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

May 12, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L012 - Mon 12 May 1986 / Lun 12 mai 1986

DISCLOSURE OF GRANTS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WORLD FEST-FESTIMONDE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

STUDENT BAND

WATER QUALITY

FORESTRY WORKERS

STAYNER ARENA

NUCLEAR SAFETY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS

SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

TRITIUM EXPORTATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

DEFICIT

RENT REVIEW

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

PENSION FUNDS

SPRAY PROGRAM

RENT REVIEW

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SPRAY PROGRAM

GREAT LAKES FOREST PRODUCTS

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

INSURANCE RATES

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

LANDFILL SITE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION

HIGH SCHOOL DROP-OUTS

PETITIONS

WOMEN IN CRISIS (ALGOMA) INC.

OBSTETRICAL SERVICES

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE TRAVEL

HOUSE SITTING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OLEOMARGARINE AMENDMENT ACT

BRUCELLOSIS REPEAL ACT

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

DISCLOSURE OF GRANTS

Mr. Runciman: I rise on a point of privilege. This morning my office was contacted by the Brockville Recorder and Times. I did not have an opportunity to speak to them. They had been phoned by the unsuccessful Liberal candidate in the last provincial election, Mrs. Dolores Wing, who announced a list of supplementary Ministry of Transportation and Communications road grants.

Mr. Gillies: They did not win that riding, did they?

Mr. Runciman: They are never going to win it.

I believe the normal procedure is to notify the local member first. This was not done. I feel my privileges as a member have been abused. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to investigate and rule on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the member's comments. I am not certain whether that is a point of privilege. I feel it would be more appropriate to ask the minister during question period about what took place. However, I will review the comments made by previous Speakers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WORLD FEST-FESTIMONDE

Mr. Guindon: I rise today to comment on tourism. Recently, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) announced a funding grant of $10,000 to the Quinte air show and another $10,000 in grant money to go to the Kingfest Tattoo. I must commend the honourable minister for his actions.

Cornwall is a drive of only an hour and a half east from Kingston on Highway 401 and is less than a 20-minute drive from the Quebec border. I am telling you this, Mr. Speaker, because I want you to know we exist.

This year, during Canada Week celebrations, Cornwall will be playing host to the world. This news is probably shocking to most members because they think Vancouver has the honour with Expo 86, but around Cornwall that is known as the "other festival."

His Honour Lincoln M. Alexander has accepted an invitation to come to Cornwall on July 1 to celebrate with us during World Fest-Festimonde. World Fest-Festimonde started last year and is a festival of song and dance with performers from around the world. We have many groups coming to Cornwall this year from as far away as Poland, Italy, France and other countries.

The World Fest-Festimonde committee was turned down for funding by Wintario; so on March 7 I wrote to the Minister without Portfolio with responsibility for citizenship and culture (Mr. Ruprecht) asking him to clarify things for World Fest. I still have not received a reply. I did find out that his list --

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired. I am sorry.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have more about the swamp at 400 University Avenue. McDonnell Douglas had workers using a substance called trichloroethane. Mr. Tovey of the health and safety committee for the union asked that testing be done. Testing was done. The threshold limit value is 350 parts per million. In this case, tests conducted indicated that the workers were working at levels of 6,072 parts per million. The company provided them with respirators. Those respirators were good for 500 parts per million, about 15 times less than what the workers were exposed to.

At the same time, this company was also using dioxane. The manufacturer had not put on his data sheet the fact that dioxane causes nausea and so on. The TLV for that is 25 parts per million. When tests were done, they showed 274 parts per million.

What did the Ministry of Labour do? It wrote some more orders. One can go into company after company. They can violate the act and endanger the lives of workers in place after place, and what does the Ministry of Labour do? It continues to write dinky little orders and it refuses to protect the workers in this province.

STUDENT BAND

Mr. McKessock: I have four secondary schools within the boundaries of Grey riding, and I am pleased today that 80 grade 10 students from the John Diefenbaker Secondary School in Hanover are with us.

I am also pleased to inform the House that the John Diefenbaker Secondary School band, which was first in the Muskoka division of the Canada Music Festival in Gravenhurst, will be one of the 26 bands from across Canada to compete in the Canadian Band Festival in Vancouver at Expo 86.

The Hanover band leaves tonight. It will be at Expo from May 13 to 19. I know it not only will entertain the audience well, but will also be a good ambassador for Canada while it is there.

WATER QUALITY

Ms. Fish: In January, after dioxin was discovered in the drinking water in several southwestern Ontario communities, I pressed the government to initiate epidemiological studies to assess the pattern of disease, death and birth defects in Windsor, Sarnia, Wallaceburg and Mitchell Bay. Four months later the government has heeded my call and agreed to investigate birth defects and cancer rates in Kent and Lambton counties, where many people draw their drinking water from the St. Clair River.

The object of the studies is to determine whether the drinking water or its river source is a factor in pregnancy irregularities and cancer rates. A similar study released by the Ministry of Health last August showed that birth defects in Hamilton and the surrounding area have increased at an alarmingly high rate. The report said this was probably because of pesticides and other chemicals in the environment.

It was only last fall that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) said that no level of dioxin was acceptable in Ontario's drinking water. However, the response to the discovery of dioxin was to issue a so-called safe level, and the minister's promise to help those communities so affected has not materialized.

In January the Minister of the Environment cut off the supply of powdered carbon to Wallaceburg's water system, leaving the municipality to foot the bill. While the government is spending $200,000 to study birth defects and cancer rates, the Minister of the Environment refuses to spend $200 a day to protect Wallaceburg residents. It is time for real action from this government. The presence of dioxin in Ontario's drinking water is too serious to ignore.

FORESTRY WORKERS

Mr. Ramsay: I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) a difficulty I am having in my area, which is relevant to the entire north. Why do we have such unemployment problems and underemployment problems? Is it that the government backs industry and gives generous grants to set up plants to use our wood resources in particular without setting any conditions on how employment should be derived that is going to be created in those plants?

In my area, there are basically two classes of forestry workers. One is the mill workers, who are very well paid and have many benefits, with an investment of only a lunch pail. They earn $26,000 a year. On the other hand, there are the bush workers, who are terribly underpaid. We have two district cutting licences for the whole area and we have a system of contracting and subcontracting. By the time the bush worker is able to cut down a tree, he is fourth in a line of contractors and subcontractors.

In 1988, when we are reviewing DCLs for the Timiskaming area, I would ask the minister to look at allowing the small jobbers to have the DCLs feed these plants directly. Then the jobbers will be able to compete against each other and with other markets in the area and will derive a good living and not be underemployed or unemployed, as many of the people in our area are.

STAYNER ARENA

Mr. McCague: On April 21 of this year, the Ministry of Labour informed the residents of Stayner that the arena would be closed because of structural deficiencies in a building that is 38 years old. The mayor of Stayner recently met with representatives of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. He was informed that under the present policy the ministry would pay approximately one third of the cost of the construction of a new arena. The 2,800 residents of Stayner would then be required to shoulder the burden of two thirds of the cost, or about $1 million.

Members of this House would agree this represents a tremendous financial burden for so few people. It is my understanding that in the past many municipalities received grants much in excess of one third the total cost when an arena was condemned. I urge the minister to provide at least 50 per cent funding to what is known as "the town of friendly people." An arena is the lifeblood of many rural communities and must be considered a necessity for the residents.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr. Breaugh: The regional municipality of Durham is increasingly concerned about the nuclear facilities there and about those proposed for Darlington. They are also concerned about the amount of public information available if some kind of disaster strikes. I would like to urge the government to proceed rather quickly to provide the region of Durham with that information and to provide the people who live in that area with more information about the nuclear facilities. I also urge that they be informed of the plans the government may have in the event an untoward accident should occur in that region.

2:12 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Hon. Mr. Elston: Last week the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) raised several issues concerning the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie. Specifically, he asked when our government was prepared to follow through on a commitment that is a year and a half old and was made by the previous government to provide funding for a new Barrie hospital.

He prefaced this question by referring to a Royal Victoria patient who he said had died in a hospital corridor because there was no room for her to die in dignity. I would like to present the facts. The patient was admitted to the hospital on April 14. On April 22, when her condition worsened, she was moved from the four-bed room she had been sharing to an alcove near the nursing station. That decision was made on the basis of the patient's condition. This location provided greater privacy and allowed closer monitoring of the patient by the hospital nursing staff. It also gave better access to family members.

I have been advised and assured by the staff at the Royal Victoria Hospital that every effort was made to preserve the patient's dignity and privacy.

I turn to the second issue raised by the opposition leader. He referred to an 18-month-old commitment which he said the previous government made to the people of Barrie and Simcoe county to build a new hospital. By my reckoning, this issue has outlasted five Conservative members in the Health portfolio, including the Leader of the Opposition himself.

The Leader of the Opposition made a commitment to the Barrie hospital during his tenure as Minister of Health. He is reported to have promised that when planning reached the appropriate stage, ministry funds would be forthcoming for the new hospital.

It was his predecessor, the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), who first made a ministry commitment to a new hospital on a new site, and it was the previous member for Kingston and the Islands, Mr. Norton, who signed the expropriation order for the land needed for the new hospital.

I am now reviewing a joint report by the Royal Victoria Hospital and Soldiers' Memorial Hospital in Orillia that has been approved by the Simcoe District Health Council. I have also just received and am studying the district health council's health needs and services study for all of Simcoe county. This government has an obligation to ensure that any planning decisions of this magnitude take into account the need for rationalizing health care facilities to avoid duplication of services.

I appreciate the co-operation received from the Royal Victoria Hospital, the Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital and the Simcoe District Health Council in producing this joint report. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition today, that the government will make the appropriate decision on the basis of all the available information.

Mr. Andrewes: I would like to respond briefly to the statement of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston). On page 1 of his statement, he indicates the patient in question was moved from the four-bed room she had been sharing to an alcove near the nursing station. This points clearly to the fact this patient was moved to the hallway where she died.

Our issue is not with the staff of the hospital. We recognize they did the best they could in the conditions prevalent in that hospital to provide the proper care for the patient and the proper circumstances in which that patient's life could leave her and her family could gain the privacy it wished to have. Unfortunately, this speaks to the horrendous situation that confronts the staff of that hospital.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I will comment very briefly on the Minister of Health's statement. As members of the Legislature, we must understand that problems such as the one described by the Leader of the Opposition last week are not uncommon in Ontario. The reason for these backlogs of patients in Ontario's health care system is that for many years we have had capital funding going into our hospital system that has been about 50 per cent or less than what was required and requested by the Ontario Hospital Association and the institutions across this province.

