Hansard Transcript 1987-Nov-24 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1988, and with the revisions therein noted, recommends them to the Legislative Assembly; signed by the Honourable Lincoln Alexander.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the members that today I am laying upon the table the annual report of the Provincial Auditor of Ontario for the year ended March 31, 1987.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: Many members may be aware that the Ontario branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is hosting the 12th Canadian regional parliamentary seminar. We have representatives from the federal Parliament, all the Canadian legislatures except Alberta’s and the two territories. These distinguished guests are seated in the west public gallery, and I would ask the members to join me in welcoming them to the assembly.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

INJURED WORKERS

Mr. Laughren: Two years ago, in 1985, efforts were made to establish an injured workers’ rehabilitation program in the Sudbury area. The feeling was that workers could be dealt with close to their homes and they would be back to work sooner as well.

In the following year, 1986, a feasibility study was done that showed the program was feasible, desirable and cost-effective. In 1987, detailed proposals were developed, a board of directors was struck and arrangements were made with Laurentian Hospital to establish it there.

In June 1987, a meeting was held with the former Minister of Labour, the chairman of the Workers’ Compensation Board, the regional chairman from Sudbury and local members to work out details. It was agreed that this project would receive a very high priority indeed.

Then, in August 1987, the project was rejected unilaterally and arbitrarily by the Workers’ Compensation Board. It said that it was not cost-effective, despite the fact that even if workers get back to work four days earlier, it is cost-effective for the board.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that injured workers in Sudbury, the regional municipality, Laurentian Hospital and the board of the injured workers’ rehab program all feel betrayed by both the Workers’ Compensation Board and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara). He should get off his duff and get this program back on the rails.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: In the last year or so, we in this House have heard a great deal about the merits of government-run auto insurance from the official opposition. While we may share the concerns of the official opposition about increased rates and the hardship they may cause, we definitely do not believe in creating another government bureaucracy to deal with the problem.

It is interesting to note that the two provinces most often quoted by the New Democratic Party with respect to government-run auto insurance have both just released their figures for the past year. In British Columbia, due to large losses by that province’s auto agency, rates for individual drivers increased on average by 22 per cent. Let me repeat that. The average increase for drivers in British Columbia will be 22 per cent.

In Manitoba, the favourable example quoted by the official opposition, we learn that the government scheme lost -- and I repeat lost -- a grand total of $50 million last year. That means increases for those drivers in Manitoba are expected to average well over 25 per cent to make up for this shortfall.

As I said from the outset, we need some regulatory changes in the way we do business in this province in respect of protecting drivers but we do not need, as proved by the facts I have given the members today, government-run auto insurance.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Owen: I rise today to bring attention to a matter of serious concern to many residents in the city of Barrie and across the province.

On Sunday, December 27, the Georgian Mall in Barrie will apparently open all its small stores for business as usual. This unfortunate decision was made by the owners of the mall, Cadillac Fairview, notwithstanding objections from individual store owners and their employees. Cadillac Fairview is exploiting a loophole in the Retail Business Holidays Act that allows a store to open on Sunday if it had been closed on the preceding Saturday. In this instance, the preceding Saturday is Boxing Day.

It is indeed sad that the employees of these stores will be forced to cut short an already brief Christmas holiday to satisfy the greed of a large corporation. Many will be forced to alter holiday travel plans or cancel long-standing family commitments. Two other large Barrie malls, Hayfield and Kozlov, have indicated their opposition to opening on the Sunday but will be forced to open if Georgian Mall opens.

On Christmas Sunday we should hear the jingle of sleigh bells, not the jingle of a cash register. Cadillac Fairview is reviving the image of Scrooge, and its next words will probably be: “Christmas? Humbug.” They may be legally right but certainly are morally and ethically wrong, and I appeal to the minister to correct the loophole in the legislation and to Cadillac Fairview to reconsider what it is doing.

1340

LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION

Mr. Allen: Whatever one thinks of the recent contract won by McDonald’s Canada to place the big M alongside the spires of Kremlin Square and the Imperial Palace in Leningrad, there is surely a lesson in that for the Ontario government and for educators in this province.

McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada won this contract not just because it was a Canadian submission -- although that had something to do with it -- but also because it was the one institution in the McDonald’s chain that could provide 50 staff to man the new development in the Russian language.

A recent presidential commission in the United States has attacked the failure of language instruction in the United States for many blunders in diplomacy and many missed opportunities in international trade, and perhaps Ontario should note that most of these employees came from western Canada, not from Ontario.

Ontario has immense language resources, which it can squander or which it can develop to enhance our global presence in trade, aid and diplomacy. By not moving boldly to incorporate heritage languages into the school day or by developing such school institutions as bilingual schools for major language groups in Ontario, the Liberal government and indeed educators in Ontario who resist this trend are missing many good opportunities for us and also impoverishing our future in an important way.

EASTERN ONTARIO ECONOMIC OUTLOOK CONFERENCE

Mr. Villeneuve: Yesterday the second annual Eastern Ontario Economic Outlook Conference was held at the conference centre in Ottawa. I attended as an interested member of this Legislature and found it to be a most informative conference which brought together representatives from eastern Ontario cities, towns and rural municipalities, along with people from the business sector.

Speakers from the private sector, different ministry representatives and the federal government were on hand to further explain their involvement in supporting and promoting eastern Ontario. I was pleased to see several federal members of Parliament attending, participating and showing interest and concern regarding the plight of eastern Ontario municipalities and businesses.

However, I was most disappointed, as were the people present at this conference, to note there were no Liberal members present at all. Heaven knows, there must be enough of them around, they could have found one or two to attend. However, they did not.

The Ontario government has announced, with a great deal of fanfare, that it now has regional caucuses to listen to concerns and problems from different regions, particularly from eastern Ontario. This, in my opinion, is the one gathering where elected members of this assembly should have been present.

I believe this goes one step further in proving the total lack of interest and concern by this Liberal government for eastern Ontario. Lipservice is all we get. This government should be ashamed of the way it is treating those areas away from Toronto.

CHRISTMAS TURKEYS

Mr. Callahan: I rise on a matter of great importance, to speak on behalf of the turkeys of this country. I read in no less impressive a column than that of Orland French that there is a party in this country that is going after those turkeys.

