged $71 million?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I do not agree the offer is causing less than what we indicated in March. The Leader of the Opposition is aware the offer contained an allowance for the bidders to take a detailed look at the accounting practices and books of the UTDC. One of the things of particular concern to us as well as the bidders is the ongoing liability of UTDC, of which the Leader of the Opposition is very much aware since he was the Treasurer when some of those liabilities were entered into.

Mr. Grossman: The minister announced the deal before he had signed a firm offer. He stood up and trumpeted $71 million without having a commitment from Lavalin, as it turns out. He then commissioned a report that said to Lavalin, "John Kruger and the Premier have said to the world, `We got $71 million from Lavalin.'" He then got Wood Gundy to say to the world: "Lavalin, they took you. In Wood Gundy's view, the company is worth $26 million to $30 million." Is the minister prepared to admit that when this became public, Lavalin called up and said it was no longer prepared to be held out to the public as paying $71 million for something that his own report said was worth $26 million?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: We did not announce a deal. We announced the award to a successful bidder to explore further the possibility of negotiating the privatization of the corporation. It is that simple.

TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. What specific safeguards is the minister implementing as a result of his ministry's findings released last Friday that the most toxic form of dioxin, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, has been found at the level of 210 parts per trillion in the primary settling lagoon at the Boise Cascade mill in Fort Frances?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member will recall some time ago it was revealed that dioxin had been found in the fish in the Rainy River. At that time, I indicated that the Ministry of the Environment and its counterpart in Minnesota would examine a number of potential sources of that dioxin, a significant amount having been found, at least enough to flag a problem. Subsequent to that, the ministry examined the effluent in Boise Cascade's material coming out of the plant. The effluent did not contain anything, but the sludge did contain dioxin.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, that is what I just said.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I know this is a serious matter and the member will consider that.

Mr. Foulds: The minister released the information on Friday afternoon in northwestern Ontario and not here.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think that was a pretty well known fact.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister was actually starting to answer what I guess was a supplementary question. Is there a supplementary?

Mr. Wildman: He was starting to answer the first question.

Mr. Rae: He repeated the question and then he did not get on to his answer.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you could respond briefly.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will try to respond in a more brief manner.

As a result of testing in our lab, we did find dioxin in the sludge at Boise Cascade. We are looking at six or seven other plants, at the same time as those on the American side are, to identify whether the problem is prevalent in all the plants or in one specific plant, because it has been found in other places. As a result, we are working with the companies to determine how they might change their processes to avoid the production of dioxin.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister agree with the present Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), who said in 1983, "Sweet assurances from the ministry that all is well in the face of a growing dioxin threat are beginning to ring hollow"?

When will the minister be in a position to tell us that his ministry has accepted its responsibility (1) to guarantee that these discharges are not going into the Rainy River in any way, shape or form, (2) to determine what it is in the kraft pulping process that appears to produce dioxin as a byproduct and (3) to find out what is causing the contamination level of dioxin in the fish in the Rainy River?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is absolutely correct. It is the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment to determine that and the responsibility of no one else.

We are in a position to say that is why we did the testing of the fish, the testing of the effluent and the testing of the sludge. At this time, our officials are working with the companies to determine the source so the procedure that produces dioxin as a byproduct can be changed and we no longer have that byproduct making its way into the environment. It is a legitimate concern. We are moving very quickly, and at the earliest opportunity we hope to have the solution.

3 p.m.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. A senior member of the cabinet has recently stated that he favours enhanced trade with the United States. Will the minister draw some distinction between the meaning of "enhanced trade" and "freer trade" with respect to the United States?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I take it that enhanced trade means increased trade.

Mr. Brandt: I am glad to hear the government has an identifiable position and it is in favour of more trade. It is delightful to hear that. However, what is the government going to do about enhancing trade with the US if it is in opposition to some form of freer trade or to some of the discussions that are going on at present on the part of the federal government?

Will the minister please clarify for this House what his position is on enhanced trade, freer trade, free trade, trade liberalization or anything else to do with trade so that we will know?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I find it very hard to understand that a previous Minister of Industry and Trade does not understand the issue. We will work very hard for increased or enhanced trade to raise our trade figures with the US for ever, I hope, depending on what comes out of the free trade --

Mr. Brandt: So he is in favour of free trade.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Enhanced or increased trade.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the Minister of Housing. Yesterday, the Minister of Housing said the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) would address the question of severing rental row housing for a private sale. In turn, the Minister of Municipal Affairs said he would review all municipal consents to the severance of row housing.

Will the Minister of Housing tell us whether Bill 11 or the associated and somewhat confused ministerial statements will allow an appeal to cabinet of the recent Ontario Municipal Board approval of severances for 94 units of rental row housing in Overbrook and Carlington Park in the ridings of Ottawa Centre and Ottawa East?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If I understand the honourable member's question, she is asking whether that case will allow an appeal from the OMB to the cabinet. Is that what she is asking?

Ms. Gigantes: Can it be appealed?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I cannot answer the question. I will have to check whether it can be appealed and get back to her.

Ms. Gigantes: While the minister is checking, will he also inquire of whomever tells him whether under Bill 11 the tenants of the 90 rental units in the Bonaventure Apartments at 180 MacLaren in the riding of Ottawa Centre can follow steps which will lead to an appeal to cabinet to prevent their building from becoming converted unit by unit to an apartment hotel?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I will also check into that.

Mr. Shymko: My question is to the Premier. On February 12, he promised this government would not unilaterally interfere with municipalities on the issue of conversion. In reply to my question about protecting tenant ownership, he said: "The power is in the hands of Metro Toronto.... Surely he is not asking me to impose my will unilaterally, one way or another, on this situation. No good yuppie would do that kind of thing."

How does a good yuppie Premier explain this blatant policy flip-flop, of which the acrobatics outmatch even such masters as Rosenberg and Player? Is this another example of the Liberal version of keeping its promise? What kind of political con game is he playing now that he has even his own Minister of Housing paralysed in total confusion?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With sympathy, I understand my friend's confusion. After all, he is a member of the Progressive Conservative caucus. That caucus has 16 different positions on every issue. What is his position on this matter? When is he going to stand up and tell us where he stands on it?

We told him very clearly where we stand. We brought in that law yesterday to address problems that we think are serious. It will last for two years and will ultimately allow an appeal to the cabinet. That is very clearly where we stand.

Mr. Shymko: I am surprised by this flippant answer. Will the Premier not admit he has misled this member, this House and his own Liberal Party association in High Park-Swansea, which officially supports conversion? Is he playing another con game with his Liberal cronies? What is his game?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member take his seat? Will he withdraw the words he used regarding misleading?