However, there is another aspect to this that begs to be dealt with by this and by previous governments. We have an unregulated rest home system; we have inappropriate or inadequate community support systems; we have people in nursing homes and chronic care beds who could cope at home if they had proper community supports. Because we do not have an integrated community support program, we have all these people backlogged in our very costly institutions. As a result, acute care beds are being occupied by nursing home, rest home and chronic care patients.

Thus, we have these situations in Barrie, Toronto, Thunder Bay, Windsor and right across this province. People are not receiving the proper kind of care in acute care beds when they need it.

The solution to this problem is not to throw hundreds of millions of dollars into the capital allocations of our hospitals. The solution is to plan properly the capital allocations for our hospitals and to put a massive amount of money into community supports so that the elderly of this province can maintain their independence and dignity at home, where they want to stay and where we in the New Democratic Party believe they should be able to stay.

FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS

This action by the federal government, in concert with all the provincial governments, marks an important step in Canada's international commercial relations. The competitiveness of Canadian business in the international marketplace will be enhanced by this extension of Canada's participation in the now common commercial practice of settling disputes through arbitration.

Ontario has already taken steps to adjust its laws to comply with these new international obligations. Bill 98, introduced in the Legislature in January, provides the necessary mechanisms to effect this adjustment. I hope all members of the House will co-operate in ensuring its early passage so we can meet the 90-day deadline which Canada's accession will set for us.

On a related front, the government has under active consideration a model law prepared by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. Enactment of this model law on international commercial arbitration would mark a step beyond recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. It would bring into force rules under which parties to commercial disputes may arbitrate them without undue delays by the courts.

The model law reflects the consensus of 56 major trading nations. It was developed under the auspices of the United Nations and has been under intensive study by all governments in Canada. If Ontario adopts the model law and Bill 98, we will have taken the necessary steps to establish Ontario as a potential site for international commercial arbitrations as well as to facilitate international trade by businesses in Ontario.

In concept with our study of the model law, I have decided to establish an Attorney General's advisory committee on an international commercial arbitration centre in Ontario. The committee, to be composed of distinguished experts in the field of commercial arbitration, will advise me on the feasibility of establishing an international commercial arbitration centre in Toronto. The committee will review the need for such a facility, together with its logistical and financial requirements. The committee may also be asked to consider whether such a centre could reasonably be extended to arbitrations other than commercial arbitrations and those involving international matters.

I will be naming the members of the committee shortly and will advise the House as soon as that is done.

SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I wish to assure the House that my ministry is thoroughly investigating the two boating incidents prominently reported in the media in recent days.

I apologize if there are no copies of my statement; it was being prepared and should have been delivered at this moment.

Mr. McClellan: I think the minister had better wait.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: Perhaps the House will give me permission to respond and issue the statement as soon as it is ready.

Mr. Speaker: Are the copies on their way?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: Yes.

Mr. Rae: Does the Leader of the Opposition have a copy?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: No, he would not have one yet.

Mr. Speaker: I hope the House will give permission to revert to statements.

Mr. Rae: Sure.

[Later]

Mr. Speaker: Is the Solicitor General prepared to make his statement? Is it the agreement of the House that we revert to statements by the ministry and responses?

Mr. Harris: Is this call to revert to statements by the ministry and responses?

Mr. Speaker: There is still some time left for responses.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I thank the House leaders for their indulgence in returning to statements by the ministry and responses.

My ministry is thoroughly investigating the two boating incidents prominently reported in the media in recent days. We share the grief and concern expressed by the families and friends of all those involved.

First, I want to deal with the Lake Huron incident of last fall and the ongoing debate concerning the length of the search and the procedures used. I understand the ultimate decision to call off that search lay with the federal authorities, who hold responsibilities for marine search and rescue on the Great Lakes. However, I am sure the details of that decision and the reasons for it can be part of the inquest I have ordered today into that fatality.

In regard to the current Lake Ontario incident, I am informed that the Metropolitan Toronto Police are assisting the Durham Regional Police Force in a search that is still ongoing. I had asked my officials to contact the federal authorities to see whether there is anything further they can do to assist. The Ontario Provincial Police stand ready to assist where possible.

Mr. Gillies: I am sure the Solicitor General and the House are aware that in incidents of this kind the responsibility for the search reverts to the OPP and municipal police forces after five days. We are very concerned that these searches be undertaken with all dispatch and thoroughness.

We heard media reports this morning about tremendous concern on the part of some family members and their feeling that perhaps everything that could be done was not being done. I heard incidents of families themselves renting planes and flying out over the lake to search. That is an understandable reaction on the part of anguished relatives, and it is a concern I am sure the Solicitor General will want to act on as thoroughly as possible.

Mr. Breaugh: It should be obvious to the minister now that there is a need to review the procedures. That is without question. We are left with the rather unusual circumstances where private individuals are now financing a search and rescue operation. Surely that is an untenable situation for this government. A review of the procedures is absolutely essential. At the very least, I anticipated a statement by the minister today that he would assume the cost of search and rescue operations immediately. It is confusing to see that he is acknowledging something is wrong, but not what is wrong or what he is going to do about it.

2:27 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. Grossman: My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities, so we will understand the benchmark from which the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) will be working tomorrow in his budget. The minister has complained many times that universities in Ontario have been woefully underfunded. If this is the case and the minister believes that, how can he explain the fact that last fall his government promised universities $11 million less in capital than had been committed previously by the Conservative government?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The provision of an additional $9.5 million for capital funding for universities in the university excellence fund was an increment that virtually doubled the regular capital allocations of the previous government of the estimates I heard. Similarly, the incremental capital allocations for colleges of $6.5 million doubled the amount available to colleges. Far from reducing the amount that was available for capital, our government has increased it.

Mr. Grossman: Let us be specific, so the public will know whether the government increased it or reshuffled the money. I will wait till the minister turns to the page in his book. He will find it under B for Board of Industrial Leadership and Development.

Mr. Speaker: By way of supplementary.

Interjection.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: The member for Niagara Falls does not like it when we get to the facts.

The previous commitment for the current year, which was announced in 1985, was $50 million in capital for universities. Recently, the minister made an announcement in regard to his new initiatives that will raise the province's capital support to $39 million. The previous commitment was $50 million. The minister's announcement on March 26, 1986, committed $39 million. He may find it in his book. Can the minister explain the drop in $11 million between the two funds?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: One of the difficulties a member of this House has when he moves from over here to the other side is that he does not have the same access to information that perhaps is available over here.

What the Leader of the Opposition is quoting are figures relative to new construction starts that were initiated in the context of that announcement. Those announcements, which I made on or around March 26, included a new building at Wilfrid Laurier University, a new building at the University of Ottawa, a new building at the faculty of law at the University of Toronto and substantial renovations to a building at Laurentian University of Sudbury. Those four projects are the first time that the regular capital allocations for my ministry have been sufficient to start substantial new projects on our campuses.

Mr. Grossman: The minister has confirmed that his announcement was for $39 million. The only point we wish to make is that when he is bragging that the $39 million is directly through the ministry's capital fund, what he neglects is the fact that $50 million had been previously committed through BILD for the very same kind of projects. He replaced the $50-million BILD program for the same kind of works with a $39-million ministry program and had the gall in March to stand up and brag about it.

The funding for operating grants for universities in the 1984-85 year was increased by 6.5 per cent in the last budget brought in by the previous government,

whereas the first announcements for the minister's first year in office were for a four per cent increase. With the budget coming tomorrow, can the minister assure this House that he will at the very least succeed in getting the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) to restore the transfers up to the 6.5 per cent level that the previous government had in place?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I now know why my friend is a lawyer and not an accountant --

Mr. Callahan: We also know why he is in opposition.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: -- and why he is in opposition.

Let us deal first with the first part of his supplementary. He said it was $50 million. The fact is that my announcement did not factor in any of the BILD projects, which had been approved, which were ongoing and all of which, save one, were confirmed by this government. They were incremental to the $39 million the Leader of the Opposition mentioned. The actual expenditure of 1986-87 is far more than he is representing it to this House.

Let us go to the business of regular operating grants. The increase was 6.4 per cent in 1984-85. I can tell this House that in this year, under the October 2.4 budget of the Treasurer, the operating grants and the university excellence fund represented an increment of some eight per cent for colleges and universities. I think they ought to be the judge, and they say it was the first substantial move by a government in Ontario in 10 years.

Mr. Grossman: We will introduce the minister to his estimates book, which has all the figures in it, and he can prove how the grants did not go down two per cent.

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. In August of last year, the minister said, "Toxic chemicals leaking into the Niagara River from waste sites in New York state must be brought under immediate control." This weekend he announced the discovery of the highest levels of dioxin found anywhere in water from a sewer flowing into that same Niagara River. Will the minister outline this afternoon what steps he is taking to bring this under immediate control?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the honourable member knows from questions that have been answered in this House, there has been a four-party negotiation going on among Environment Canada, the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario, the Department of Environmental Conservation of New York state and the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

During those discussions, Ontario has consistently taken the position that three components are essential to an agreement which would be agreeable to us. The first is that there be extensive monitoring of the Niagara River of the type that we consider to be appropriate. The second is that there be excavation of those toxic waste dump sites which are immediately adjacent to the Niagara River. The third is that there be agreement to a determined and scheduled reduction in the contaminants going in to the river.

To this time, our negotiations have made some progress but have not been as productive as I would like. Despite the fact that many would like to see us simply sign any agreement to get something going, we in Ontario have refused to participate in such an agreement until we are satisfied the conditions the member talks about can be alleviated.

They are on the American side. I credit the Americans for giving us permission to do the testing on their side, but it is obvious there must be remedial and abatement action taken on the American side of the river.

Mr. Grossman: I wonder whether the minister could now tell me what is new about the answer he has just given that has not been given in this House for very many years.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: What is new is a new government which is determined to tackle environmental problems as a high priority.

Mr. Grossman: The minister is so determined to wrestle this to the ground that he has said in his press release, "There is now a clear need for US authorities to bring the source under control." We have here a big pile of press releases the minister put out before he became minister, saying, "Who will stand up for Ontario?"

I gave the minister the opportunity a moment ago to tell us what is new about the steps he is taking, not what is new about the rhetoric. Specifically, can he tell us what new steps he has taken to stand up for Ontario and to intervene in the American courts, which he now has some authority to do? What has he done, other than arrange for a meeting of scientists? What new things has he done to stand up for Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: All the Leader of the Opposition has to do is consult with the environmental groups in this province, and they will tell him more progress has been made in the past 10 months in dealing with environmental problems than in the 42 years of his government.