Mr. Mackenzie: They’re gobbling them up.

Mr. Callahan: Gobbling them up; thank you very much. They intend to gather up those turkeys and deprive others of turkey for Christmas. Those of us who do not have $100 to contribute for the turkey sale by that renowned party will have to hide our turkeys.

All I can say is, “Turkeys, rise up; don’t let them do it to you.”

EDUCATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am sure the Tories feel they have been basted again.

There is a conference on inner-city schools taking place that is again reinforcing the fact that poor kids in our society get streamed lower, have higher drop-out rates and in fact our education system continues to fail them. But the new news that is out is more disturbing still, and that is that French immersion programs in inner-city schools tend to reinforce class stratification and that kids who arefrom working-class families tend to be moved out of those courses whereas kids from middle-class families get to have their benefit.

I would hope that the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) would look at this and take some remedial action to make sure the upward mobility that can come from a bilingual capacity is given to young poor kids as well as to the middle class.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CANADIAN INSURANCE EXCHANGE

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I wish to inform the House that the Canadian Insurance Exchange will cease its operations and work with the Ontario Development Corp. in an orderly phasing out of its affairs.

In 1982, the then government announced a plan to appoint an insurance exchange advisory committee, which in 1983 submitted a report favourable to implementing a Canadian Insurance Exchange. That government appointed the Insurance Exchange Implementation Committee in January 1985. In December 1986, legislation enabling the creation of the exchange received royal assent.

Unfortunately, the Canadian Insurance Exchange has not received sufficient binding commitments from individuals or companies willing to make an investment in an insurance syndicate. Without such firm commitments, we felt we could no longer continue government loan guarantees, and I informed the exchange of this decision.

Primarily, it appears the international reinsurance business cycle is at a point when there is apparent capacity to deal with existing reinsurance needs. In addition, we have witnessed the creation and licensing of four large reciprocal insurers and the arranging of self-insurance schemes in Ontario.

A further deterrent to participation in the CIE may well be the recent syndicate failures and bankruptcies at the New York Insurance Exchange and difficulties being encountered at the Miami Insurance Exchange.

I am today tabling in the House financial material relating to the expenditures of the Canadian Insurance Exchange.

Let me also add that while the operations of the exchange are now being concluded, the enabling legislation for such an exchange remains in place in the event that market conditions change in the future.

RESPONSES

CANADIAN INSURANCE EXCHANGE

Mr. Swart: I am not sure that anyone is going to shed any great tears about the winding down of the existing insurance exchange, which has not been very successful. However, I want to point out to the minister that the need for domestic reinsurance in this nation is very great. There is still something like $1 billion going out of this nation each year on reinsurance.

I suggest to the minister that he should be devising a local reinsurance scheme with whatever mechanisms are necessary to bring it about, so that money does not leave this country, so that reinsurance money can be invested here and work for the people of this province and the people of this nation.

Mr. Runciman: I have just a brief comment in response to the Minister of Financial Institution’s (Mr. R. F. Nixon) statement about the Canadian Insurance Exchange. It is really rather a dramatic change and, in my view, raises some serious questions of credibility in terms of the insurance companies’ claims of a year and a half ago and, I believe, to some extent the Slater commission recommendations and conclusions as well.

A year and a half ago we were told we were in an insurance liability crisis across North America. Certainly, according to Slater and to many of the insurance companies in this province, one of the primary reasons for that so-called crisis was the inability to obtain offshore reinsurance.

Now the minister is coming to us and in the one paragraph he is saying it appears that the international reinsurance business is at a point where there is apparent capacity to deal with existing needs. That has to strike us as peculiar only a year and a half after this continent was in the midst of an insurance crisis. It raises some very serious questions. We hope the minister is going to be forthcoming with answers in the next few days.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister no doubt will have had a chance to read the report of the Provincial Auditor, which I think is one of the most eloquent and devastating indictments of community health programs and the problems facing our psychiatric patients in the province.

In responding to this strong indictment of the care, the problems in the institutions themselves, the fact that there are people in institutions who should not be there, the lack of community care, the lack of standards with respect to privately licensed facilities, I wonder in particular if the minister can confirm the finding of the Provincial Auditor that because of shortages in facilities some residential care homes were permitted to operate despite failing to comply with the conditions of their licences. Can she confirm if that is true?

1350

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have just had a brief opportunity to review the auditor’s findings. I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am in agreement with a number of the auditor’s recommendations. I share his concerns for the state of the psychiatric hospitals. We are committed to increasing the level of community-based services.

I believe that in the past two years we have begun to make progress. The auditor does point that out in his report, and I know that was drawn to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition.

We have begun, as the auditor noted, to increase the number of community-based support services and supportive housing programs. While I believe we have made significant progress, I will agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we do have a long way to go.

Mr. B. Rae: Let us be very clear on this. If I can refer for example to one problem, the auditor does say that some steps are being taken with respect to housing. Specifically, can the minister give us the assurance that she will be announcing new programs to address what can only be described as fundamental flaws in the system with respect to mental health? Can she give us the assurance that these programs will be announced before Christmas?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me assure the Leader of the Opposition that I believe our record over the past two years speaks clearly to our commitment. We have only begun to demonstrate that commitment to provide an appropriate balance of care for both psychiatric hospitals, units in general hospitals and community-based resources.

We have announced just recently a doubling of funds for community mental health programs as well as addiction and drug abuse programs. I believe we have some models that we have just begun to bring forward. I am hoping to have some announcements in the very near future, but I cannot commit at this time that they will be made by Christmas.

Mr. B. Rae: The problem I am having with the minister’s answers is that what she seems to be finding in the auditor’s report is a statement that the government is on the right track. What I find in the auditor’s report is a very strong, effective indictment of practices which extend well back prior to 1985, but many of which have continued since 1985.