Mr. Shymko: Unlike the Premier, I do not mislead the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the member once more, will he withdraw those words?

Mr. Shymko: The Premier should withdraw his previous statement of February 12.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is that a no? It is with regret that I must name the honourable member and ask him to withdraw for the rest of the day.

Mr. Shymko left the chamber.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have two very quick points of order. I will not prolong your decision, but I ask you to check Hansard. My colleague's comment was a question, not an accusation. I would like you to check that with Hansard when you get the chance.

Second, can we have the answer to the question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I feel I heard it correctly. I made a decision. The member has left the chamber; therefore, there is no need for a response. If another member wishes to ask the same question in a different way, that is fine.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: History has been made again. Tom Stelling has made it on to television throwing somebody out of the House; well done. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) is only sorry it was not he who could be here today.

DAY CARE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is of the Minister of Community and Social Services. On April 4, 1985, our would-be Premier said, "Provision of child care services is an issue central to the economic health of Ontario and to equitable employment opportunities for women. Despite the rhetoric and promises, the Conservative government continues to treat child care as a welfare issue." A year later, why does the minister continue to do so?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: This government has clearly gone on record as saying it plans to move welfare from a welfare issue to a public service matter. We are now in the process of developing the procedure for making that happen.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I never said the minister had to separate them.

Recently, the minister was quoted in the Toronto Star as saying, "For a long time it" -- meaning day care -- "was not seen by government or the public as a necessary service." I presume from what he is saying that he does see it as a necessary service. If it is, when is he going to implement this necessary service? When are we going to see his white paper on the integration of the three matters to which he just spoke?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: This party indicated, as an election campaign promise, that 10,000 new spaces would be made available over a two-year period. We have implemented that promise. That is step number one. Step number two has been identified: simply putting new spaces on the market does not resolve the problems I have just identified. That is why a comprehensive, integrated package is now being put together. As soon as it is, it will be made available to the member and every other member of this House.

3: 10 p.m.

ETHNIC PROGRAM

Mr. Davis: I have a question of the Minister of Education. The social community relations program begun in 1975 and applauded by the Ministry of Education, which assisted parents in becoming involved in their children's education, is being terminated by the Toronto Board of Education. The parents who are upset, especially those of Portuguese background, have asked the minister to undertake a pilot project in order that the strategies and models may be developed so this program can be used in other jurisdictions. Will the minister implement this type of program?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I must say that I am wondering, as are my friends the member for York South (Mr. Rae) and the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), whether I am hearing the member for Scarborough Centre correctly. I know that in recent days the member for Scarborough Centre has announced publicly that it is therapeutic to change one's mind, but this surely is carrying that to a ridiculous extreme.

I want to say to my distinguished friend from Scarborough --

Mr. Baetz: The minister is too young to be so arrogant.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Arrogant? Speaking about changing one's mind, I see we have aroused the interest of the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz), who has been publicly undressing on a public policy matter for the past six months. I think we are about to see that emperor without any clothes at all in a few days.

Mr. Davis: I have a supplementary, but first, I would hope the minister would attempt to answer the question. Second, I guess my colleagues from the left are a little bit upset because they could not understand the situation; they had not raised it in the House.

Is the minister, along with his colleagues, telling the people of Ontario that he does not give a damn about the ethnic people of this community when he refuses to instigate these pilot projects so parents in this province can learn to access the educational system?

Mr. Gillies: The minister is looking arrogant again.

Hon. Mr. Conway: As my friend the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) and I know, that is surely not the vernacular in which the honourable reverend gentleman from Scarborough was schooled. In front of all these young people, l am sure the Education spokesman for the official opposition would want to review that language.

As the honourable member knows, these are matters that are properly before the Toronto Board of Education. The Ministry of Education has its responsibilities, and I intend to take those very seriously. However, the particular matter to which the member makes reference is one that falls within the purview of the local board; it has taken a decision. I am sure the member, and his friends in the official opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), might want to take this up with their friends on the Toronto school board. However, it is quite properly a matter of the board's jurisdiction.

PAPER MILL

Mr. Pouliot: l have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. What concrete steps is his ministry willing to take to ensure that the Kimberly-Clark paper mill in the township of Terrace Bay will not close?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am sure that question was answered by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye). As the question relates to me, we assured the mill that the Ministry of Natural Resources would provide the materials necessary to keep the mill going. I am sure the honourable member will admit that is the only responsibility I have as it relates to that mill operation. We have given that guarantee.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister guarantee that should Kimberly-Clark close the mill, the timber rights will be withdrawn from Kimberly-Clark and that any successor company must guarantee to keep the mill open to get those timber rights?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would have to look into the legal ramifications.

Mr. Wildman: The minister is the one who makes the decisions.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Just a minute. Let us talk about the contracts being binding or not.

Mr. Foulds: The company can break its contract with the people of Terrace Bay; it can shut down the community, and yet the minister is afraid to take away its licence.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am not. If it is within my prerogative to guarantee those jobs, I will give the House that undertaking.

Mr. Pouliot: Please, do not ask your staff.

Mr. Wildman: The minister is the one who makes the decision.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

Mr. McCague: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The Prince Edward Island potato growers have received support, first from their government and subsequently from the federal government. Why did the minister turn down the Ontario potato growers when they asked for a stabilization payment?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I do not think the information received by the honourable member is completely factual. I did not turn them down. I suggested they contact the federal Minister of Agriculture because, as the member well knows, the stabilization program is a federal program. It is the Agricultural Stabilization Act program.

I wrote a letter to my counterpart in Ottawa and told him that if he were prepared to give them an advance payment or even to give them a subsidy similar to the one he gave to PEI producers, I would seriously consider sharing that support payment to the potato producers in this province.

Mr. McCague: I am pleased to have the minister's answer. Would he like my help in persuading the federal government to come first so that he might come second?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Sure. We will ask for all the support we can get to make sure our agricultural industry remains as viable as it possibly can. If the member has a pipeline to his federal counterparts, I suggest he jump on the line and tell Mr. Wise to get moving and to do something about the agricultural industry, not only in this province but also elsewhere in this country, because the federal government is doing nothing.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I wonder whether the Minister of Health is aware of a letter that went to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) today from the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, saying, "The Registered Nurses Association of Ontario is distressed with your government's postponements, mixed messages and foot dragging over the passage of Bill 94 to end the practice of extra billing."

Is the minister not aware that partners in the health care system, such as nurses, nurses' assistants and other professionals, are frustrated with the double standard his government is taking with regard to the doctors as opposed to the needs they have within the health care system?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am not aware of that letter. It was not delivered to my office before I left; it may be on its way.