TRITIUM EXPORTATION

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources about the potential export of tritium by Ontario Hydro.

The minister will know that tritium is a radioactive byproduct of heavy water reactors. He will also know there is a facility to be built at Darlington which will significantly expand the removal of tritium from the Hydro process. Given the overwhelmingly military usage of tritium in the United States in particular, can the minister explain why Ontario Hydro is now actively considering the export to the US of comparatively large amounts of tritium which have a potential military and nuclear use?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: In response to the question, it sounds precisely as I raised it some two or three years ago. It still has the same answer, because what we are talking about in the extraction of tritium is the safety of the workers at our nuclear plants.

I am certain the leader of the third party understands that any export of tritium has to be done under the aegis of the federal government. I am not sure what Hydro is doing to market that product, but the export of tritium is certainly the responsibility of the federal government.

Mr. Rae: The minister is simply revealing his ignorance. On March 14, 1986, the Atomic Energy Control Board issued very specific guidelines with respect to allowing tritium to be exported. The ball is now clearly in Hydro's, the government of Ontario's and the minister's court. Given these guidelines, which the minister is aware permit export not only to states that have signed the proliferation treaty but also to states that have not, what in the name of goodness is the government doing to stop Hydro from exporting tritium in hitherto unheard-of amounts to the United States?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I find it difficult to accept that the federal government would allow the export to any state or jurisdiction that would agree to the proliferation of the use of that tritium in any kind of war activities. If the member is suggesting the federal government is now agreeing that this could be done, I will be pleased to look into the matter and get back to him.

Mr. Rae: We seem to be having a communications problem. The federal government has issued a statement saying tritium can be exported, subject to certain conditions. Does the minister realize that Hydro plans to extract about four kilograms of tritium per year, which is between eight times and 20 times the world's current civilian use? Does he realize that the US military plans for the 1980s and 1990s require significantly increased amounts of tritium? Does he realize that Ontario Hydro's export to the US will have a major effect on alternative uses there? Is he aware of those facts, and why is he not doing more to stop Hydro from exporting tritium?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am aware of all those facts. I still return to the responsibility of the federal government for the export of tritium. In the first instance, in the most important and significant part of the extraction of tritium, it has to do with protecting our workers. The federal government can either sell that if it is acceptable or let it degenerate until in a very few years it has no potential whatsoever. That very important subject has to be determined by the federal government.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Labour. Like the previous question, it is of enormous importance to the health and safety of people in Ontario. I would like to ask the minister about the use of a substance called n-hexane at a plant called American Can in Burlington. Can the minister explain why, when a consultant of the Ministry of Labour went in on May 13, 1985, and pointed out the very dangerous effects that n-hexane can have on the workers, it was not until April 10, 1986, that his ministry insisted on a partial shutdown of that plant to protect the workers? Why did it take that long for something to be done?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am sure the honourable member knows that the "forthwith" order on proper ventilation was issued in August 1985. Over a period of too many months, these matters were not completely complied with. In August 1985, the new orders policy was not in place; it has been in place since November 21, 1985.

I am sure the honourable member also knows that when the inspector visited the plant in early March 1986, the work was about 80 per cent done. At that point, after meeting with the joint health and safety committee and with the compliance of that committee, both management and union, a final date of April 20 was established for full compliance with the order. When the order was not complied with, the shutdown that the member speaks of took place.

Mr. Rae: No charges have been laid as yet. Given the minister's statement about not reissuing orders, perhaps he can explain why the order of August 8, 1985 was simply reissued on March 12, 1986, with no charges. Can he explain why, for more than a year, workers have been subjected to levels as high as 22 times the permitted amounts? Why were workers subjected to that kind of danger without his ministry taking steps to protect the lives and health of those workers?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Perhaps the leader of the third party is being egged on by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), but the fact of the matter is that the order was not reissued.

Mr. Martel: Somebody should egg on the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: My friend may wish to dispute this, but these are the facts. The order was not reissued. A compliance date was established. At a time when we are moving from an old system that did not work to a new system that does, it is difficult to establish these things with absolute perfection.

Mr. Gillies: The order was reissued.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The order was not reissued; it was given a compliance date. As a result of the failure to meet compliance, a special action request has been undertaken. I would think my friend, being a lawyer, would understand that prosecutions are not launched in the first minute or even the first day after a failure of compliance. They must go through a number of steps, and those steps are being undertaken right now.

Mr. Rae: What is clear is that prosecutions are not launched even in the first year. That is what has happened.

The minister asked what egged me on. What is egging us on is that one worker, Harbans Singh, who appeared before our task force some weeks ago, has been suffering from severe damage to his central nervous system for several years and it has only recently been diagnosed that his damage results from exposure to n-hexanes. There is now a second worker in that plant who is also showing symptoms of irreversible damage to his central nervous system as a result of exposure to n-hexanes. Is the minister aware that what is egging on the New Democratic Party is that these workers are suffering; they are being exposed and not being protected by his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: There is no one on this side of the House, including this minister, who cares any less about health and safety issues than does the New Democratic Party. I do not think that party ought to pretend it has some kind of licence in terms of the concerns for health and safety. That is why we have new policies. That is why, when the records are fully in later this year, one will see that under our new policies, failure to comply with orders issued by this ministry will lead to the kinds of prosecutions that will improve the health and safety of all the workers in the work place.

Mr. Martel: Baloney. Who are you trying to kid? What a banana.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member for Sudbury East will control himself.

DEFICIT

Miss Stephenson: I have a question for the Treasurer and Minister of Economics. I regret sincerely that the horrendous trauma of producing his second budget in a relatively short time has belaboured this poor minister with coryza, lachrymal hypersecretion and pharyngitis, and he is required to carry a box of Kleenex with him because he feels so dreadful. I would hope the act of producing the budget would be a little more exhilarating than that, considering the fact that the Treasurer does have a very significant revenue windfall.

Mr. Speaker: Is that the question?

Miss Stephenson: If the Treasurer were to increase across the board by seven per cent every activity of the current government, he would still have $500 million left to decrease the deficit. I ask the Treasurer whether he does not think that would be an appropriate activity since I can assure him that his suggestion of simply holding the line on the deficit should satisfy the rating agencies, which are important to the investment in this province by the private sector.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member's onslaught is enough to dry up anything, including lachrymal hypersecretion. In spite of hypersecretion, it is true that the growth of the economy is greater than I predicted in my budget in October. We projected the growth of the economy to be about 6.3 per cent, and we now expect it to be eight per cent during the coming year. We are glad that is the case and that the stimulus to the economy provided by the federal and provincial budgets, as well as the initiative of the private sector -- and we should list them first -- have resulted in the growth that we are very keen on continuing.

The fact that oil prices have dropped by almost half and that the Canadian dollar has stayed at around 70 cents has also had a substantial stimulative effect, and we are glad of that.

However, the member and her colleagues seem to be under the impression that our expenses do not change during those periods. She is aware that inflation alone would increase our expenditures by about $900 million. As a matter of fact, we are going to allocate the dollars in the budget, which I hope to read to the House tomorrow, in a way that I fully expect all parties, including the Progressive Conservative Party, will congratulate and support with their votes.

Miss Stephenson: I am delighted the kudos of the Treasurer and Minister of Economics has been directed towards this side of the House, where the foundation for this economic recovery occurred. The activity of the private sector provided the indication that this would continue in spite of the nonelection of a Liberal government in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Therefore, your question is?

Miss Stephenson: In economic terms, it is rational to suggest in such times as these, when heated economic activity is taking place, that reduction of the deficit is absolutely essential to ensure that inflation does not become again a rampant matter of concern for all governments. Is the Treasurer not seriously considering some realistic action related to the deficit which would be of benefit to this province? I remind the Treasurer that we went through the most difficult recessional period after oil prices --

Mr. Speaker: Order. You may not.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: During the days the member is talking about, the deficits were substantially in excess of $2 billion. I happened to be in the member's position and had the responsibility to criticize the inadequacies of the fiscal leadership during those days.

However, in response to her question, we are giving most serious consideration to the deficit. I sincerely hope she will find the figure to be presented to the House and to the member tomorrow afternoon acceptable and fiscally responsible. We feel it is fiscally responsible, and we seriously ask for her support in the initiatives that will be brought forward.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. In my riding there is an apartment complex called Trinity Towers with 142 units. The owner of this building, Vincent Balsamo, raised the rent by 10 per cent on August 1, 1985, and by a further 22 per cent on October 1, 1985. These are post-1976 buildings. He withdrew that rent increase and now has given all the tenants notice that he wants the 22 per cent increase retroactive to October 1, 1985. He has also given them all notices of termination if they do not pay the retroactivity plus the new 22 per cent.

Is the minister not aware that his lack of action on the rent control legislation has thrown chaos into the lives of tenants? When is he going to act on rent control for post-1976 buildings?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I thank the member for that question. As he knows, Bill 78, which deals with post-1976 buildings, is going out to be debated in committee. He will be aware also that I have established the tenant and landlord advisory committee. It has submitted to me its report, which will be coming before the committee shortly. It will be retroactive and will catch all those landlords who have increased their rents by more than four per cent.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I might inform the Minister of Housing, in case he does not know, Bill 78 is going to be withdrawn and he is going to introduce a new bill. Perhaps his bureaucrats have not told him yet. Will the new bill be retroactive to August 1, 1985? When will it be introduced, and when does he plan to have third reading of the bill so that tenants in the province are protected?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The member corrected me, saying that Bill 78 has been withdrawn, and he proceeded to tell me Bill 78 is coming forth. We know what is going to happen is that if the report that is before me is extensive enough that we have to introduce a new bill, that will be done. It will be retroactive, as I have stated, and it will be coming as quickly as possible. I am going to need the member's co-operation and that of the official opposition to speed the debate of the bill so we can have legislation as soon as possible.

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Andrewes: Is it, or will it be, the policy of the Ministry of Health to provide travel assistance for Ontario residents so they might continue to be treated by doctors who leave the province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: This is the same question that was asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) a little while ago. I think the honourable gentleman knows that we provide payment for services outside Ontario in situations where the services are not provided in Ontario. Those are the circumstances under which we currently fund medical services given to residents of Ontario.

Mr. Andrewes: On April 22, the Toronto Sun reported that the ministry had moved to alter its out-of-province payment policy with respect to a North York cancer patient. The minister will know about that, because I understand his office intervened directly in that matter.