Specifically, can the minister tell us what new programs she is going to introduce to ensure that patients are no longer in psychiatric institutions when they could be in the community? Can she tell us that community services will be there in terms of housing and rehabilitation to ensure that patients are not simply left on their own to wander around the streets of Toronto, Sarnia or any other part of the community? Can she give us the assurance that these programs will be announced prior to Christmas because of the urgency that is contained in the auditor’s report released today?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am not prepared today, nor do I think it would be appropriate, to accept criticism for anything that has occurred within this ministry beyond the past two and a half years. I think the auditor did note that we are making progress, and we have taken significant steps forward in this area recently.

I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that we announced that community mental health programs would be doubled over the next three years to $130 million. I am personally committed to ensuring that the programs we bring forward respond exactly to what the auditor has mentioned today.

I share with the Leader of the Opposition his concern. I believe we are going in the right direction. We have brought together a community mental health advisory committee to look at the allocation of those resources so that we could have community input.

The person who was announced was Robert Graham, who has served as chairman of the district health councils over the years, and I believe his input and that of his committee will be valuable as we allocate those resources.

I also want to involve the DHCs so that the communities that are most involved will be able to assist us in ensuring that we meet the needs of those within the mental health communities.

ACID RAIN

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Can he explain why the auditor found that the emissions from the four largest contributors to acid rain in the province were not being verified by the Ministry of the Environment?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We have used a system which is looking at the figures that are produced by the four specific companies involved and verifying those figures. As a result of the initial contacts the auditor has made with our ministry to draw this to our attention, we are now implementing a system whereby we will visit the companies periodically without notice and seize samples of either the fuel or the ore for analysis of the sulphur content.

In addition to that, it is our intention to engage what I refer to as a scientific or engineering firm, independent of the Ministry of the Environment, which will assess the method of verification utilized in this and other systems, and we will be implementing the recommendations of that particular firm.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister has, as usual, woollied over the fact that the auditor states very specifically and clearly that the ministry has not been verifying the emissions from the four largest polluters in the province with respect to acid gas emissions. Given the fact the government does not have this independent capacity when the minister makes statements such as consistently saying how well things are going with respect to acid gas emissions and how things are moving along, can he confirm that when he has made those statements he has been relying entirely on information supplied to him by the polluters themselves?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the Leader of the Opposition would likely know, the government assesses all the information which is provided to it by these companies and does its calculations to determine whether or not they are in compliance. If the member were to compare that method with other methods that are used in other jurisdictions, he would find that it is similar. I have always considered the auditor’s report to be significant for this reason: what is important is that at the very first suggestion by the auditor that he felt the system utilized was not adequate, we began to take those steps to implement that system.

I should also mention to the Leader of the Opposition -- and I think he would recognize this --that as the acid rain program is implemented, the reporting mechanism at the present time is involved in determining which method will be used by Inco, Falconbridge, Algoma and Ontario Hydro to actually put in place a program which will reduce those emissions. The working part, as I call it, or the implementation part of that program does not take place until after December 1988.

Mrs. Grier: Members of this House have heard the minister on very many occasions boast about “the strictness of our Countdown Acid Rain program” and excoriate the federal government and urge it to bring pressure on the government of the United States in order that the US would begin to be as good as Ontario. Does the minister not agree that the comments of the Provincial Auditor seriously undercut those kinds of assertions by this government, and can he assure the House he will take immediate action to make the corrections the Provincial Auditor is suggesting?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: To answer the second question first, I can assure the member that in fact the action that is being taken is not immediate action; it has already taken place, we were already into that.

As the member may know, with this process there are some initial contacts that are made with each of the ministries, drawing to the attention of the ministries some concerns the Provincial Auditor might have. As soon as those contacts are made on any items the auditor expressed concern about, we would begin to implement that, and so we have. I think the member’s suggestion is wise, and I have already complied with that suggestion of beginning those steps.

Second, keeping in mind that our program is a future program, I want to underline to the member that they are developing their strategies now. The really important monitoring aspect of this, of course, that people are going to be looking to is when Inco, Falconbridge, Algoma and Ontario Hydro all come forward with their specific programs. We do have the time to put in place the kind of program the auditor has suggested, because the implementation of that will not take place until at least 1989.

1400

Mr. Brandt: On the same question, the Minister of the Environment has indicated in this House that by 1994 it is the intention of his ministry to have reduced sulphur dioxide emissions by in excess of 50 per cent. Since the minister is not monitoring on a direct basis the four largest emitters of sulphur dioxide, and since it would appear that even though he has increased staff he does not have the wherewithal to investigate these particular emissions that are going on on a regular basis, how can he stand up and indicate to us with any degree of certainty that we will meet that 1994 deadline, recognizing as well that the minister does not have the vaguest idea of what technology those companies are going to use between now and 1994? He does not even know whether it will work, is not checking it and has no idea what the reductions are.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is why we have the periodic reporting on the development, to go to the second part of the member’s question first, because he has drawn this particular report into his question. I think in fairness to him, he is looking at two different aspects of it.

Second, as to how I know it will work, one of the things we wrote into the regulation that was a key part of it -- I think the acid rain committee which consisted of all members of the House reviewed that regulation very carefully, as the member will recall, and made recommendations on it -- was that we would be looking on a periodic basis. For instance, since the program is in effect they have to report every half year on the progress they are making and on the various kinds of technologies they are trying to develop. In fact, this particular week another reporting took place. Information was released. When I saw what they were doing, as the minister I asked them to look at other areas as well.

I think the member makes a valid point. What he does not want, as the leader of a party and as a man who is concerned about this, is that they look only at one specific option, because if that option did not prove to be viable, we would have the contention that it could not be implemented by 1994. For that reason, I can say to the member for Sarnia that we are --

Mr. Speaker: Order; supplementary.

Mr. Brandt: I have a whole series of questions but I find it very difficult to go on to the other questions in light of the fact that we are still in a very circuitous way avoiding the answer to the first question I raised. So I will go back to the first question, in fairness to the minister.

He does not have the technology and does not know what the technology is going to be and he has established standards that require a reduction of 50 per cent or more by 1994. Since he is not inspecting the cuts that are being made now or that he hopes are being made now with respect to the four largest polluters in the province, will the minister indicate how we can depend on the minister’s word that he is going to meet the 1994 deadline? We are dealing with a whole series of unanswered questions, one of the most fundamental of which is that he is not doing any inspections today.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The first comment I will make on the cuts is that he said about the cuts having been --

Mr. Brandt: By 1994; in excess of 50 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: By 1994; he makes the point that we have ordered these cuts and we are not monitoring these cuts. What I want to say to the member for Sarnia is that these significant cuts called for in the Countdown Acid Rain program are cuts that will take place after the four major polluters have brought to us -- in December 1988 for three of them and January 1989 for the other one -- their program which they can implement for the reduction of acid rain.