I have spoken directly with the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario on several occasions; in fact, I addressed a meeting it had last week, and that sort of expression was not conveyed to me at that time. I can tell the honourable member and the people of the province that we are not dragging our feet. We are proceeding, and we will continue to proceed, to a conclusion on this issue.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I asked the minister yesterday, and I will ask him again today: In view of the fact that on Friday his negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association broke off again and the OMA was not even willing to discuss with him a moratorium on extra billing while negotiations continue, can the minister give an indication to the registered nurses and to this Legislature where there is room for a negotiated settlement with the OMA? Why is he not proceeding with this bill now?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman knows the bill is currently in committee; we are dealing with Bills 54 and 55, and there is then, in addition, Bill 30. We are dealing with the legislation that is in the committee, and we will continue to conduct the business of the committee as it is ordered. We are not at a stage where discussions have broken off. That is his

interpretation. We expect to have other meetings.

The member would want to know that we are taking every step to ensure that we find out whether there is a middle road, and we are still anticipating some new material to be forwarded to us at an appropriate meeting.

FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE

Mr. Guindon: J'ai une question pour le ministre de l'Éducation.

In the speech from the throne, the government indicated it would be addressing the needs of the functionally illiterate. Does the minister have a specific program in place to address the needs of francophones who are functionally illiterate?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The speech from the throne does address this government's concern about the illiteracy rate in the province. My colleagues the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) and the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) and I are reviewing a variety of initiatives and options at present. I invite the honourable member to stand by. We will have something to say more specifically for the anglophone and francophone communities, as well as many others, in the not-too-distant future.

3: 20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Cornwall knows only too well from our cooperative and consultative effort on École secondaire la Citadelle that I am a consultative fellow and I will consult with the organizations to which he makes reference and a host of others. This government is quite concerned about --

Mr. Villeneuve: Are you listening?

Hon. Mr. Conway: We have aroused the squire from Moose Creek. I am prepared to go to Moose Creek and to have the representations of my friend the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve).

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will talk about Moose Creek some other time.

FLOODING

Mr. Hayes: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Now that the minister has set up his lame-duck committee to study the flooding problems along the Great Lakes, is he prepared to include in his committee some knowledgeable individuals on this subject from the riparian groups to offset his collection of party hacks?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am tempted not to respond to that, but I shall. I am sorry the honourable member feels that way about the whole involvement, because I think we are doing something that augurs well for the people along the lakefront. The member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), who is the chairman of that committee, and representatives from cities along the lakeshore are not hacks in my book. They are people who are genuinely concerned about what is happening and they will do a good job for us. The member is privileged to go there and make his feelings known.

The only time he has done too much is to get up in the Legislature and say what is wrong. We are looking to the member to help us go in the right direction and to tell us what is correct.

The Americans are doing a very major study with the Corps of Engineers, which I am sure will be helpful to the whole process of what is happening on the Great Lakes. Our people are doing an excellent job. I am very proud of that committee and I hope the member will cooperate with it.

Mr. Hayes: I think I have been very co-operative. I have actually brought some knowledgeable people to speak to the minister, but he has ignored what they have been telling him to do.

It is no different than the previous party. We cannot afford to wait while millions of dollars worth of property damage occurs. Will the minister tell us when the committee will actually begin its public meetings so that it can get on with its task force very quickly?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member really knows how to hurt a guy. Being compared to the previous government is about all I can take. The committee has had its inaugural meeting. A list of where the meetings will take place will be provided to the member. Another important player the member should be addressing is the federal government. We have had a great deal of correspondence with the Honourable Tom McMillan relating to any controls or any investigative help they would give us at the federal level, and it is ongoing.

The member will have to look for a major commitment from the federal government. When one looks at a province that has 3,000 miles of shoreline, it will take considerable effort and money. Of necessity, it will need the cooperation of the federal government and the government of the United States. It is really an international problem.

WINTARIO CAPITAL GRANTS PROGRAM

Mr. Rowe: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I hope his microphone will work, so we do not have to listen to a three-page report tomorrow.

Can the minister explain why the application forms for the Wintario capital funding program he announced in January were made available only last week?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The Wintario capital grants program which was announced is the first program we have had in three years. A lot of thought has gone into this program, and I am delighted that it is now out and in place.

Mr. Rowe: The reality of this great program that the minister is telling us he has announced is that he has done nothing for four months but announce the program. He is so busy getting his glossy picture on the face of magazines trying to look good that he will not run his ministry.

With only 18 working days left from today, does he expect applicants to fill out some 32 questions on an application form and return it to him by May 31? In view of his mishandling of this, will he agree to extend the May 31 deadline for the applicants who need some of that money?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: No one will be penalized because of the date. The people in the field are client groups. Municipalities are just delighted with this program. The applications are starting to come in, and it is going to be a very successful program.

CANRON PLANT

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Is the minister aware of the decision of the Abex Corp. of Baltimore, Maryland, to cancel the rights of the Canron plant at St. Thomas, represented by Local 4815 of the United Steelworkers of America, to manufacture brake shoes for Canadian National and Canadian Pacific? What is he doing about it?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I am not aware of it, but if the member would forward any information he has, I will do what I can to help.

Mr. Mackenzie: Is the minister aware and can he verify that this is the only plant in Canada that is manufacturing brake shoes that are used by CN and CP? The decision to cancel the right to manufacture these brake shoes can mean the closing of the plant and the loss of better than 50 jobs as well as the necessity for us to source in the United States. What is he doing to protect basic industries like this to see that it does not happen?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Again, if the member would be kind enough to forward any information he has, I would be very pleased to speak with him on it and to help in any way I can.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Gregory: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In a recent

article the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) stated that the government's 8.3-cents-a-litre tax on gasoline is necessary if people want things such as good roads.

How can the Minister of Transportation and Communications justify his government's higher gas taxes when the following highways have been either cancelled or delayed by this government: the Ottawa Queensway; the Highway 403 extension; Highway 654, Parry Sound; Highway 404; Highway 407; and Highway 89?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I suggest that the member's information is incorrect. In fact, we speeded up the Ottawa Queensway. We did not delay Highway 407. We maintained and are increasing the scheduling on Highway 404. I do not know where the information comes from, but it is erroneous.

Mr. Gregory: I can assure the minister that the information I have is factual. He has spent too long in Vancouver; he has fallen behind.

In view of the fact that in the last budget there was a reduction of $34 million in the budget of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, while the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) experienced increased revenues from fuel taxes, registration and licence fees of $23 million; and in view of the fact that MTC initiatives are not even mentioned in the throne speech, can the minister tell this House how he intends to convince the Treasurer to allocate the increased revenue from gasoline taxes to MTC for road construction to deliver on the commitment of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I appreciate that the member is thanking us for the trip he enjoyed to Expo recently. The member, as an experienced member of this House, is surely aware that all revenues go into the consolidated revenue fund.