Will the minister apply the same degree of compassion and assist five-year-old Heidi Morgan of Eldorado, a patient of Dr. Ian Munro of the Hospital for Sick Children and soon of Dallas, Texas? The Morgan family cannot afford to send Heidi to Texas to continue her treatment to counteract disfiguring abnormal bone growth. The North Hastings Community Credit Union is now taking up a collection to assist in that travel.

Will the minister intervene in this case, as he did with the North York cancer patient, or better yet, will he establish a policy for all patients of Ontario doctors who might leave the province because of his government's policies?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not know the details of that case, and I would be pleased to receive them. The member knows, as does everyone else, that if those services are not available in Ontario then obviously we do pay for provision of services outside Ontario. In addition, we have a travel program available for those people in northern Ontario to travel to specialists out of their area.

With respect to the April 22 item, that case came to our attention and we were able to determine that the woman in question was in need of emergency services. We then moved to pay 100 per cent of the cost of that emergency treatment. That is not abnormal.

3 p.m.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Mr. Philip: My question is for the Minister of Housing. The minister will recall that on two occasions since the House convened, I have talked about the plight of tenants at 1025 Scarlett Road, who are facing eviction as a result of demolition. Now that the minister has had an opportunity to study Bill 11, which he introduced recently, can he inform the House whether the tenants in that building are covered under his legislation?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If the tenants at Scarlett Road have received their eviction notices already, they will not be covered under Bill 11.

Mr. Philip: Since the minister is saying the tenants are not covered under this bill, can he explain why it has taken him 10 months to introduce legislation that does not cover large numbers of tenants, such as the ones in the Scarlett Road building, who are going to be out on the street without any accommodation? Can he explain whether he is willing to introduce a quick bill that at least would put a stop on all demolitions until such time as Bill 11 can be dealt with in committee and amended to cover all tenants, such as those in the Scarlett Road building?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The member is identifying the urgency of this bill. Yes, we would like to get this bill through as early as possible so we do not have a continuous bleeding of the loss of that rental stock. We are trying to pass this bill as early as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has a response to a question previously asked by the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie).

PENSION FUNDS

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member for Hamilton East requested information on surplus pension fund withdrawals from Rexnord Canada Ltd. I can confirm that Rexnord has made requests for the refund of surplus assets on three plans: (1) from the Mathews Conveyer division hourly plan for a refund of $570,522; (2) from the components and conveyers division hourly plan for a refund of $310,200; and (3) from the salary retirement plan for a refund of $3,212,869.

Because of poor business conditions, the company has been down-sizing its operation over the past several years and has advised the Pension Commission of Ontario that a reorganization is currently taking place. The commission has not yet approved the refund and has requested that the employees and bargaining agents, if any, be given notice of the requests for refund by the company.

Mr. McClellan: I am sure my colleague will ask another question when he returns, but I want to ask the minister a very simple question. Who does the minister think owns the money that is in the Rexnord pension fund and is now being stuffed into the company's pockets? Who owns that money?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member should know that in a pension plan, before the pension commission will allow any withdrawal, the commission has to satisfy itself that all the obligations of the plan have been met and that at least 125 per cent of all the obligations of that plan are left in the plan.

SPRAY PROGRAM

Ms. Fish: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Does the minister believe we should have a chemical spray program in our forests?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes. The process we used to establish what we should be using in our forest program was open houses across Ontario. We got back the results and they were heavily in favour of a mix where we use bacillus thuringiensis in 94 per cent of all the spraying and some six per cent of chemicals in those hot spots where there has been bad infestation and the need for it.

The fact of the matter is that there were those who thought they would make more political marks out of putting us in a position where we would say Bt only, and that is what happened. It is as simple as that. When they started tearing up their Conservative cards up north, everybody over there panicked and now they want to know whether we are considering something else again.

Ms. Fish: I will again ask the minister his position. Does he believe chemicals should be used to spray in our forests?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I believe chemicals could be used to the extent that they are used to spray fruits we all eat every day. We would do that with the greatest common sense involved and leave it to the people across this province to participate in that kind of a program. This assembly has proved that, in a minority situation, everyone here is going to be involved in making the decision.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Reville: My question is for the Minister of Housing. It follows on the questions of the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip). Tens of thousands of tenants in this province are confused because the government has made all sorts of announcements about housing, and yet we have seen no legislation. Can the minister assure the House that his government intends third reading of the rent review bill by the end of this session?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I can assure the member that he will see third reading before the end of this session.

Mr. Reville: I am delighted to hear the minister's response. Will he ensure that the retroactive provision in the legislation will return rent moneys paid in excess of the guidelines to the tenants, who would not have paid them had the government moved with more dispatch?

Hon. Mr. Curling: When Bill 77 was first introduced, it was retroactive, and it has been very efficient in getting back all those rents that landlords had demanded beyond four per cent. I am confident that when the new bill becomes law it will be retroactive and the landlords will co-operate. We ask them for their co-operation right now. I am sure that if we get the full co-operation of both parties over there, we will see the legislation of the new bill before the end of this session.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour has a response to a question previously asked by some member.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: On Thursday last the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) asked the Premier (Mr. Peterson), in my absence, what action my ministry would take to protect workers of Metro Toronto's main sewage treatment plant.

On Saturday, May 10, a Ministry of Labour inspector visited the work place. I am informed that he noted noncompliance with an order previously issued on February 10. The compliance date had been midnight of the previous day, May 9. Within 24 hours of the expiration of the compliance period, my ministry issued notice of possible prosecution under

section 37 of the act.

Mr. Gillies: How many more months do the workers in that plant have to work wearing 20-pound respirators? One worker said the respirator is aggravating his heart problem; another worker lost his balance and fell because of the respirator. How many more months will it be before the ventilation equipment is installed and the workers can put aside those respirators?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I would have thought the member would congratulate the ministry on going into the plant so forthrightly. I might have thought my friend would talk to Metro, because I cannot force the installation. I have asked --

Mr. Grossman: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will get to the answer. I know the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), who cares so much about health and safety, would want to know this.

I have asked Metro officials to come and see me forthwith because, having given a compliance date of May 9 on this matter, I am not happy that Metro thinks it can fool around until the end of the year. That is not adequate.

We have taken a number of interim measures. Indeed, one of the interim measures is that workers are going to be monitoring the major ventilation installation. Until those major ventilation changes are completed, there is going to be temporary ventilation above the filter belt process. I am also advised that the temporary ventilation is at least half in place over two of the belts. Those belt presses are not to be operated between eight and four o'clock except in emergencies, and then workers are to be told if these are taking place.

3:10 p.m.

SPRAY PROGRAM

Ms. Fish: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Does he believe we should have a chemical spray program in our forests?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am aware that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) is receiving some very heavy representations from his members in the northwestern part of Ontario, who are concerned about the fact that the government of Ontario has not used the kind of spraying that some of his own members in northwestern Ontario would like to see.

We went through a process about two months ago of the New Democratic Party asking one question and asking another question. I support the policy of the government of Ontario, which is to spray with bacillus thuringiensis.

Mr. Grossman: Very sleazy. The minister should answer the question. He will not. He does not have the courage to answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: My friend is the master of sleaziness.

Mr. Gillies: Why do we not just give the pair of them pistols?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will wait until everyone is finished.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: I will wait. Final supplementary; the member for St. George.

Ms. Fish: Will the Minister of the Environment confirm to this House that his government has established a permanent ban on chemical spraying in our forests?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Our government, as always, wishes to consult with the people of this province. The Leader of the Opposition, when he goes to Sarnia, says environmental issues are yuppie issues. When he is in this House, he pretends he is an environmentalist.

The question I refer to is the government policy to spray with Bt. The answer is yes. The minister announced that in the House; that is the government policy, and I agree with the government policy.

GREAT LAKES FOREST PRODUCTS

Mr. Foulds: I have a new question for the Premier about the waferboard plant of Great Lakes Forest Products in Thunder Bay.

It is my understanding that at a meeting held last week between officials of the Canadian Paperworkers Union and the Premier, attended by some city council officials, he indicated that he thought immediate action was required and that he sought means to appoint an investigator to carry on the work at which Mr. Joyce had failed, to see whether some solution to the problem could be found and whether that plant could be kept open after this investigator had a look at the feasibility study, the company and the books. Has he made that appointment yet?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No. I do not consider it to be my appointment. The member's facts are essentially correct, but we consider our role to be that of a mediator to try to get someone who is mutually acceptable to the two parties to try to determine the facts as they exist.

As the member knows, there is considerable disagreement over the facts of the situation. I did ask for suggestions from the union. I am meeting tomorrow, I believe, with the management and we will try to put forward alternatives that would be acceptable to both sides to get some meeting of the minds.

The communications in this situation are not very good at the moment, and we are trying to do the best we can to bring the parties together. There are some people who argue that this is a structural readjustment and that kind of thing. It also has elements of a labour dispute. We are most anxious to try to facilitate some solution here.

Mr. Foulds: Is the Premier aware that every day that plant stays closed, it will be more difficult for any company, whether it is Canadian Pacific, Great Lakes Forest Products or a successor company, to reopen it? Is he aware that the company has already admitted to Mr. Joyce that there are markets for its product for a 10-year period? What is the Premier going to do to ensure that this secondary industry does not disappear from Thunder Bay, costing 150 jobs, $5 million in payroll and causing small businesses to fold?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: One of the difficulties in this situation is that I have a lot of reports back to me about who said what to whom in what set of circumstances. I do not cast myself in the role of judge and jury, but I can tell the member that some of the things that others have said, or their

interpretation of the facts, obviously lead one like me to the conclusion that the relationships at the moment are not particularly constructive and that there is not a lot of trust at this point.

One has to view this thing rationally and not just run off the way my honourable friend might tend to do. Therefore, we are trying to fill the role of an honest broker. We have tried it with Mr. Joyce. There is a variety of opinions on a number of these things, but I am hopeful that tomorrow or the next day we will be able to get some meeting of the minds on these issues as we approach together a solution to the problem.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Stevenson: This question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In the light of the $3-billion tax windfall and the tough financial decisions that Ontario farmers have already had to make this year, why has the minister delayed the announcement of the farm support programs to fit his own political agenda?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I do not understand the member's question. We have not forestalled anything. We have introduced several programs. There is the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program, which is the greatest program that the farmers have ever seen come forth from this government. We introduced the farmers in transition program and the crop introduction and expansion program. Those are both programs that provide financial assistance.

Would the member clarify his question? I do not understand what he means when he says we are forestalling with financial support programs. We have excellent programs in place.

Mr. Stevenson: I ask the minister to look at some of the producers in some of our neighbouring provinces. He can then answer his own question quickly.