There are many technologies that are known today. For instance, if we look at Ontario Hydro, one of them is a scrubber technology that is known. One of the technologies is limestone injection. They can look at conservation, purchases from adjacent provinces and so on. I will not go on in great detail. They can look at all those particular options. We will be able -- I would like to give the auditor credit -- to improve on the ability to be able to check on those emissions at that point in time.

Mr. Brandt: Out of frustration, I will move on to another supplementary based on the same report. The auditor indicates that there were some 12,000 complaints directed to the ministry from various citizens across this great province of ours.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Brandt: It is still on the auditor’s report, ask, but I thank him for it. I thank him for the so it is a genuine supplementary related to the diatribe, I really do same question and the same ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Mr. Brandt: I would like to ask the minister why his staff is not following up on those 12,000 complaints.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member has, inadvertently of course, misrepresented that part of the auditor’s report.

Mr. Brandt: I did not say all 12,000; I said, of the 12,000.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member said 12,000. I heard the member say 12,000. I know he did not mean that. He would not have meant the 12,000. No, I said he inadvertently misrepresented it.

Mr. Sterling: You can’t say he misrepresented it. You can’t say that.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: He would never, even inadvertently, misrepresent it.

Mr. Speaker: Response?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Anyway, what I want to indicate to him is, to improve upon the system that I inherited from the member for Sarnia, what we have done-

Mr. Brandt: We always followed up on the complaints.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: No. What we have done is, we have instituted a computerized system which now allows us the opportunity to --

Mr. Brandt: We had that before. You didn’t institute that.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In this specific case, that is so. We have done three things and the member asks what those three things are.

First of all, we have implemented a new computerized system which allows us to keep track of all the complaints and the follow-up. That is one advantage.

Mr. Brandt: If you have it all under control, then I will just let it ride.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member may object to this -- l do not think the official opposition will -- but the second thing is that we now conduct a quarterly review of all of these operations to ensure that they are progressing as they should. I think we made progress in addressing this particular problem.

Mr. Brandt: I think I will try another ministry, Mr. Speaker, and I do so because the long litany of responses that I received from the minister all had to do with questions that I did not ask, but I thank him for it. I thank him for the diatribe, I really do.

Mr. Speaker: A question to which ministry?

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: My question is a very simple one for the Solicitor General, whom I see writing vigorously over there, if I can get her attention for a moment. Will the Solicitor General indicate whether it is accurate that she indicated outside of this House yesterday she would close the loophole relating to December 27, the controversial Sunday opening suggested by some major department stores? Will she also confirm that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said quite the opposite, that he would not close the loophole? Who is right and what is she going to do and when?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I think there was a good deal of confusion on everybody’s part, among the reporters, as to exactly what the loophole was and I was explaining to them that indeed the loophole could be closed. I did not say whether it would be closed; simply that it could be closed.

Mr. Runciman: That is a shocking revelation. We have here the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail. The Toronto Star says, “Ontario to close Sunday opening loophole,” and the Globe says, “Ontario won’t close the loophole.” What the Solicitor General is saying here is that really the paper that is recognized as the unofficial government organ is wrong, and that is certainly tough to swallow.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Runciman: I want to bring to the minister’s attention suggestions made by the Progressive Conservative task force on Sunday shopping, which recommended that shopping be allowed the three Sundays before Christmas and that shopping be permitted on Boxing Day. Our party believes those to be sensible solutions to this problem. Will the minister agree to bring forward these amendments in time for this holiday season?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member opposite will be glad to know that we are addressing this problem, as I said to the media people yesterday. The report of the three-party select committee that brought in recommendations is being dealt with. That is the report that is being dealt with. It is presently going through the cabinet committee system and will be looked at very shortly, as will the loophole that was brought forward by Cadillac Fairview and that we acknowledged does exist.

1410

Mr. Cureatz: I would like to bring to the minister’s attention that in terms of my research there appear to be a number of Liberal back-benchers who indeed are supportive of Sunday shopping in Metro Toronto. They include the member for Don Mills (Mr. Velshi), the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter), the member for Scarborough Centre (Miss Nicholas) and the member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon). I am wondering if the minister would be so kind as to respond yes or no: is she supportive of those specific Liberal back-benchers who are in favour of Sunday shopping in Metro Toronto or is she against them?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would be glad to point out to the member that indeed back-benchers can have their own views and often do have their own views. He will be well aware that I, as a back-bencher in my previous years, was a member of the select committee. He will know, since it was a unanimous report, where I stood at that time on that committee. He may also be well aware that it is now being thoroughly studied by the cabinet committees and those who provide them with legal advice. We will come forward with a decision from the government that he may be sure I will support.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister has stated publicly his concern about Hydro spending habits and the level of the Hydro debt. In the light of the view of the Ontario Energy Board that Hydro’s spending is out of control and its recommendation that Hydro strive to pay down its total debt and reduce future borrowing requirements, is he satisfied with Hydro’s response to that recommendation, wherein essentially it said, “We’re already doing that”?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I would like to thank the honourable member for asking me such a direct and I think valid question since it has been on many Ontarians’ minds in recent weeks and months since the election. The member and the House will be pleased to hear that today I met with the chairman, the president and three of the executive vice-presidents of Ontario Hydro and we specifically looked at the financial data, as opposed to many other areas we might have investigated today.

At the present time, I can assure the House that when we look at the debt picture of Hydro, while the numbers are large, relative to other provinces we are one of the lowest. Looking at the future outlook for Hydro, it would appear that the debt ratio is on the decline, so l can assure the member that we believe Hydro is running its debt strategy on a sound financial basis.