DEBT REVIEW BOARDS

Mr. Ramsay: Why has the Minister of Agriculture and Food, since becoming minister, reversed his position on third-party debt review for many of the farmers in Ontario who are in financial trouble and, instead of supporting the farmers, come down firmly on the side of the banks of this province?

3: 30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I have to disagree with the member. I have not reversed my decision on third-party debt review. As a matter of fact, the amendment to the Bankruptcy Act, which Mr. Wise hopes to get through the House before the end of June, will set up debt review boards, but review boards that will not have the authority to write down debt.

I support debt review boards and perhaps we can give farmers breathing space. In fact, he adopted his program from the farmers in transition program I introduced in this province. He is simply going to have debt review boards meet with farmers to see whether they can restructure their farm businesses to put them in a position where they can continue to farm and can continue to rely on banks for operating credit. It is a different matter if one is talking about review boards with the authority to impose arbitrary settlements. The member knows as well as I do the problems one would run into with that kind of situation.

Mr. Ramsay: It appears the minister has forgotten some of the statements he made at a meeting in Earlton before he was the minister. He came down firmly on judicial third-party debt review. We now have the silent majority of farming in this province, represented by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, firmly in support of this principle. I ask the minister again, why is he not backing up the farmers of this province?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am very much in favour of debt review boards. I have serious reservations about boards that are given the authority to say to a bank or any other lending institution or any private individual who happens to be holding a mortgage, "You are going to write down debt whether you like it or not." We saw what happened in the west with the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Some people out there are still very bitter about the fact they had to write down debt or even write the whole thing off.

We have to be careful about it because more than financial institutions are backing farmers with mortgages and other loan programs. If one comes in with that kind of program, one is going to signal to those farmers that governments can come along at any time and change the rules and regulations that were made between the farmer and the

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the minister will complete his answer by letter.

SENIOR CITIZENS' SERVICES

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the minister irresponsible for senior citizens. Yesterday in this Legislature, the Minister without Portfolio for senior citizens' affairs indicated that seven months ago he tabled his report with cabinet and it still has not seen the light of day. One change has been made for senior citizens while he has been minister, and I ask him whether he consulted with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) on the change. It is the one that increases the fee for the average week of camping for a senior citizen from $17.50 a week last year to $35 a week this year.

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: That is really a two-part question. I point out to the member that the first part of the work I did in reviewingservices for seniors addressed itself to Health and to Community and Social Services. In so far as other areas or ministries affect seniors, we are beginning that phase of the work now with Transportation and Communications, Housing and other related areas. Certainly, I have consulted with the Minister of Natural Resources and he will be more than delighted to elaborate on the answer.

Mr. Harris: I am a little disappointed that the minister consulted and agrees with the minister that the fee should be doubled for the average week of camping. There is another thing in this area. I ask him again whether he consults with anybody over there, including the Minister of Natural Resources. I have a pamphlet entitled A Guide for Senior Citizens: Services and Programs in Ontario; Ron Van Horne, Minister; David Peterson, Premier.

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary question is --

Mr. Harris: It says that provincial parks offer free camping to Ontario senior citizens and that one can get the pamphlet Senior Citizens: Use of Provincial Parks. At the same time that comes out, a Ministry of Natural Resources' pamphlet comes out saying there is no free camping.

Mr. Speaker: The minister.

Mr. Harris: In fact, the fees are doubled and the pamphlet is not available.

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: I am sure the Minister of Natural Resources will want to elaborate, but the time is not available now. Let me simply say that the senior citizens' guide to which the member referred was printed when that was the policy. It was printed before the statement came out from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I did not want to interrupt the question period, but I wanted to comment on the point of order raised by the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) with respect to your ruling on the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko).

I feel that since this is a historic first, the first expulsion for the benefit of the television cameras, it should not pass unnoticed. I think your ruling was correct, because some of us knew as early as lunch-time today the honourable member planned to get himself thrown out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot see how that is a point of order. It is a point of view.

Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The member for Bellwoods definitely impugned the motives of the member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: I simply repeat that at lunch-time today I heard the member planned to have himself evicted.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If we had a little order, one could hear what is going on.

PETITIONS

UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

Mr. Jackson: I am pleased to table in the House today a petition, which has been signed by more than 3,000 residents of the metropolitan Hamilton area and forwarded to me by Dr. Alvin Lee, president of McMaster University. The

preamble is lengthy, so I will only give a précis. The petition sets out that if Ontario and Canada are to compete economically and technologically with the rest of the world and to advance culturally, we must support the health of our university system. It says, "We urge the fullest possible assistance from the government of Ontario."

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Harris: I have a petition signed by 93 people with reference to the gouging Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). It states:

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

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

It is a timely comment.

INTRODUCTION OF BTLL

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 12,

An Act to amend the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE(CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for York East adjourned the debate. Has the honourable member finished her comments?

Ms. Hart: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any questions of the member? If not, the next speaker will be the member for Fort William.

3: 40 p.m.

Mr. Hennessy: I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the throne speech. I will limit myself to a few brief remarks on the subject I know best, northern Ontario.

I must admit I am disappointed with the contents of the throne speech. The Liberals have repeatedly assured the residents of northern Ontario that their concerns will be of the utmost importance. Judging by the throne speech, northern concerns have been given a much lower position on the Liberals' list of priorities. The few promises contained in the speech are all air and no substance.

Northerners know when something sounds too good to be true. They are industrious and down-to-earth people, and they cannot be fooled by flimsy promises. It is time the government realizes that northern Ontario demands and deserves more attention. It may be more politically fruitful for the Liberals to concentrate their efforts where they have traditionally received votes, but the north will not stand for such policies.

I was disappointed that the throne speech did not address the plight of single-industry towns. These towns are in dire need of assistance to help decrease their dependency on just one source of economic development. It is imperative that no other town meet the tragic fate of Creighton. Inco has sounded the death knell for this once-thriving community. Located 15 kilometres northwest of Sudbury, Creighton is scheduled for demolition by June 1988, leaving its 450 residents homeless and bitter.

Could this situation have been avoided? I think so. It is an important priority for the government to study this issue. I realize this cannot be solved overnight, but the government must continue to search for a solution. Task forces are not enough, especially when it is obvious the government takes no heed of recommendations that make sense.

What about unemployment in the north? In the Sudbury area, the unemployment rate was 11.6 per cent in March 1986; in the Thunder Bay area, it was slightly higher at 12.7 per cent. The provincial average is 6.8 per cent. This is disturbing. More and more of our young people are leaving the north because they cannot find steady jobs. What do the Liberals plan to do about this situation? For northerners, the situation equals frustration. Will the Liberals promise to alleviate this frustration?