Why does this year's financial crisis in Ontario agriculture seem much less significant to the minister than the crisis did last year at this time?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I consider that we have addressed the problems in this province to the same extent that governments in other provinces have. As a matter of fact, I spent last Thursday comparing notes with the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I would have the member know that we are doing equally as well as they are in Quebec with the different programs they may have. Also, fewer farm bankruptcies are taking place in Ontario compared to the number in Quebec. Therefore, we are helping our farmers to the best of our ability.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. What is stopping the minister from investigating the new round of massive increases in insurance rates, particularly for liability insurance? What is stopping him from requiring justification for these general increases? What is stopping him from placing a cap or freeze on those increases when they cannot be justified?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member is presupposing that they cannot be justified. The marketplace is working. We now have the Slater report and shall be doing various things as a result. I assure the member that we will be resolving many problems as a result of those recommendations.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister believe that the marketplace is working when an operator such as Fred Denure of Fred C. Denure Tours Ltd. in Lindsay had the insurance on each of his buses increased from $3,300 in 1984 to approximately $14,500 in 1985, and to more than $32,000 in April 1986, even though he has not had a claim in five years? What in democracy's name is stopping the minister from investigating this kind of practice by the insurance companies? Why does he not make them at least justify these further increases that they are applying now?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We are looking into the rates. We waited for the Slater report, and now we are implementing many of its recommendations. I assure the member we are not just sitting back and watching it happen.

STABILIZATION PAYMENTS

Mr. Stevenson: I have another question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. We are getting many calls about his current programs. A hog producer applied during Christmas week for stabilization payments and still there are no payments. An application under the Ontario Family Farm Interest Rate Reduction Program was made on December 22 and still there is no payment. A beef farmer applied the first week the forms came out and still there is no payment. When is the minister going to get the money out to the farmers who need the money at this time of year?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The money has been flowing for some time. If we have to go back to the farmer for additional information or if there is a computer rejection of some kind, naturally it takes some time. The member is picking out specific cases. Thousands of applications have been processed and the money has already been sent to the farmers.

3:20 p.m.

Most of the eligible pork producers have already received their stabilization cheques. Many of the beef producers have received their cheques; however, we were a little slower in getting started with the beef program for reasons which I know are obvious to the member, but those cheques are rolling. If the member has specific cases he would like to bring to my attention, we will look into them instantaneously.

Mr. Stevenson: How many millions of dollars of the new budget will be used to pay for the promises of last year, since the minister has purposely delayed the payments into this fiscal year?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: That information is incorrect. We have not delayed any payments that should have gone out last year and held them back for this year. In other words, when we introduced the programs, we immediately started to process any applications and we sent the cheques out to the farmers as soon as we could. We have not held anything back for this year.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Hayes: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I am sure the minister is aware of the problem concerning toxic substances in the Maidstone landfill site in the township of Maidstone. With the discovery of sand seams on the site, and given the results of the testing of a well some two miles from the site, which showed the water to be unacceptable for human consumption, will the minister act immediately to close this site until the situation is rectified?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member raises a very good question about that site, which has caused considerable concern to the area residents and to those of us in the Ministry of the Environment. We have an investigation under way at the present time, and I expect I will have the full details of it available either late today or early tomorrow.

Mr. Hayes: The council of the township of Maidstone has called for the site to be closed, and the local health unit is involved right now in an investigation to determine whether cancer-related disease in the area is a result of this site. If the minister will not close this site, will he assure the residents of Maidstone and the surrounding area that the landfill site is not a hazard to their health?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I hope our investigation will provide that kind of information for the honourable member and for the residents. As we look at some of the practices that were permitted in relation to landfill sites, not just in this jurisdiction but in various places, we have come to recognize the validity of placing them under environmental assessment when it is a greenfield site, for instance, of a landfill. What was permitted or what we as a society generally thought to be acceptable in the past for a landfill site we would agree today is not acceptable. That is what we are investigating, and I will provide that information for the member just as soon as possible.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Chairman of Management Board. On May 7, she mentioned that she had settled contract negotiations with about 23,500 civil servants in various centres throughout Ontario. What is she doing to settle the contract negotiations for those people employed as counsellors at the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia, where they occupied the office of the administrator last week? That occupation was a protest linked directly with the tardiness of the negotiations on this contract.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The negotiations for the four categories that have not been completed are under way at this time. I believe the group to which the member referred is among the institutional care workers. We are negotiating right now with the union.

It has been suggested that mediation would be of assistance, and we are looking at that as one of the options as we attempt for the first time in a number of years to reach settlements through negotiated and good collective bargaining with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union.

Mr. McLean: What is the minister doing regarding the settlement of a contract with workers at the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: That question is related to the previous question. Let me give the member this information: There are nine categories within the bargaining unit of the Ontario public service. To date, we have reached agreement and have had ratification with five of the nine. Those five represent 23,500 employees. At this time, we are negotiating actively with the other four categories, and today I am cautiously optimistic.

HIGH SCHOOL DROP-OUTS

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Education. His research and information branch recently tabled the records of high school drop-outs for the past five years. These records indicate that over that term, the increase in grade 9 drop-outs has been 15 per cent; grade 10 is stable; the grade 11 rate is up by 14.5 per cent; and the grade 12 rate is up by a whopping 20 per cent over those five years. This means that in the past year, almost 70,000 students left the high school system without diplomas or certificates.

Is the Minister of Education prepared to take this situation with the seriousness it deserves? What new programs is he prepared to bring forward? For example, is he prepared to create an emergency ministry working group?

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

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have seen the data to which the member for Hamilton West makes reference and yes, I do take seriously the whole question of leaving school early. As a new government, we have addressed this issue with a number of specific initiatives, not the least of which was the dedication of $13 million to a cooperative education and transition-to-employment fund. The government will continue to explore ways and means of making the high school educational experience relevant and excellent for all concerned.

Mr. Allen: Many of those initiatives are precisely the sorts of initiatives taken in the past that have not been effective in specifically addressing this problem. Is the minister prepared to create an emergency ministry working group to collaborate with boards of education and to set quite specific year-by-year targets for the reduction of those tragic figures, so we can get this situation in hand?

Hon. Mr. Conway: As the past year would indicate, I am not at all reluctant to strike working groups, some of which involve members of the opposition. This is a matter towards which we have directed our attention. If the honourable member and others in the official opposition, including my friend the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis), have specific and concrete proposals they would like me to entertain, I await them eagerly.

PETITIONS

WOMEN IN CRISIS (ALGOMA) INC.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition from the Sault.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and in particular the Honourable Monte Kwinter, Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That a complete investigation of Women in Crisis (Algoma) Inc. be conducted and that a general meeting be called for the purpose of discussing this investigation."

I share the concerns of the 143 residents of Sault Ste. Marie and area who have signed this petition, and I trust the government will act immediately on this petition.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Before the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) leaves, I would like to note that on page 3 of the Orders and Notices paper, order 20 is second reading of Bill 78,

An Act to provide for the Regulation of Rents charged for Rental Units in Residential Complexes. Earlier today, the minister said the bill was withdrawn --

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to interrupt my colleague, but I cannot hear a word he is saying and I am trying to follow. I wonder whether you can ask for order.

Mr. Speaker: Can I ask all members for their attention. The member for Nipissing on what point of order?

Mr. Harris: On the point of the Orders and Notices paper, Mr. Speaker: Today in the Legislature, the minister said Bill 78 was withdrawn. Order 20 for the business of the House on page 3, printed today with the date May 12, is second reading of Bill 78.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: That is the first time I have heard of a point of order on Orders and Notices. However, it is an interesting point. Perhaps the member could ask the minister personally, or that would make a good question during the question period at some time.

OBSTETRICAL SERVICES

Mr. Pouliot: I have a petition signed by 518 concerned citizens living in the riding of Lake Nipigon. They are asking that obstetrical services in the Nipigon District Memorial Hospital be reinstated.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE TRAVEL

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on general government be authorized to adjourn to Quebec City and Montreal on May 22 and 23, 1986, for the purpose of its continuing consideration of Bill 75,

An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that notwithstanding any standing order, the House shall meet at 2 p.m. on Friday, May 30, 1986, for a special sitting to hear an address by the Right Reverend Desmond Tutu, Bishop of Johannesburg. Following the remarks of Bishop Tutu, the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until 2 p.m. on Monday, June 2, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OLEOMARGARINE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Riddell moved first reading of Bill 14,

An Act to amend the Oleomargarine Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: This amendment to the Oleomargarine Act alters the description of the test used to determine the level of colour in oleomargarine. The amendment removes the requirement that the test results be "read under conditions substantially similar to those established by the United States Bureau of Internal Revenue." As the US standards are now obsolete, the existing

section of the act is unenforceable. The amendment will provide for the renewal of enforcement of the Oleomargarine Act in a manner that will permit the objectives of the legislation to be achieved.

BRUCELLOSIS REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Riddell moved first reading of Bill 15,

An Act to repeal the Brucellosis Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: This bill will repeal the Brucellosis Act which, I am happy to say, is no longer a relevant piece of legislation. Ontario was declared free of brucellosis last October, marking an end to a disease that once ravaged cattle herds and cost farmers millions of dollars in lost production. Using a program of vaccinations, testing and eradication, the federal and provincial governments in co-operation with farmers gradually brought the disease under control.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breaugh moved first reading of Bill 16,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: Under present law, the public is not permitted to attend committee meetings of municipal councils or local boards. The present law also denies public access to reports made to the committees and to certain other documents. The amendment opens up committee meetings to the public and provides access to reports and other records subject to specific confidentiality exemptions. The amendment also imposes an obligation on councils to inform members of the public of their rights under the act.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, in calling the second order, I would like to inform you and the clerks at the table that there is an agreement among the three parties that the time remaining between now and the calling of the motion at 6:15 p.m. be divided evenly among the three parties.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) will be winding up for the government, so there will be no difficulty in his using the time allocated. However, I understand the Conservatives may be contemplating dividing their time among two speakers, which is acceptable to us. If so, it is expected that the first speaker following the calling of the order will be a Conservative, followed by a New Democratic Party member, then a Conservative speaker and then the pièce de résistance.

Mr. Speaker: Does the House agree to the complicated suggestion made by the government House leader?

Agreed to.

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. Ashe: I appreciate the opportunity to participate on the closing day of the throne speech debate based on the government's declared initiatives a couple of weeks ago.

Last week I was away on other matters and I was able to get caught up on a little bit of reading. One of the novels in which I became very involved is entitled First Among Equals by Jeffrey Archer. I am sure you have read it, Mr. Speaker. That particular publication has to do with four members of Parliament in Britain, two in the Labour Party and two in the Conservative Party, and how they grew in politics, their ups and downs and the various things that went wrong in and out of government.