Mr. Charlton: It would appear the minister has had one meeting with Hydro officials and all of a sudden has changed his view about the problems around Hydro’s debt. On the other hand, the Ontario Energy Board, which spent months of cross-examination of Hydro officials and other witnesses, has taken exactly the opposite point of view in its report, saying Hydro’s debt and spending habits are out of control.

We also have information that has been out there publicly for some months regarding Hydro’s plans to propose the next nuclear plant in this province. Is the minister aware that another Darlington plant in this province will add $15 billion-plus to Hydro’s debt?

Does the minister find that approach acceptable, or is he prepared to tell the House today that there will be no more nuclear plants in this province in his effort to see that Hydro’s debt does not increase by two thirds yet again?

Hon. Mr. Wong: There are really three questions there. First, I have met with Hydro on more than just this occasion, and certainly our officials have been in touch with them on a continuing basis.

Second, as the member knows, one of the finest rating services in North America has given Ontario Hydro a triple-A rating.

Third, before we can make any decision on nuclear generation plants, we have to get a long-range supply-and-demand picture based on electricity in the other energy forms. Before we make a proper decision, we have to wait for that decision.

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Mr. Harris: In 1985, the Liberal-NDP accord committed the government to changes to broaden the powers of the standing committee on public accounts and the Provincial Auditor. Mr. Archer, the Provincial Auditor, has indicated that he could do his job better if he could issue quarterly rather than annual reports and if the auditor’s office were given the right to make special reports whenever it sees fit.

In the absence of half the cabinet, my question to the Treasurer and Deputy Premier, without walls or barriers, is: When is he going to honour his 1985 commitment to broaden the power of the Provincial Auditor?

Given the increase in the size of the government, the tremendous growth in government spending, the current imbalance between the resources of the government and the resources of the opposition parties, when will he bring forward legislation, as he promised, to amend the Audit Act to provide for quarterly reports and special investigations?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Just perusing the report, as it has come to my attention in the last few minutes, it is a very excellent one indeed. The Provincial Auditor, if he were here to speak for himself, would surely say that the funding --

Mr. Wildman: He is.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There he is.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: He cannot speak, although he is very welcome, and we appreciate his being here.

His funding for the provision of broad service audits of all ministries and many agencies of the government is completely unimpeded and he has the resources he feels he should have.

As for giving more regular reports to the Legislature, I see no objection to that. I think in reading his own references here he talks about the kinds of delays in those matters from the Legislature and from governments in the past, and I hope we can come up with something that is an improvement. As a matter of fact, I think the last improvement was when the Honourable Darcy McKeough was Treasurer of the province; there was quite an extensive revision and, in fact, new legislation. We are still working on that, and I think the results are excellent.

We certainly want to continue with that tradition of improving the accountability of the government of Ontario through the offices of the Provincial Auditor. The answer is, some time soon.

Mr. Harris: Obviously it is not something that has even been discussed or thought about by this government over the last two years. This is the government that recently campaigned that it did what it said it would do. In 1985, this is what the government said it would do. In 1986, this is what the auditor said he required.

I looked at this report -- I have not had time to go through it all, but I am sure there are some scandalous things in it. I did have the opportunity to note on page 164 that the amount of money that goes through Management Board of Cabinet -- in other words, not through the regular appropriation system -- in 1984 was $267 million; in 1985, probably because some government moved into place, it moved to $580 million; now it is almost $1 billion. This amount of money comes from a government that has apparently no control at all over spending.

One of the vehicles is this particular one. The Treasurer promised it in 1985 in the accord, and we have not heard anything on it since. I would ask the Treasurer again, is he serious about this, and when is he going to comply with the auditor’s request and bring in amendments to the Audit Act?

1420

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member will know that on page 5 -- and I have actually got to page 7 myself -- the auditor says:

“We do, however, acknowledge situations which we believe are indicative of particularly good administration. This report contains a number of such instances. For example:

“The province’s expenditure for goods and services amounted to $1.9 billion in 1987. In a government-wide review of the payments system we found that administrative control over payments was good and that the system, in all material respects, was operating in accordance with government policies and procedures (section 3.3).”

GREENACRES HOME FOR THE AGED

Mr. Beer: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The minister is aware of the concern in my riding of York North, indeed in the whole of York region, regarding the future of Greenacres Home for the Aged, which is currently operated by Metropolitan Toronto. Will the minister indicate to the House what discussions are currently under way regarding the future use of this important facility?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Greenacres home in York region has pretty close to 400 residents. It is presently maintained and operated by Metro. Metro has been concerned that its residents should receive that kind of service within the boundaries of Metro itself. Our ministry has therefore given Metro approval to build two smaller homes, one in Scarborough and one in Etobicoke, to meet that particular need. We expect that will be completed within the next couple of years.

In the meantime, all the residents of Greenacres will continue to receive the service that they have now. There are ongoing discussions between our ministry, York region and Metro as to the future disposition of Greenacres. The sense we have at the present time is that York region will take it over and use it either completely for a home for the aged, or partially for a home for the aged, or for outreach services to their elderly community, or for a variety of those reasons. Those discussions go on today, are continuing to go on, and my sense is that there is no particular hitch in those discussions.

Mr. Beer: The minister will be aware that one of the concerns of the workers at Greenacres is in terms of the job situation several years down the road. Will the minister undertake to ensure that in these future discussions which he says are now ongoing, Metro will be asked to give current employees of Greenacres first right of refusal when these two new facilities in Metropolitan Toronto are staffed?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It is my understanding that the approximately 600 employees at Greenacres come under the bargaining unit of all Metro employees and that it would be a requirement, if they were displaced from their existing jobs, that they would have to be given an opportunity for the first available job for which they were qualified. We have discussed that with Metro, and it is our clear understanding that that opportunity would be made available to them.

With the building of two new homes in Metro, with the maintenance of Greenacres in some form providing some services, the 600 employees could be reasonably sure that their long-term employment would be guaranteed either in Metro or in York region. That has not been finalized yet. These are still employees of Metro, and Metro is still responsible for their long-term employment. As I understand it, York region is prepared to negotiate that long-term settlement with them.

INCINERATOR

Mrs. Wrier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. He will be relieved to know it does not relate to the Provincial Auditor’s report but to a more pressing and urgent matter here in Metropolitan Toronto.