Because of northern Ontario's dependence on single industries for its economic wellbeing, the economy is fragile and unstable. The failure to diversify the northern economy means a continued dependence on the mining and forestry sectors, but employment in these areas is far from promising. In the mining sector, jobs have decreased to 35,000 in 1984 from 50,000 in 1980, a 30 per cent decline. In the forestry sector, jobs were relatively stable at 15,000 from 1980 to 1983 before declining to 12,000 in 1984.

A recently released report from the Ontario Manpower Commission shows that the median growth for the province will produce only 100 more jobs in forestry and 6,300 in mining in the five-year period from 1984 to 1988, a low growth scenario that will actually see 1,000 jobs lost in forestry and only 1,900 jobs produced in mining. This indicates that the two key sectors in northern Ontario are stagnating.

I thought the throne speech would include at least a passing mention of the problems facing our softwood lumber industry. Protectionist bills introduced in the United States by congressmen seriously hamper the industry, because many of the bills are aimed at restricting access of our lumber exports and at imposing countervailing duties on our exports.

Ontario is the second-largest exporter of forestry products to the United States in Canada. In 1985, the value of softwood lumber alone exported from Ontario to the US exceeded $800 million. There are thousands of people employed in Ontario sawmills, many of which are located in the north.

The US is also putting a great deal of pressure on the federal government to make concessions on the lumber issue for the upcoming free trade talks. We know the concessions being sought will have a direct impact on Ontario's lumber industry. Why has the Liberal government played ostrich and stuck its head in the sand regarding this issue? The futures of many of these communities which depend on the lumber industry are in jeopardy.

Our resource industries are important, but perhaps the most important commodity is our youth. The north cannot afford to have our youth flock to the south looking for employment. There must be concentration on the community retaining employment to keep northern Ontario vital and alive.

Although the speech from the throne briefly mentioned the establishment of educational facilities in northern Ontario, it did not satisfactorily explain the administration or financing of these schools. I hope this new high school of science and technology succeeds. However, where will the graduates of this high school work? As I mentioned before, career opportunities in mining and forestry are best described as bleak. This school can succeed only if the north can benefit from the Liberal promises on research and development improvements.

It is always refreshing when the Liberal government agrees that one of our original programs is worth while and should be continued. The Progressive Conservative government had implemented the idea of long-distance education programs, using new technology to reach those in remote communities. The Liberals have decided to expand that program, which I understand has enriched the lives of thousands of northern Ontario residents.

I was disappointed that the Liberals did not mention what they planned to do regarding separate school funding in the north. The Liberals did not address the quandary in which many northern Ontario towns find themselves. How should a community with only one school implement the provisions found within the separate school funding issue? This is an important and controversial issue in the north, and I am gravely disappointed that the speech from the throne made no mention of it.

I was pleased to see that tourism in the north would be given a high priority. I am a little sceptical, however, as to whether the Liberal initiatives will ever be implemented. The provisions that were set out in the speech from the throne sound suspiciously like promises made by the Liberals last year and never implemented. I only hope these new promises will not sit on the shelf as rainy-day promises.

Tourism is important in the north. It is important that the north has a chance to diversify its economic base, and tourism is the natural solution. However, taxes will seriously hinder any attempts at tourism development, especially when gasoline prices are higher in the north than they are in the south. Food and accommodation are also costlier. Perhaps the Liberals will study the prospect of alleviating the tax plight and ending fancy promises and fancy programs.

It is time the Liberals realized that northern Ontario is an integral part of this province. To grow and to become economically strong, northern Ontario needs special attention to realize its potential. The Liberal government has a tendency to ignore the north. This attitude must change. I can only hope the budget will be more attentive to the north than the speech from the throne has been.

3: 50 p.m.

Mr. Ramsay: It is a pleasure to rise in my place today to comment on this document, which we had read to us on April 22, of 1986. Coming from northern Ontario, what I heard in this document came as a bit of a shock. I do not relate very well to the future that is being projected here in this speech from the throne. It does not relate to what is going on -- if members will pardon the expression -- in my neck of the woods. We are having great trouble even keeping pace with the old industrial technology and the old smokestack industries. We are even losing the few that we have.

We do not seem to be moving into the glorious future that is projected here. We would like to be a part of that action, but we feel very much left out of it.

The idea of the speech is not bad in concept. Maybe we should look, as it says here, at a framework for long-term achievement. The problem of the north is that we are not achieving today. We are having a lot of trouble maintaining our own, let alone having any vision of the future.

The speech says we will continue to build on our traditional resource and manufacturing sectors. This is obviously one of the main areas of northern Ontario industry, but we cannot build at all. We are entering into a free-fall stage when it comes to our resources and any manufacturing we can derive from those resources.

We look at this as something in a foreign language when the economy of the future is being characterized by "an intense competition focused on services, knowledge, information and new technology in order to maintain and create jobs." We cannot keep pace with what we are doing now. How are we going to enter into this new space age in northern Ontario without some sort of vision and plan of what we need to do in the north?

As the speech says, we should be "innovating and seizing opportunities." Obviously, we should have been doing that in the past 42 years. We also could have been doing that this past year. We have opportunity after opportunity fall into our lap every time these layoffs are announced, and yet we do not do anything about them. We say, "Let us study it; let us send a committee up to Sault Ste. Marie," but there is no real, concrete action. We are going to have to come up with some alternatives if we are to populate that vast northern

section of our province.

It is ironic -- and the results of elections, probably future as well as past, show this -- that some of the things that I say as a New Democrat and that people in other parties say show real agreement across party lines with many people in the north.

The free market system does not work badly in southern Ontario, where there is a concentrated market, a vast population; a few people fall through the cracks, but on the whole, it does not work too badly. The free market system fails totally in northern Ontario, and we are seeing that now with job after job being lost day after day. I am going to go through some of those jobs a little later.

April has been a real horror month for people in northern Ontario and for the people who are breadwinners for their families. The government is even starting to say it should be steering clear of ventures that are best left to the private sector.

We New Democrats believe the public sector is very good at supplying many basic services for people, but we are not saying the public sector should be in every business and should be totally running the economy. We should be planning the economy, and we should be encouraging business to carry on with the business of business in this day and age.

When it comes to northern Ontario, I have to differ. The private sector is not doing its job in northern Ontario because basically the private sector does not care about northern Ontario. It does not care about southern Ontario either, but it is striving and doing well because it cares about profits. It can make profits in southern Ontario, and my hat is off to it. I may be unlike some members of my caucus; I do not know. I am not against profits. "Profits" is not a dirty word; we must have incentives built into the system. But in northern Ontario this system does not work. We are all falling through the cracks in northern Ontario.