One of the quotes I would like to read is as follows, "Some of the most memorable speeches delivered in the House" -- referring to the British House of Commons, but I really see no difference here -- "have lasted eight or nine minutes; some of the worst, over 30." I do not suggest I am in the category of the eight-minute or nine-minute ones, but I hope I will not be anywhere near or over 30 minutes. For those who intend to speak for more than 30 minutes, they have that to keep in the backs of their minds. It is most appropriate.

3:40 p.m.

The other thing I was able to do last week with the little extra time was to think more deeply about the government's speech from the throne brought down a couple of weeks ago. I really thought about it, pondered over it and gave it some very serious thought. One of the things the speech did not do was to excite me any more than it did on the day it was given. It did not give me any more insight on any new programs and initiatives that the government had in the back of its mind.

I refer back to the opening remarks, after the traditional mover and seconder spoke on behalf of the government, the excellent remarks of our leader when he responded to the remarks of the mover and seconder on the actual speech itself. He went over page and verse, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the fact that virtually every program and announcement within that throne speech came from something in the past. It came usually from something the previous government had done, a program that was already announced, a program where initiatives had already been taken or something that was already well on the way.

The other thing that really bothered me was that I felt a little bad for the members opposite when I looked back. I even brought it with me and re-read that speech from the throne. I thought the members of the government party who had been in this Legislature for some period of years in actual fact, after listening to that throne speech and the fact that it contained so little that was of new ideas, must have felt sincerely embarrassed.

I really felt for them, but I really felt worse when I thought about the new members of the governing party who came in here full of vim, vigour and enthusiasm some very short time ago -- it was less than a year ago when they actually took their seats -- when they thought: "Boy, we are really part of a new team. We hear so much from our leader and we heard so much from the party of all the great new ideas we have." What did they hear? They heard a throne speech and then they heard it tied back into programs that were not new whatsoever. At the very least, they must feel very disillusioned, and I feel for them. They thought it would be full of new ideas.

Again, I am not going to take the time to review point by point, page by page, all of those programs that were introduced in other forms, other names and other colours by the previous government, in high-tech industry, trade initiatives and so on, but I do want to refer to one that was not specifically referred to before and to indicate the cynicism contained within that throne speech.

I refer specifically to page 17, and I quote, "My government will implement a policy to direct and co-ordinate management of its property holdings to aggressively support our economic and social objectives, sell surplus lands, and create new opportunities for ventures with the private sector."

That was in the address of His Honour on April 22, 1986. Let me refer back to the Sunday Sun of February 25, 1986, some couple of months before the throne speech. The headline is "New Deal on Land Sales." Let me read a little bit out of it; I will not bore you with it all, Mr. Speaker, because there is no doubt that by the time I am finished you will find it is very repetitive. It said, referring to the Minister of Government Services and Chairman of Management Board (Ms. Caplan):

"She also announced a new land management and disposal strategy that she said will maximize the government's return on its property investments and provide better management of its real estate interests. In a major departure from past practice, the government will begin using brokers and agents to inform potential buyers of property and to negotiate and package transactions."

Two days after the throne speech, once again there was a little more meat put on the bones in the same minister's address to the Society of Industrial Realtors, where she once again announced that program. That program was initiated, announced and put into effect back in 1984 in my capacity as Minister of Government Services. Since the new government came into being, we have had that program -- which is already at least two years old -- announced three times as being a new initiative.

Again, I just add this to the list of page after page, verse after verse, paragraph after paragraph, where the ideas and the initiatives that are announced as being new and grandiose are really not new at all.

One of the other things I thought might have been included in the throne speech was a leadup to the budget that the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) will present tomorrow. I thought there might be some indication that, now that the government has been around for approaching a year, it might try to put its financial house in order; it might try to shed what it has been carrying around in the last eight, nine or 10 months in the way of extra expense, extra overhead, extra overload -- in other words, fiscal responsibility. Did it give any indication of that in the throne speech? Frankly, no it did not. This, in my view, does not augur well for what we are going to hear from the Treasurer tomorrow.

What have they done over there? I know they will say, "We have fewer ministers than the former government had." That is true. The reason, of course, is that they did not have enough members to have as many ministers, so they had to cut down.

Does that really mean the cost of operation in a political sense is less? No, it does not. It is true there are fewer ministers, but let me assure members that in virtually every one of those ministers' offices -- I will not say every one -- there are more staff than there were before, if we could ever get the total, honest facts out of the various ministries.

I appreciate that people come and go pretty regularly in some of the ministers' offices, so it is pretty hard to know on any given day how many are there. I see the Chairman of Management Board and Minister of Government Services nodding her head. I know hers is one of the ones where that happens quite regularly.

In total, they have more staff. Not only do they have a larger staff in total numbers, but they have also increased their salaries by considerable sums. Were these salaries earned by five, eight or 10 years of service to a particular minister or ministry, by experience related to those jobs? No, it was not that way. After the government got them there, it said: "We will go up to Ottawa to see how much they pay them there. We will raise their salaries by $10,000 to $15,000 and nobody will worry about it." The taxpayer worries about it.

Did they at all cut down on some of the overhead? I can remember some very eloquent speeches over the years, particularly from the Treasurer -- and I could name others over there -- who used to get up regularly and ask: "Does anybody across there not have an extra job? Are they all parliamentary assistants or what have you?" Is there anybody in that body now who is not a parliamentary assistant? Are there any fewer parliamentary assistants than there were before?

I can also remember many of the members, and particularly the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue, who used to dig the government of the day time after time by making cute remarks such as, "When the minister drove up in his big chauffeur-driven limousine, did he do this and did he do that?" Funny. I do not see any fewer cars; I do not see any fewer drivers. I got along without a $5,000 telephone in my car, but my successor cannot -- an additional $5,000 just like that on the backs of the taxpayers. "A telephone in every trunk" is how they refer to them over there now.

That, of course, is to keep in touch to see whether there are any new fund-raising dinners coming up and whether people have anted up their grant. Is there anybody over there who does not have an extra job? I suggest, percentagewise, there were fewer in the previous administration than there are now who were involved in the additional revenues that are available.

3:50 p.m.

I was thinking again of these new members. They were undoubtedly disappointed and disillusioned when they heard the speech, which they had thought was all new and then found out it was not. However, they thought: "Oh, well, we are the government. When we speak, people listen. When we speak, industry listens."

We had a good example a couple of weeks ago of that not quite working. I can remember the Premier (Mr. Peterson) saying in some musings one day: "I am concerned about the gouging in the gasoline prices to the consumers today, so I am going to dispatch my Minister of Energy out west to have some conversations to tell them to lower it. I am going to put out my Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to talk to the local oil companies here. We will take care of that."

Sure, they listened. The price of gasoline went up by 2.5 cents a litre the very next day. It is certain that when a Liberal government member speaks, industry listens -- 2.5 cents higher per litre the day after. Is that the kind of rapport there is? I do not know. It was a joke in any event; it was a joke when they talked about going to the oil companies.

Looking back on what has happened, in the case of the gasoline taxes we are now paying, we all know that if the initiatives and the previous programs of this party were still in effect, gas prices would be somewhere in the order of 2.5 cents per litre less just in taxation. Was the New Democratic Party concerned about that extra impact on the taxpayers? No, not at all. Were the government members concerned about that? Not at all. They said, "We are going to freeze gasoline prices at 8.8 cents" -- subsequently 8.3 cents -- "and everybody will be a winner." We all know 8.3 cents would now be about 5.9 cents or six cents under the previous government's tax policy.

What else did I find in the speech from the throne? It did have something that was the government's own, I must say. It reiterated its, I think sad, policy about beer and wine in the corner stores. Wherever we sit in this Legislature, we all know the majority of our constituents are opposed to it, generally in the order of three to one, now that they have had time to think through and ponder the pros and cons of that particular ill-thought-out and ill-founded initiative. However, it was in there again because they had to say something was their own.

I have to give compliments, though, where compliments are due. Many of the previous initiatives of this government that are being carried forward are excellent, for example, the expansion of trade opportunities in the Pacific Rim. There is no doubt about that at all. They worked before, there is a great market to build up, and they will work again.

The introduction of a new Order of Ontario is very commendable. In my mind, it is one of the high priorities that came out of that speech from the throne. It was not all negative.

The long and the short of it is that it frustrated me. We have heard the references back and forth, "It was so dull," and "It was your programs." When one has been involved in coming up with programs, when one has been making them work and can see them working and then one is sitting on the end of one's chair, knowing one is going to have to jump with enthusiasm when one hears all these new, great initiatives from this new, exuberant government, and one hears the same things one knows one had last year, the year before and the year before, it is no wonder we virtually all fell asleep.

In

summary, members have heard it before. I have changed the last line slightly from references made before. There is no doubt, to put it in a very small nutshell, the speech from the throne was surely something old, it was not very new, it was a great deal borrowed and most of what was borrowed was blue.

Mr. Laughren: It is a privilege for me to wind up this debate on behalf of my caucus. It is an event that all Ontario has been waiting for breathlessly for the last couple of weeks, and I am here to deliver it to them.

We all know the speech from the throne has two basic purposes. It is to lay out the priorities of the government for the session that follows and to provide a setting or perhaps even a warning for the budget that will be brought in the day following the vote on the speech from the throne. It is in this spirit that I respond for my caucus and my party.

This is an opportunity to compare our priorities, our philosophies and, if I dare say it, to compare our ideologies. In his response to the speech from the throne, my leader the member for York South (Mr. Rae) dealt in some detail with three major issues: competitiveness, education and health care. I will not repeat his speech; I will simply recommend it to other members as productive reading.

The last year has been a truly fascinating one for me. I have been an elected member for almost 15 years, but the last year has been by far the most fascinating. In itself, the end of a Tory dynasty held a lot of fascination for me as well, the rather heady realization that we were instrumental in ending that era. The political nervousness we experienced in entering into an accord which put us all into uncharted waters helped to make it a fascinating year.

The selection and negotiation of the specific items that we insisted went into the accord between the Liberals and New Democratic Party made it fascinating, also the fight to ensure the issues agreed upon in the accord were honoured, all the time guaranteeing a couple of years of political stability. I say "political stability," not because I think elections mean instability, but rather because a two-year period will give us an opportunity actually to implement the policies and issues put into the accord.