Last March, the minister announced that an energy-from-waste incinerator proposed by Trintek Systems for the south Riverdale area of Toronto would be designated under the Environmental Assessment Act, but the regulation implementing that commitment has not yet been passed by cabinet. This has resulted in very great uncertainty for the members of the community and in very great pressure being exerted by Trintek on all concerned in order to have the regulation weakened. Can the minister assure the House that nothing less than a full environmental assessment will be required for the Trintek operation?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member would be aware that, unlike the other proposals that would be coming forth, the Trintek proposal was put before the government before we had a policy which would require private sector --

Mrs. Grier: Same day.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: No. That application had been made previously. It had been brought to the government’s attention previous to that. I am not saying that is going to influence, I just want to get some history into this.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Then why raise it?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Because I want to put some history into this. The history is, first of all, that proposal was made to the government previous to that policy being announced by the government.

I have indicated in the House in the past and to questions from the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) that we would want to have an environmental assessment of that particular proposal, because it is a significant proposal, and that the regulation would be one -- and there was an attempt to sit down with the various people who are interested in this particular proposal -- that would be satisfactory to the people residing in the area. There was a major effort made in that direction.

I think there was an anticipation that there was some kind of agreement at one time and, subsequent to that, people have at this time said it was not satisfactory to them. The regulation which cabinet will approve will be one that will take all of those factors into consideration, and I want to tell the member that we want to have as strict an environmental regulatory regime as possible in dealing with this particular matter.

Mr. Reville: I have a terribly sick feeling in the pit of my stomach, and I think the citizens in south Riverdale must have it too.

The history of this project is documented in a letter to the minister from Trintek dated November 3, and it talks about a “scoped process,” which is some curious jargon which means less than full environmental assessment, I warrant.

Will there or will there not be a full environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: When the member talks about the scoped process, all that refers to --

Mr. Villeneuve: History again.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is not history; it is a definition the member has brought to the attention of the House. When one talks about the scoped process -- I listen to members in this Legislative Assembly, including a number of people who are environmentalists, who talk about the delays that take place around Ontario --

Mrs. Grier: The delays are in your ministry.

Mr. B. Rae: Anybody who isn’t an environmentalist, stand up right now.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: No, I am not being unkind --

Mr. Speaker: Disregard the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: -- but many people have expressed concern about the length of time that it takes for the environmental assessment process. Everybody has been attempting to find a method of putting in effect an environmental assessment that can take place in a reasonable period of time, and that is what we are attempting to do.

I share the member for Riverdale’s concern that we have an environmental assessment which will take into consideration everything that he would like to see taken into consideration. Simply, and I think he would agree with this, although I cannot speak for him, we would like to do it in a period of time which is effective.

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

Mr. Cureatz: I have a question to the Solicitor General, if I might get her attention for a moment.

In response to the question of my colleague and friend the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) last week, she indicated to him that she would not be supportive of a public inquiry into the carryings-on of the Niagara Regional Police force. If she is not supportive of such a public inquiry, would she at least make public the information, report and/or reports that she has or had in her possession so that we might find out the whole story instead of bits and pieces that are coming forward from some of the press in the area?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Indeed, I suffer from the same problem that the member does of reading incomplete reports and in fact not getting the whole story very clearly in this way. The first report did indeed say that the Niagara Regional Police Commission was going to release its investigation report, and I assumed it was going to do so. In fact, it has not done so and still has it in its own possession.

1430

Mr. Cureatz: The Solicitor General is responsible for the police forces across Ontario. We are looking to her for some direction and guidance. More specifically, we would like to point out that it appears the Niagara Regional Police force, among other things, has an unusual way of disposing of its confiscated weaponry in terms of its investigations and arrests.

I would like to point out that the Durham Regional Police force disposes of its confiscated weapons in a unique manner, by putting them in the blast furnaces of Lasco Steel. Does the minister support the alleged way in which the Niagara Regional Police force disposes of its confiscated weapons or does the minister support the method by which the Durham Regional Police force disposes of them? Would she not then have a public inquiry so that a policy can be set in regard to such weapons across Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: First, I would like to be as clear as I was the first day, that I have not yet said we will or will not have an inquiry. I have said from the beginning that there is a proper process to be followed. Namely, I did request the chairman of the police commission to get her chief of police to examine his own report and make up his mind whether or not he felt there were charges to be laid. It is obvious that if charges are to be laid, they should be laid by him, and this decision must be made before we can decide whether to have a public inquiry.

CANCER TREATMENT

Miss Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister will be aware that in March 1984 a role determination study that recommended a cancer treatment centre in Sudbury was approved by the Ministry of Health and that since that time all the plans and the functional program put forward by Laurentian Hospital have been approved by the ministry, and in fact, so has funding for that centre. In 1986, both the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the former Minister of Health personally endorsed the plans in letters to the regional chairman of Sudbury, and additional funding was granted by the ministry to the plan in 1986.

On November 6, 1987, as construction was about to begin, the executive director of the hospital and the oncology department were advised that the project was on hold for “budgetary reasons.” I would like to know from the minister why this has happened and when this project is going to start again.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: First, let me begin by saying I appreciate the question from the member for Sudbury East. I have been discussing the needs of the people of Sudbury and I am committed to the provision of first-class quality cancer-care treatment. I have also discussed this with the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell), in whose riding the hospital falls, and we have taken the opportunity to review those plans.

Let me say that I have some concerns about the scope of that facility and the ability to provide it as expeditiously as possible. That is why I asked the ministry to review it, so we can ensure that we can get on with the construction in as expeditious a fashion as possible.

Mr. Laughren: That is truly an outrageous response. There was a clear indication from the Premier and the previous Minister of Health that the centre was to go ahead. As a matter of fact, tenders were let and it is costing that hospital money now because of the shilly-shallying the minister is presently doing. Would the minister not give us a commitment here today that the project will proceed on time, as scheduled, and will not be downsized?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I will give the commitment today to the members from Sudbury on both sides of the House that as soon as the ministry has received a proposal which is within the scope of funding approved by the ministry, I am prepared to see that project go forward. I believe it is essential that we have a cancer treatment facility for the people in Sudbury as soon as possible. The ministry has made that commitment. I give the members my personal commitment, and we are going to ensure that it gets on as expeditiously as possible.