The speech says: "The world economy is in an era of transition. Ontario enters this period with considerable strengths." Not those of us in northern Ontario. As I said before, our economy is in a free-fall situation. We are finding it devastating, and it is hampering our vision of where we are going, because we do not feel we have a future.

The speech goes on to say, "Our economy has emerged leaner and stronger from a decade in which the world economy experienced significant upheaval." We never recovered up north.

We never recovered in farming, we never recovered in forestry, and except for a few examples such as gold, we never recovered in mining either. We are still experiencing that upheaval in northern Ontario.

The speech goes on and this, for the speech, is the good part. It says: "Over the past 12 months, 179,000 jobs have been created in Ontario. The first three months of this year saw the creation of 73,000 new jobs." That is very well and good for southern Ontario, but those new jobs were not created in the north; they are all down here.

As members know, in April we had some serious announcements made in northern Ontario concerning employment, the latest being Algoma Steel, which announced it would be laying off 1,500 people in Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa. Now we hear the basic murmurings and rumblings from Kimberly-Clark that there is a good chance the company may be closing the mill in Terrace Bay, putting 2,000 people of out work: 1,000 in the mill and 1,000 in the woodland operations. Can members imagine if this sort of announcement were made in Brantford or Mississauga or Oshawa? Two thousand people are a lot of people.

That is a lot of jobs anywhere in this province, let alone in northern Ontario, where we do not have any quantity of jobs compared to southern Ontario.

On May Day, 150 jobs were lost at the Great Lakes waferboard mill in Thunder Bay. That was a very well chosen, ironic sense of timing on the part of Great Lakes. Rio Algom announced it would have to reduce its work force in Elliot Lake by 200 jobs. Again, 200 jobs are a lot of jobs in Elliot Lake. The last of the 283 jobs at the Griffith Mine in Ear Falls was also lost, finally announced in April. That is a total of 4,133 jobs threatened or lost in the past four or five weeks alone.

I do not know whether the point is getting across to the government on what is happening in northern Ontario. What we in this party have been ranting about for the past few years, to use the expression of my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), is happening. There has been a slow haemorrhage over the past few years and now, all of a sudden, we are seeing the wounds open up and the real blood letting happen in northern Ontario. It has to be obvious to all.

I did an interesting thing when I saw what was happening in April alone. Obviously April is not a typical month, but it is something that is happening and it seems to be continuing. To be fair, it is not a typical month, but if we were to lose these jobs at the rate we have in the past four to five weeks, all jobs in northern Ontario would be wiped out in seven years. There would not be a job left. That is not a very long time. We have to do something. This is an emergency. We have 46,000 people unemployed in northern Ontario.

We are going to make this the welfare part of the province. That is not what we want to be living on in northern Ontario. We want to be gainfully employed. We want to be gainfully employed in resource industries, as long as those resources are required. That is part of the problem, because there is less and less demand as we move into the new service industries and high-technology industries from the old resources that were the basis of our economy in the past. What we want to do is move into the 20th century, into the rest of the 1980s and the 1990s with everybody else in this province. We want a fair share of the economic pie that this province provides.

What do we get when we ask questions of the Premier (Mr. Peterson)? Yesterday in the House my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) asked the Premier about the situation in northern Ontario, and the Premier answered: "I wish I could wave a magic wand and tell the member I had the solutions to all these problems. We are attacking them one by one as crises."

4 p.m.

The time has now passed when we can treat these layoffs and job disruptions as individual crises. We are putting out forest fires on an ad hoc basis. That is something we are used to in northern Ontario, but we do not want to run the economy that way. We want to plan the economy a little more because, as I said, the system has failed us. This cuts across much of the thinking in northern Ontario. No matter what party the people in the north belong to, they are starting to see that there must be an alternative.

That alternative has to be government action. The government will have to decide whether we will live in northern Ontario as part of the province. Are we going to live and prosper or are we all going to move south of North Bay? If we stay up there, we will have to start making decisions about what we will do as a society. There is a lot of hard thinking ahead. I hope this Legislature comes to grips with this problem by setting up some of the structure and by giving that structure the authority to proceed and recommend ideas.

In my riding, I have started that process already. I have produced what I call an economic challenge to Timiskaming. It is approximately 46 pages of my thoughts on how we can develop our economy in my riding. The riding of Timiskaming which I represent does not have any big so-called growth centres, although these seem to be becoming a myth today. Even our growth centres in northern Ontario are declining. Timiskaming does not have a big manufacturing base, but because it has been very well blessed in the diversity of its resources, it has the chance to take the lead in northern Ontario by showing a bit of self-determination and by setting its own goals and development priorities.

We have quite a balanced set of resources in the riding of Timiskaming. The south end is a small clay belt in agricultural terms. It is a very rich agricultural area. We are also blessed with forestry and gold and iron ore mining. If the situation in Wawa keeps up, we will have the last two iron ore mines in Ontario.

I have laid out a plan for our area. I have challenged its people, and they have taken up that challenge. We must look at tourism and our resource industries of forestry, mining and agriculture. We must also develop a small business base in order to carry on an economy.

I believe tourism will play a big

part in -the economy of our area and in all of northern Ontario as people have more recreational time, as they want to get away from the urban centres of southern Ontario and look at the world as it used to be until man created his own world of pollution, hurry, hustle and everyday life in the city. We offer unspoiled nature in many areas. However, that is not good enough. We have relied on our beautiful resources to attract tourists, but these are distractions rather than attractions.

We need to build attractions to bring people to our area as a tourist destination, to attract them there in the first place and to keep them there, to enjoy our area and some of its God-made and man-made wonders.

We have serious problems when it comes to people with capital. We do not have the high-paying jobs, so people have not accumulated any capital to invest. We have people with ideas. Some of our people are a little afraid to invest because they have been through the boom-and-bust cycles of our towns. They have had that entrepreneurial spirit, about which the speech from the throne talks so glowingly, beaten out of them. It is very difficult to take one's life savings after one has lost job after job and say, "I am going to create a business and do all those wonderful things the speech from the throne talks about."

We have a very different mentality in the north. It is almost a siege mentality, because we have been under siege for so long. We need capital to develop our tourism base in the north. We need help with training and managerial skills. We have the ideas and we have the energy. We just need a little help. We need the tools to do what we want to accomplish in the north.

In mining -- and maybe in some cases it is almost too late now -- we should have set up a heritage fund 50 years ago. Our party has talked about this and has called it the northern Ontario tomorrow fund. We never put away for today -- not just for tomorrow but for today -- 50 years ago, when there was a lot of money coming out of northern Ontario; we never put away for today and tomorrow.