Now, a year later, we feel confident we did the right thing. Progress is being made, albeit with little dispatch or conviction by the government on the issues in the accord. At least the important issues that were not on the political agenda before are now on it. Those issues would never have been on it with the previous government, and even with this government they would not be on it as early as this had it not been for the accord we signed.

We are proud of the role we have played by demanding particular items in the accord. I am thinking of our demands that pay equity for women be part of the accord; that extra billing be banned; and that first-contract legislation be passed in order to prevent those nasty first-contract disputes and lockouts. An independent forestry audit is being done. Equal funding for our two public school systems is at least partway through the process. We also demanded that gas price differentials in northern Ontario be investigated, that rent increases be limited to four per cent; and that our system of workers' compensation be reformed.

These are not radical issues. They do not threaten to stand Ontario's cherished free enterprise system on its head. However, they are measures that are designed to increase fairness and equity in our society. I suspect we all agree, but we disagree on the means to achieve the goals of fairness and equity.

On Friday, May 9, my leader, and our Treasury critic, the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), set out proposals in A Fair Future for Ontario that dealt in part with our grossly unfair tax system. Our tax proposals include the elimination of Ontario income tax and premiums for the Ontario health insurance plan for individuals and families below the poverty line. We propose the closing of corporation tax loopholes and a new provision that will require corporations to pay at least 50 per cent of the applicable tax rate.

We are giving some teeth to the oft-stated unhappiness of the Treasurer with Michael Wilson's virtual elimination of tax on capital gains by proposing the reintroduction of succession duties on the estates of the wealthy. We also are calling for the immediate enactment of a minimum tax on high income-earners to implement without delay the 1984 Mulroney election promise. Other proposals for a fair Ontario touch on retraining, pension reform and job creation.

4 p.m.

We are proposing a province-wide work futures fund to finance lifetime learning and retraining. Lifetime learning must become a reality for average Ontarians if our future is to be fair. Pension reform is at least a quarter of a century overdue. While moving to provide universal coverage and improved and indexed benefits, we must act to provide decent early retirement alternatives so that people who want to retire before the so-called normal age of retirement can do so. Too many people who want to retire early today cannot because of the inadequacy of our pension plans.

New Democrats are calling for a generously funded program to encourage permanent jobs for young people and for older workers. The tax credit we propose is strictly targeted. The only corporate beneficiaries of this program would be those who create long-term jobs. We also propose a targeted program of assistance to help small businesses get started and grow. We believe such initiatives must be aimed at those who will benefit most and, moreover, ought to be directed at specific job creation activities.

Governments can no longer afford to take a "something-for-nothing" approach by designing assistance programs under which benefits are not dependent on job creation performance. We propose a refundable, small business employment creation tax credit to replace the tax holiday for newly incorporated small business firms. This credit would apply to new companies and to those up to five years old.

For new small businesses, a $2,000 credit would be given for every third employee hired, and for established companies a $2,000 credit would be given for every additional job created. These credits would be available after the new jobs had been filled for a period of one year.

The savings from the elimination of the small business tax holiday are estimated at $45 million, while the cost of the small business employment creation tax credit is estimated at $100 million. The net cost, therefore, would be $55 million. This measure is estimated to produce 50,000 new long-term employment opportunities. I stress these are long-term employment opportunities.

Some argue our economy cannot remain competitive if we impose too many regulations and restrictions on the private sector. We are told that investment dollars will flow elsewhere if we intervene too much in the marketplace. We are warned that our brightest and best doctors will leave Ontario if we ban extra billing, that the bill for pay equity in the private sector will be astronomical and will have a negative effect on our competitiveness. We are warned that Workers' Compensation Board costs are out of control and putting some businesses out of business.

We are being told rent controls are the cause of a lack of rental accommodation. The lament goes on, and I suppose it always will. In the end, we must make judgements based on our own political ideologies and personal convictions.

I know a couple of things for certain. Right now, we are experiencing profound economic changes in this country and elsewhere. As a provincial jurisdiction, we can either be willing, passive recipients of those changes or we can attempt to influence the way they shape our lives and the lives of succeeding generations.

I want to be associated with a political party that attempts to sculpture those changes, and I want to be associated with movements outside the political process that have similar aspirations -- movements such as the labour movement, the women's movement, Project Ploughshares and Amnesty International. All of us know new technologies are causing changes at a rate faster than our apparent ability to control those changes or anticipate their effect on ordinary people. In Ontario, we must decide, and soon, that as technological change surges in upon us, so will we change some of our old attitudes.

At present, a frightening shift is occurring in the distribution of wealth and power in our society. The strata are becoming increasingly easier to identify. At the bottom end of the income scale are the poor and the powerless. The middle-income group is increasingly becoming a frightened strata and the top an increasingly smaller and powerful élite. It should come as no surprise to members that since the Second World War there has been absolutely no redistribution of income in our society. Back in the early 1950s, the bottom 20 per cent of Canadian households received four per cent of the national income while the top 20 per cent received 42 per cent, 10 times as much.

Those percentages have barely changed since the Second World War ended. I point this out because, despite the complaints of the élite in our province, all that has happened is that the poor have retained their miserable share. They retained that share only because governments intervened to make sure it happened. If left to the marketplace, Statistics Canada estimates the bottom 20 per cent of families would receive less than one per cent of the national income. Now they receive four per cent. So much for Reaganomics, supply-side economics and that despicable trickle-down theory.

About a week ago, I was reading some United States material and thinking about the poor in that country. I interrupted my serious reading to skim the Globe and Mail. A Report on Business headline read, "Executive Pay Cheques Jump 22.5 Per Cent." That was the yearly jump. When I went through the numbers of what some executives of Canadian corporations earn, it gave me pause for thought and it should give us all pause for thought.

Some examples include: David Culver, president of Alcan Aluminum, $702,000 a year; K. S. Barclay, chairman of AMCA International, $842,000 a year; A. J. de Grandpré, chairman of Bell Canada Enterprises, $882,000 a year; Arden Haynes, chairman of Imperial Oil Ltd., $588,000; C. F. Baird, chairman of Inco Ltd., $819,000 a year; Frank Stronach, chairman of Magna International, $1.85 million per year.

Interjection.

Mr. Laughren: I wonder whether Sinc Stevens has read this.

E. B. Fitzgerald, chairman of Northern Telecom Ltd., $1.05 million per year; G. R. Albino, chairman of Rio Algom, $1.04 million per year; Edgar Bronfman, chairman of Seagram, $1.4 million a year; Charles Bronfman, vice-chairman, $820,000; and Philip Beekman, president of Seagram, $1.05 million per year. I could go on, but the point has been made.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: How much does the president of Massey-Ferguson make? Can the member read that?

Mr. Laughren: Yes. Massey-Ferguson is on the list too. Victor Rice, Massey-Ferguson, earns $676,000, which is more than the Treasurer earns. Is it proper that the president of Massey-Ferguson should earn more than the Treasurer? Somehow it does not seem right, given all the Treasurer has done for Massey-Ferguson.

When those salaries are combined with the incredible series of corporate takeovers and mergers in the past couple of years, we get a picture of a society controlled by an extremely small and wealthy élite. We must decide whether we want a society that consists of the powerless, the frightened and a small élite or whether we want to build a society that shares important decision-making, production priorities and income more fairly. Surely it is time. Surely we have enough confidence in ourselves to change the way in which we view the work place.

It is not appropriate for the corporate élite to make almost all the important decisions and for an elected élite to make the rest of them. We must begin the process of involving people in important decisions.

4:10 p.m.

I was reading some material by Michael Harrington, perhaps most widely known as author of The Other America -- I believe it is yet unpublished. He writes the following in talking about changes and what is happening to society and how these changes will be imposed upon us:

"So the issue posed to this generation is not whether there will be a worldwide transformation of the conditions of life; the transformation is already under way. What is to be decided is whether that transformation will control or even annihilate men and women or whether they will control it. It is preposterous to think that the invisible hand of the market will miraculously shape the intricate and global trends in a truly human fashion. It is equally absurd to think that an omniscient élite, whether it is a vanguard party or a democratic technocracy, can create freedom behind the backs of the people." Michael Harrington says it very well.

I am glad the Treasurer is here at this moment. There are predictions that Ontario will be awash in money this year as its revenues will be higher because of a booming economy.

We in this party know how many demands there are on an unlimited supply of funds, even if the revenues are higher than anticipated. We know as well that a proper measure of a government is not so much how much money it can raise, but how it spends the money it does raise. There is undoubtedly an obligation on government to manage its affairs so as to maximize revenues in as equitable a way as possible.

In Ontario, ever since the post-war economic boom, we have had a government that treated the economy as a spectator sport. The Tories were always on the sidelines either as cheerleaders or simply as spectators cheering for the home side. Admittedly, the home side was Ontario. We have paid a price for that passive role by government. There are enormous holes in our industrial fabric. We import enormous quantities of manufactured goods which we could be producing here for a strong domestic market as well as for export markets.

We still undervalue our natural resources by shipping out unprocessed minerals and by failing to add more value to our wood products. This government cannot simply repair those holes in our industrial fabric by setting hastily prepared priorities or creating crown corporations to produce a wide variety of manufactured goods. It is not that simple. This government can, however, determine to play a real leadership role. This government can at least decide that when the private sector leaves gaping holes in sectors where we have a strong domestic market, sectors such as machinery and electrical products, then the public sector has an obligation to act.

Crown corporations or institutes, as I gather the government likes to call them, joint ventures and private sector incentives are all tools to rebuild an economy that has structural deformities. If this government thinks market forces in general will look after us and trickle their benefits down upon us, this government will simply be a spectator, as was the previous government, and we will not play a meaningful role in shaping our own future.

Government leadership and intervention are absolutely crucial if we are to utilize our natural and human resources to their full potential. Asian and European countries that have grown most rapidly in recent years have done so, not despite government leadership and intervention but because of them, because goals were set and labour was consulted as part of that goal setting.

I have a pet way of assessing how developed a country is. I compare its exports and imports of advanced manufactured goods on a per capita basis. I can quote from Abraham Rotstein, whom many will know as a fervent Canadian nationalist. He wrote a little book called Rebuilding from Within: Remedies for Canada's Ailing Economy, in which are some interesting statistics. He outlines the imports of advanced manufacturing goods on a per capita basis: Australia, $564; France, $573; Germany, $726; Italy, $292; Japan, $91; United Kingdom, $537; United States, $315; Canada $1,164.

We are importing manufactured goods when we should be adding much more value to what we do produce to minimize those imports. Ontario is a so-called industrial heartland, but we in this province have a long way to go before we really should call ourselves an industrial heartland. There is nowhere we have further to go than in northern Ontario.