TRANSMISSION LINES

Mr. Runciman: This question is for the Minister of Energy. When it rains, it pours. I have a news release here, dated November 10, from Ontario Hydro, and I will quote.

Interjections.

Mr. Runciman: I will wait until the conversations are over.

I quote here from the minister: “Ontario Hydro will begin work on environmental studies to determine the best location for future transmission facilities west and southwest of London and if these facilities are required to meet growing demand for electricity in the Windsor, Chatham and Sarnia areas to the year 2000 and beyond.”

Is the minister willing to take Ontario Hydro’s word for the need for these facilities before he has even laid eyes on the demand-supply options study that Hydro has been promising for the last year?

Mr. Laughren: The member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell) said, “Don’t worry, it’s going through.” That’s not what you’re saying.

Mr. Speaker: Order, member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren). We are on to another question.

Hon. Mr. Wong: The Ministry of Energy is always reviewing these things with Hydro, but obviously it has to pass the Environmental Assessment Board also; so there are these built-in checks and controls, and that will help us to determine whether the line is truly needed or not.

Mr. Runciman: I have a tough time with that one. This is just another example of how Hydro appears to be having its way with the Liberal government. That party once criticized this utility for being a Goliath out of control, and Hydro is now telling us it needs to put more transmission lines through farmers’ fields and people’s backyards without giving us any proof whatsoever.

Will the minister exercise his authority over this monster on the loose, to use the words of his own Premier (Mr. Peterson), and put a freeze on its activities until it releases the demand-supply options study?

Hon. Mr. Wong: As indicated in my answer, we do have government systems in place right now. But to ensure that matters such as this and other matters that might concern the public are fully discussed, the government, in the throne speech, indicated that we want to have more public input in order to make Hydro a little more accountable to the new Ontario and to the people in the province of the late 1980s through to the year 2000.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr. Callahan: I have a question for the Attorney General. In today’s Toronto Star it was reported that recently the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denied compensation to the widow of a police officer who was killed, actually stabbed to death, by an ex-psychiatric patient while investigating a break-in in my riding. I have sent over to the Attorney General a copy of section 7 of the act, which seems to spell out the facts that the board is to review in deciding whether compensation will be awarded, and how much. I have also sent over to him a copy of section 25 of the act, which provides that the minister, along with a number of other people, may, on application to the board, ask it to vary its order.

Would the Attorney General review the facts and, if he considers it appropriate, exercise his powers under section 25 of the act?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member has been good enough to raise this with me before, but the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, which was amended last year and which was amended as a result of a number of useful suggestions made by both opposition parties, provides in section 7 that the compensation will include pecuniary loss incurred as a result of death. It looks from the press reports as if the workers’ compensation benefits, the insurance and other benefits accruing to this young widow put her in a position, in pecuniary terms, better than she would have been in if she had lived exclusively on her husband’s income. That may have been the decision that the board attempted to encapsulate in its judgement.

I am reluctant to outline any proposals that the government may have with respect to this act, and particularly this section, as I read in the same press report that an appeal is being taken.

Mr. Callahan: In light of subsection 7(2) of the act, which provides for damages that may be recovered in common law, and recognizing the fact that recently this government, in amendments to the Family Law Reform Act, provided for greater compensation for people who die in accidents, I would ask the minister perhaps to review it in that light and to determine whether in this instance there should not be some appropriate amendments made in order to avoid having a situation arise where police officers, who protect the society and carry out this very dangerous duty, are denied perhaps the same rights that are awarded very often to a felon who has been injured in the course of a crime.

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, we are always looking at ways to improve this legislation. I am very glad to have that suggestion and I will be glad to consider it.

1440

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Solicitor General. I must say immediately that I do not have a great deal of sympathy with her on her complaint about reading incomplete reports. I might point out that of the Solicitor General’s report on the Niagara Regional Police, two pages of a 240-page report were released and her Liberal government has refused to release the rest of it.

My question refers also to the leaked report of the chief as carried in this morning’s Globe and Mail. My question relates specifically to two sentences in that article: “In September 1986, the report said, two senior representatives of the Ontario Police Commission met with the Niagara Police Commission. One representative warned the Niagara Police Commission members that they might not be reappointed by the province if they continued creating public controversy at their meetings.”

Given the horrendous problems that have destroyed the credibility of the Niagara Regional Police over the last half-decade, why would her ministry threaten the commission in that manner when it is simply carrying out its duty as a reform commission?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would like to reassure the member for Welland-Thorold that I would agree with him that such a threat, if any threat were ever made to remove people from a police commission, should not come from the ministry and only should come from those who appoint, not those in the ministry end of things. I have already asked about this and I am inquiring into it. As far as the people I have spoken to in the ministry are concerned, this did not happen, but I am not satisfied and will continue to look into it to see if such a statement was in fact made. If indeed it was, if that person is still with us -- and it is quite possible he is not -- I will look into it.

Mr. Swart: I am glad to hear that but I must say she is rather slow in her investigation. I have already checked into it and found out that the statement is correct. The minister must realize the ramifications of that kind of statement by her senior officials, which is that the rule they operate by is that you do not create public controversy.

Does the minister not realize that this revelation brings into question the independence and credibility of the two major investigations that her ministry made into the Niagara Regional Police? Perhaps it was not just negligence or oversight that they did not find that cache of weapons although it was there all the time they were doing their investigation. Should that not in itself enforce the demand for the public inquiry requested by the Niagara Police Commission?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am assuming that the member for Welland-Thorold is now assuming that the inquiry they want is to be into that particular investigation. In fact, the present investigation they have just completed was done by their own choice by themselves. We await the results of that investigation. They have not yet released it so I cannot comment on whether or not it includes comments on the previous investigation. I await word from them as to whether they are going to lay charges. Until they make that decision, which as we see in today’s paper they say will be made in a day or so, we cannot prejudge whether the charges will be laid. As the member well knows, if charges are laid, we could not do an inquiry concurrently with the charges.