This day has now come and we are losing jobs. Mines do not go on for ever; pulp plants do not go on for ever, because the resource has not been regenerated. We have not done that. I would still like to see that initiative put in place; it will help somewhat. When we get new discoveries, like Hemlo, some of the funds generated, instead of always going to general revenue, should be put aside to help those miners find new homes and new jobs.

We should never again open a mine and build a new town around it. Those days are over. We cannot afford to build any new towns in northern Ontario. We must keep the towns we have. We must give them the infrastructure to keep running, because the towns are run down from neglect. We have dilapidated water and sewer systems in our towns. There is a great demand for money there, and these towns are now starting to apply and to get these systems fixed up. We should never again be building new towns when we open mines, because mining basically evolves and revolves around a camp.

It has been that camp mentality that the towns have had to keep; they actually started as camps out of tents and were developed into towns without much planning. That was a mistake in the past that we can now correct by stopping that development.

Some mining is going to continue in the future. Not only are we going to have to start to add value to some of the products we take out of the ground, but we should also take that as an opportunity to supply the machinery and all the various supplies that mining requires from the north rather than bring in machines from Poland, Czechoslovakia, the United States and even Australia.

We have the technology and we have the resources to do that, but we do not have the determination or the political will to do it. We are going to have to start to develop that political will so that we can create secondary industries -- not something that is pie in the sky, like some car plant or something that is never going to happen in northern Ontario; those dreams are long vanished. We should develop secondary industries that are based on the resources we do have and that relate to them and can supply and nurture those resource industries.

In forestry, we are going to have to maximize the use of the resource that we have. For too long we have taken the forestry resource for granted. Until a very few years ago, we did not even replant and replace the resource we exploited. We thought it would go on for ever; we took for granted that God had blessed us with all these resources and that we could exploit them without being the stewards of those resources, nurturing them and replacing them.

4: 10 p.m.

We are going to have to make more concerted efforts on our reforestation programs. We should also maximize those uses so that we do not have any waste, whether it be in the bush or at the mills, and use 100 per cent of the product, for example, in the cogeneration of the power for those plants, for heat, or whatever, for these plants. New technology may provide the ideas for it. We have to use all of the resource and try to add as much value as possible to it in creating some of these things we are losing now, as in plywood, waferboard and particle board mills. We need to produce more of those at the forest site.

Our area is one of the few in northern Ontario that has an agricultural base and, as with agriculture all over this province, we are in tremendous trouble. We need to diversify the crop base in the north. With plant genetics, this should be possible with new achievements in plant breeding. We also have to look at much smaller scales of trying to address the markets in the north rather than relying on the system that sends all our produce south with a lot of it coming back to supply our markets.

There is no rationale in that type of system when the north could be self-sufficient in the production of milk, meat and cereal grains. We should have local mills to provide the flour for local bakeries and local abattoirs to provide meat for our local supermarkets.

In this province, we are so hooked in with a central distribution system for our food stores that all the jobs of any value are in southern Ontario. We add transportation costs for the farmer to bring the produce to Toronto, and again add transportation costs to bring it back into northern Ontario for the consumer. A total rationalization of how we distribute food is needed. By doing that, we would provide jobs for people in the north. I am not looking for a handout. If we rationalize what we do, the jobs will be there. That is where we have to start thinking.

Small business does create some jobs. We have to provide small business opportunities in the north. A lot of that can be tied in with tourism opportunities both now and the future. However, we need the capital and we need some of the expertise and the help that is available from government, with government taking a

part in the planning process of where we are going.

I could continue with story after story of how the north is being affected by the loss of jobs, especially lately. I hope the message is starting to get through. I want to give other members a chance to address this speech today. I thank them for this opportunity. I hope we can work for the economy of this province, especially of northern Ontario, as we go further into the 1980s.

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased to rise in the House today in reply --

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I understood that there would be the normal rotation following the opportunity to ask questions.

The Deputy Speaker: That is the chair's problem. The rotation is going in the normal way. Does someone from the government side wish to speak?

Hon. Ms. Munro: I was delighted that the initial throne speech of our new Liberal government was delivered by a fellow Hamiltonian.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do not mean to interrupt the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Munro), but according to the new rules, surely Mr. Speaker should ask whether there are any members who wish to make comments or ask questions of the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay).

The Deputy Speaker: The member is quite correct. Do we have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to questions and comments?

Agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments? There being none, the member for Hamilton Centre.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I was delighted that the initial throne speech of our new Liberal government was delivered by a fellow Hamiltonian, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor. This was particularly appropriate because the agenda set forth in the address holds so much promise for the people of Hamilton-Wentworth.

This first Liberal throne speech in more than four decades has adopted a long-term, long-range perspective, indicating that our government is not obsessed with a quest for short-term political advantage. We are here to serve the lasting interests of the people of Ontario.

The focus of our throne speech is not the next year or the next election, but the next decade. We will move on the fundamental challenges that must be addressed to prepare Ontario for the world of the 1990s and beyond.

A global economy now exists, and Ontario's industries are fighting a world-wide competitive battle, based on services, knowledge, information and new technology. Our society is evolving rapidly as a result of demographic trends, the changing role of women and shifting immigration patterns.

These social and economic challenges are well known. What is new is the determination to do something about them. I am confident the Premier's council announced in the speech from the throne will provide the leadership we need to steer Ontario to the forefront of economic growth and technological innovation.

Among other tasks, this high-level council will direct a $1-billion special technology fund, including at least $500 million in new money, to be allocated in the next 10 years. The fund will support and encourage science and technology research in the private sector and in our post-secondary institutions. The overriding goal is to build a world-class Ontario economy for the 21st century.

My riding of Hamilton Centre is aptly named because it is the heart of Hamilton-Wentworth, not only geographically but also economically as the home of Stelco and Dofasco. Through investment in new technology and human resources, these two steel giants have demonstrated that Ontario industries can become world-class competitors. However, as the throne speech observes, while Ontario can look forward to economic advantages in the future, these will differ from those we have enjoyed in the past.

One of our new growth opportunities is the service sector, which now provides jobs for more than 70 per cent of Ontario's work force and is forecast to grow even more in the next decade. Services to business in particular are expanding rapidly.

In Hamilton, Westinghouse Canada, under president and chief executive officer Ted Priestner, has recently capitalized on this trend. The company has turned its human resources consulting group from a cost centre into a profit centre by selling the team's expertise to outside clients.

Tourism is a further high-potential service industry. Hamilton-Wentworth has built up its tourism base and now ranks as a first-class travel destination. Facilities such as our magnificent Victor Copps Arena and Trade Centre, the Hamilton Convention Centre, the new Sheraton Hotel and the Hamilton Place theatre put us on the map. As Minister of Citizenship and Culture, I am particularly proud of Hamilton's cultural attractions, such as our unique Royal Botanical Gardens, a terrific art gallery, a first-class philharmonic orchestra and a talented opera company.