Last month's throne speech proudly announced that Ontario's economy had emerged leaner and stronger after a decade of upheaval. It boasted that increased economic activity had driven down the unemployment rate to 6.8 per cent, the lowest in Canada, and talked of bright new futures and opportunities for all Ontario. The government does not seem to understand that northern Ontario is not part of this brave new world of high technology and low unemployment. In the north we are still having trouble keeping pace with the old industrial technology.

In the same month the government prepared and delivered its speech about Ontario's glorious future, almost 4,500 people in northern Ontario either lost their jobs or had their jobs threatened by announcements from their employers. Let me list what was happening in the north while the government was taking credit for a leaner, stronger economy. My colleagues the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay), the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) and the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) have raised these issues in the throne debate, but they must be repeated until the day comes when we will not always have such bad news.

In Sault Ste. Marie, Algoma Steel announced it would be laying off 1,500 people in that city. It also announced it was considering closing its Wawa operation, putting another 350 people out of work and threatening the survival of that community. In Thunder Bay, 150 people lost their jobs when Great Lakes Forest Products closed its waferboard mill there. At Elliot Lake, Rio Algom announced it would be cutting its work force by 200 people over the next five years. In the Ear Falls-Red Lake area, the last of the 283 jobs at the Griffith Mine were lost.

Perhaps the most devastating news of all is in the small community of Terrace Bay. The chairman of the board of Kimberly-Clark flew into the town for a day to announce that there was a good chance he would be closing the local mill. That means 1,000 jobs in the mill and another 1,000 in woodland operations will be lost and the future of several northern communities threatened.

In all, that is 4,483 jobs lost or threatened in April alone, on top of the 46,000 northern Ontario residents already out of work. Even before this rash of announcements, the north's unemployment rate was double that of the rest of the province. However, there was no mention of these facts in the throne speech; there was no plan of action for dealing with this attack on the northern economy; in fact, there was no recognition that a problem even exists in northern Ontario.

Perhaps the Premier believes that by building a strong, high-tech economy in the Golden Horseshoe, jobs will somehow find their way up north on their own. I would like to tell him now that the trickle-up theory is even less effective than the trickle-down theory. Without direct intervention by the province, it is unrealistic to expect that any significant number of new jobs will be created in the north.

The major flaw in the government's approach to northern Ontario was made very clear in the House a few weeks ago by the Premier. When my colleagues and I questioned him about the significant number of layoffs across the north, he responded by saying he could not wave a magic wand to solve the problem, but he would deal with each layoff and closure "one by one, as crises." This is the approach the government has been using for 42 years and counting; it abdicates all responsibility for long-term economic planning and puts a "for rent" sign on our resources. When the inevitable crisis occurs, the government reacts.

It rushes in with an ad hoc selection of programs to cushion the blow. While the committees of bureaucrats rush in to put out another fire, another layoff is being announced somewhere else in northern Ontario.

It is time to try a new approach. Northern Ontario has the resources and people to sustain strong communities and long-term employment. All that is needed is the government's commitment to a few fundamental principles. First, the province must be committed to developing a comprehensive, long-term economic plan for northern Ontario. Second, northerners and their communities must have more control over the decisions about how publicly owned resources are developed and left primarily to multinational corporations with little commitment to the region or even to the country.

Kimberly-Clark's recent announcement is a good example. The first indication the community of Terrace Bay had that its future was in jeopardy was through a press report from the United States. Without notifying either the union or the community, a press release was issued from corporate headquarters in Georgia. Several weeks later, when the chairman of Kimberly-Clark flew into Terrace Bay, he said he was seriously considering closing the mill because he could not, in all conscience, pass on the problems at Terrace Bay to the next generation of Kimberly-Clark management.

Apparently it does not bother his conscience to leave the problems of a closure to the next generation of Terrace Bay workers.

It is ludicrous that an American corporation can move into the north, exploit our publicly owned resources, take the profits for more than 40 years, invest them outside the country and then close down the town when bad management has turned profits into losses. All this is done with virtually no consultation with the local community that supplied the company with municipal services and willing workers and then is left to pick up the pieces when the crisis comes.

4:20 p.m.

Northern communities should be involved in every step of resources development in their area. Before a corporation is given access to resources, it should sit down with the community and provincial officials to negotiate planning agreements. These could ask the company for guarantees that local people would be trained for the new jobs being created or that local business would be given opportunities. Agreements could include guarantees for reinvestment in the community and for a community adjustment fund to be used if a layoff or closure occurs.

The most important aspect of each agreement would be that the community most affected by our resource development would be setting the agenda for negotiations.

A third principle the government must accept is that more of the wealth created through resource development must be reinvested in the north. Each year, the north produces more than $3 billion worth of minerals and supplies most of the raw material for the $7-billion forestry industry. Very little of this remains in northern Ontario. Much is invested in plants in other countries. Resource companies have learned to protect themselves from booms and busts by investing in a variety of different companies. The government has failed to learn from their example.

Northern development programs and funds have been introduced before, but usually on a short-term basis. What the north needs is a permanent pool of capital that will be reinvested in the north according to the development priorities set out by the province and northern communities. A fund that uses a portion of provincial revenues from resources to strengthen and diversify resource-dependent economies is a simple, logical idea. Funds like this exist in Tory Alberta and socialist Sweden. Surely it is time for the Liberal government of Ontario to create a similar fund.

Just as the north will not be protected by the private sector, neither will our environment. Ontario is not a world leader in environmental protection. We have virtually no enforceable regulations for air or water. Our laws have been laughable. The penalties have been trivial, even according to a study done for the ministry itself.

Average fines have been in the range of $4,000, even for major corporations. Even Dow Chemical, after having contaminated the St. Clair River and the drinking water of communities downstream with the notorious blob, was fined only $16,000. The vulnerability of drinking water is also evident if one examines the St. Clair example. The chloroethylene from Dow's spill last summer was detected in drinking water in Wallaceburg nine days after the accident. Testing is not the problem. Following through by setting standards that will protect the environment, and enforcing them, is the real necessity if we are to clean up the environment.

There are opportunities if the province would follow through seriously on them. The phosphate deposit at Cargill in northern Ontario is one such opportunity. Inco could recover and use its sulphur to exploit the phosphate deposits and make fertilizer. In this way, acid-rain-causing emissions would be reduced and a new industry developed in northern Ontario.

Another area worthy of government intervention is insurance. I want to speak particularly about accident and sickness insurance. Ontario has an absurd mishmash of different compensation schemes to provide for medical costs, wage loss replacement, rehabilitation and general damages when people suffer traumatic, disabling accidents. This system, or lack of system, is inefficient, unfair, arbitrary, costly, and fails to deliver needed help to the bulk of the injured population.

All experts agree: Terry Ison of Osgoode Hall, Patrick Atiyah, the British lawyer, and the US scholar Jeffrey O'Connor. The only proponents of continued reliance on the so-called tort liability system, under which those who suffer injuries should be obliged to show fault and collect after legal judgement, are the insurance companies and trial lawyers who benefit by making a living from the existing muddle. Some of them even have QCs.

The fundamental defect of our accident compensation system is that it simply does not deliver protection to those who are disabled temporarily or for ever by injuries. Since 1920, Ontario has had a scheme to compensate workers for injuries on the job. However, if the worker slips and falls just outside the work place, no compensation can be gained except in instances where some form of liability can be established, and after the cost and delay of legal action, an award for damages is secured.

Nearly 75 per cent of all accidental injuries are not work-related, nearly 80 per cent of the work force does not enjoy any provision for loss of income protection in the short term, and some 55 per cent of those who are significantly injured in traffic accidents get no compensation.

The muddle of acts in the compensation scheme is bureaucratic and costly. We have workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, sickness benefits, Canadian pension plan disability benefits, family benefits, private sick leave plans, private disability coverage, auto insurance accident benefits, criminal injuries compensation, veterans' pensions and allowances, the guaranteed annual income system for the disabled and private sickness and accident insurance.

The solution to this unfair and inefficient mess is to introduce a universal sickness and accident scheme such as the New Democratic Party has favoured since 1972. I know my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) is one of the biggest boosters of this scheme. I am sure the members will hear more from him on it.

The scheme was introduced in New Zealand in 1974, I believe, and has worked well to provide prompt, fair and efficient compensation. All victims of traumatic injury are eligible for wage loss payments, rehabilitation and adjustment assistance, such as the cost of converting a house, a car, etc., for wheelchair access.

This long-overdue comprehensive social insurance scheme should be seriously considered now that the Slater report on insurance has proposed that improved accident benefit and wage loss protection for motorists be followed by working to design a universal accident compensation plan that would include compensation for all accidental injuries.

The NDP does not want this scheme introduced by the private insurance industry. We insist that this should be an actual and short-term priority rather than one pursued "ideally and as a medium-term objective," which is in the Slater report.

I urge members to read the appendix in the Slater report, which has a separate

section on the New Zealand scheme. It outlines all the benefits of that scheme. But the report itself does not recommend implementation of that scheme, I suspect because of an insurance industry bias from the committee.

As proposed in our policy, a social insurance scheme must compensate all those who are disabled and not just those who are disabled by traumatic accidents. It is scandalous that our social insurance schemes and income assistance programs discriminate so cruelly between those who are unable to work because they are disabled, including those congenitally disabled, and those who are unable to work because they are elderly. A single, elderly person may receive up to $714 in old age security, guaranteed income supplement and the guaranteed annual income system,

whereas the single, disabled person will not get more than $551, including the maximum shelter subsidy on Gains-D. The difference of $163, or 23 per cent less, is for being unable to work on account of disability instead of for not being able to work on account of age.

I hope the government will take a serious look at a comprehensive sickness and accident scheme. I might add that if it will make the government members feel any better the most recent convert to this scheme is the Ontario Mining Association, which, I believe has asked the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to establish a royal commission to take a look at exactly that kind of scheme.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Patrick Reid.

Mr. Laughren: Patrick Reid et al have asked that this be done.

I hasten to say to the Treasurer that it may have different reasons for wanting this system put in place than I do, nevertheless the Ontario Mining Association quite categorically has requested that a royal commission be struck to take a look at this. I think it would be a worthwhile royal commission.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Does the member have any suggestions for staffing?

Mr. Laughren: Yes, I have lots of suggestions for staffing, but I do not think this is the proper time or place for giving names. Any time the minister wants to consult on who should be the chairman of such a commission, I will be glad to co-operate.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have not seen many senior democratic socialists lying around with nothing to do.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Laughren: No, but there could be. I do know that this will require a certain amount of intervention in the marketplace, particularly in the mar