We are not stopping there. The community is seeking federal and provincial dollars for the west harbour development, which would include boating facilities, exhibition space and an exciting crystal palace. My ministry is working with Theatre Aquarius to find a new home for one of the province's largest and most dynamic community theatre groups. My ministry is supporting underwater archaeological work on the Hamilton and the Scourge, two War of 1812 schooners, which are potentially among our most valuable heritage and tourism resources. The region is looking into the possibility of creating an iron and steel museum, which would have strong tourist drawing power.

I was delighted to see in the speech from the throne that the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is developing a long-term tourism strategy for Ontario. Hamilton-Wentworth looks forward to playing a lead role in the future of Ontario's dynamic tourism industry.

Culture and the arts represent a thriving and growing service industry in their own right. In Ontario, the cultural sector now employs more workers than any manufacturing industry group except transportation equipment and generates revenues of $3.5 billion a year.

Film and video have become an increasingly vital artistic and commercial enterprise in our information society. I am pleased the Ontario Film Development Corp. is now open for business with a three-year, $20-million budget. The corporation will deliver the necessary support to reverse the erosion of Ontario's leadership in Canadian film production.

The throne speech pledges new support for small business and entrepreneurship. We recognize that Ontario's main hope for future job creation depends on the initiative of risk-takers and entrepreneurs who invest their funds and hopes in new small to medium-sized enterprises.

My Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, for example, will introduce a native economic participation program to provide opportunity for native entrepreneurs. This measure will help Ontario's aboriginal peoples to retain and strengthen their unique cultural heritage through economic development.

As the throne speech observes, entrepreneurship is as important on the shop floor as it is in the boardroom. I am pleased that companies in my area of regional responsibility, such as Procter and Gamble in Hamilton and Linear Technology in Burlington, are in the forefront of the movement to provide workers with a direct stake in their firm's success.

To realize their potential, our industries require the full talents and contributions of women, who now represent 43 per cent of the work force. The speech from the throne announced that new child care spaces will be created to advance economic equity. This is good news for Hamilton, where we have one of the highest proportions of single-parent families in this province.

The throne speech responds to the economic needs of Ontario's regions. As a member of the new cabinet committee on northern development, I was especially pleased with the emphasis on northern Ontario. For example, tourism in the north will receive a boost and primary industries will be bolstered. For the rest of this century and into the next, Ontario's economic success will depend on our ability to sell goods and services in the fiercely competitive world market. We must act now to expand our trade horizons, particularly to the nations of the Pacific Rim, the fastest-growing market in the world.

Last year, Ontario concluded a twinning arrangement with the highly industrialized Chinese province of Jiangsu. It is gratifying that this provincial initiative has sparked community interest in stronger international ties. I encourage Hamilton-Wentworth, for example, in its efforts to seek a twin city in Jiangsu to promote local social, cultural and business opportunities in China. I welcome the throne speech announcement of the next stage in building closer relations with China, the opening of an Ontario science, technology and centre there. Cultural contacts will be vital in creating the trust and confidence on which commercial dealings depend.

I believe that as a multicultural society, Ontario has a special edge in international competition. For example, our many residents born in other countries could provide first-hand advice on how to do business and how to appeal to consumers in their former homelands. Tapping this resource is an idea that Ontario exporters might consider.

While Ontario welcomes the challenge of more open commerce, we draw the line where our cultural sovereignty is at stake. Our national identity is too valuable to sacrifice on the altar of free trade. As the Premier has cautioned, we must remember that trade issues involve not only Canada's economic survival but our political, social and cultural survival as well. Canadian cultural survival and sovereignty must be protected and nurtured.

Culture can be viewed in developmental, nurturance and maintenance terms. Despite its undeniable economic dimension, it can also be described, first and foremost, as an end in itself. This is a principle the throne speech reaffirms. Government policies will continue to recognize the importance of the arts and the need for an arm's-length relationship with funded cultural groups. I stress that this is more than rhetoric. One of the first acts of our new government was to raise the budget of the Ontario Arts Council by $2 million to meet the needs of regional arts organizations and newly emerging art forms.

The throne speech rightly proclaims a message of confidence and optimism. Ontario's future is bright. A key bridge to the future is excellence in education. The government has no higher priority than to restore relevance to education at all levels. We must shape a generation capable of innovating, adapting and seizing opportunities. I am delighted that as an immediate step, TVOntario will receive increased funding to produce more programming, with emphasis on science education.

We will also reinforce the effort to help students and teachers become more familiar and comfortable with computer technology. This initiative will build on the success of my ministry's computers-and-children program, which provides computer exposure through community-based centres across this province.

The government will place greater emphasis on co-operative education programs and other measures to smooth the transition to the work force. Hamiltonians are justly proud of the co-op programs at Mohawk College that reflect an effective partnership between industry and the educational system.

As the throne speech emphasizes, to overcome the many challenges we face, we must harness the full potential of our post-secondary system. The government will encourage the development of centres of excellence in Ontario universities. Coming from Hamilton Centre, I know that McMaster University can contribute significantly to such advanced facilities, given the opportunity and the challenge. The speech also remarks that schools can achieve excellence by recognizing the need to co-operate as well to compete.

I am happy that McMaster University has displayed this co-operative spirit through an extremely worthwhile joint venture with the University of Waterloo to compile and share the results of health research.

The realities of global competition and new technology make necessary a new approach to training and skills upgrading on an ongoing basis for the entire labour force. With my career background in continuing education, I welcome the throne speech initiatives to improve the basic and technical skills of older laid-off workers.

Government will work to meet retraining needs in partnership with the community. In Hamilton, it is heartening that the Citizen Action Group has taken the initiative to establish the Hamilton Help Centre for older workers, which will open its doors this Friday. The centre will provide employment counselling, skills training and placement services, primarily for adults over 40 years of age who have lost jobs in heavy industry. The project has been made possible by 50 per cent funding from the Ministry of Skills Development.

In an era when people represent our most vital economic asset, we can no longer afford the waste of human resources caused by illiteracy. Furthermore, inability to read can be hazardous if, for example, workers cannot understand warning labels on chemicals or equipment. This government will propose measures to combat this widespread problem. Public libraries will serve as one channel for delivery of literacy training. We will build on the achievements of programs such as the adult basic education project at the Hamilton Public Library, which has successfully assisted adults to learn and to adapt.

The throne speech not only addresses the economic imperatives that confront us; it also comes to grips with the profound social and demographic changes now under way