TRANSMISSION LINE

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. The minister now knows that the appeal to the cabinet of Ontario from a joint board hearing regarding the location of a hydro line through the community of Bridlewood in the city of Kanata has been before the cabinet of Ontario for over 10 months. The community association headed by Judith Hunter has requested a meeting with the minister to explain its position. Can he tell me why he will not meet with that group?

Hon. Mr. Wong: That is not true. I would have met with Mrs. Hunter when I was in Ottawa, but I understood from my staff that she was out of town. Second, this cabinet matter, this appeal, is more than just a simple cabinet decision; it has a judicial aspect to it. As a result, so that our thoughts are not biased one way or the other, it was important that I be careful in this matter and I so indicated to her. If she had preferred that I, as minister, met with her, I would have done so.

Mr. Sterling: The Minister of Energy should know that the Minister of Mines (Mr. Conway), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître), the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) -- perhaps I am wrong about the Attorney General -- the former Solicitor General, the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) have all met with Judith Hunter and this particular group.

Does that mean the cabinet will not be able to make a decision on that? Is that the reason the cabinet has delayed this decision for more than 10 months while the residents of Bridlewood continue to live in hope that this cabinet will once and for all send this matter back to the joint tribunal so that they can get a fair and prudent hearing? Will the minister promise to deal with this matter and give this community a fair hearing?

Hon. Mr. Wang: I can assure the House that this region of the province will certainly get a fair hearing and that the cabinet in due course will make and announce the appropriate decision.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr. Laughren: I want to go back to the Minister of Health once again on the Sudbury cancer treatment centre. In view of the fact that northeastern Ontario has the highest incidence of cancer in the province and that plans have already been made for future expansion of that facility, could the minister give me one, single reason why she is now talking about downsizing that project?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It is very clear that I have made the firm commitment today, as it has been made on previous occasions, that I am concerned about quality in the provision of care. I gave the direction to ministry officials to meet with Laurentian Hospital as expeditiously as they could, so we could get this project off the ground. It is my understanding that the ministry officials will be meeting with hospital staff this week, possibly even as early as tomorrow, so we can get on with the provision of a very badly needed facility, for which I believe the people of Sudbury have waited too long. I am anxious that the results of that meeting tomorrow will produce a plan so we can see a shovel in the ground as quickly as possible.

Miss Martel: There is no doubt we have waited long enough. We have waited too long. I cannot believe the minister can now tell us that, after the project has been approved, all the plans have been approved and the funding for this particular project, they have now been advised to put it on hold for budgetary reasons. I cannot believe it.

When the executive director of the hospital comes in tomorrow, what exactly is the minister going to advise her staff to tell him? Second, can she assure us there will be no downsizing of this project, because the funding and the plans have already been agreed to by the ministry?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me assure the members, as I have assured the member from the Sudbury area on this side of the House as well, that this plan will meet the needs of the people of Sudbury, it will be the plan that was agreed to by the ministry in its scope of proposals when they requested the facility for the Sudbury area and it will respond to the need for first-class, quality cancer care in Sudbury, something to which I am committed and to which this government is committed.

1450

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 30, An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The new section prevents an employer from taking money out of a pension plan. Section 79 and section 80 of the act currently provide that surplus money can be paid out of a pension plan to an employer with the consent of the Pension Commission of Ontario.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 31, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of the bill is to establish a public audit board to inquire into the causes of an intended termination of employment of 50 or more employees and the effect of that termination on both individual employees and the community. If the board determines that those effects are of major significance, it will conduct an inquiry to determine whether the intended termination of employment is or is not justified by the economic circumstances. It is to deal with plant closures.

DISABLED PERSONS EMPLOYMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 32

An Act to provide for the Employment of Disabled Persons.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of the bill is to provide employment opportunities for disabled persons. The bill requires that employers hire disabled persons to constitute at least three per cent of the employer’s work force. The bill permits the minister to vary this percentage requirement in cases where the minister considers another quota to be more suitable.

In addition, the minister may exempt an employer or a class of employers from the operation of this statute. The bill establishes a registrar of employable disabled persons to be maintained by the ministry for the purpose of facilitating efforts by employers to meet the quota established by this bill.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 33, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of the bill is to allow boards under the Education Act to provide certain medical and insurance benefits to their retired employees, their spouses and children. The act as now worded allows boards to provide these benefits only to current employees and their families.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 34, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of the bill is to require an employer to provide a leave of absence to any employee who has been elected to provincial or municipal office so that the employee may be able to carry out the duties of an elected official.

PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 35, An Act to amend the Public Vehicles Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The bill would prohibit passengers from occupying the part of a bus or streetcar to the immediate right of the driver’s seat after the driver has asked them to clear the area. It is intended for safety purposes.

PUBLIC SERVANTS’ POLITICAL RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 36, An Act to provide Political Rights for Public Servants.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: This bill, among other things, gives public servants the same political rights that every other worker enjoys.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 37, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of the bill is to repeal a provision of the act that prohibits the inclusion of security guards in bargaining units.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 38, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: A section is being added to the act that deals with various situations where there is an attempt to replace union employees or prospective union employees with nonunion employees.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 39, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of the bill is to clarify that the Labour Relations Act applies to employees who are engaged in agricultural employment in an industrial or factory setting in Ontario.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 40, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of the bill is to prevent the hiring of strikebreakers and to control access to a work premise that is affected by a strike or lockout. The bill prohibits an employer from hiring or using the services of a person to do the work of an employee who is on strike or locked out unless that person is specifically authorized to do so.

1500

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 41, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: This bill would add three holidays to the definition of “public holiday.” They are Easter Monday, the first Monday in August and Boxing Day. It would bring Ontario up to par with some more progressive provinces.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 42, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: This bill would add to the vacation time that employees are entitled to in Ontario: two weeks in each year upon the completion of 12 months; three weeks in each year upon the completion of 60 months; four weeks in each year upon the completion of 120 months and five weeks in each year upon the completion of 240 months of employment.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 43, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: This bill is to protect employees where persons contract out work or services so that the employees can maintain the seniority, wages, benefits and other rights they had before the work or services were contracted out.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 44, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of this bill is to reduce the standard work week from 48 to 40 hours in Ontario, bringing us up to par with other provinces and the federal government legislation.

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cousens moved first reading of Bill 45, An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cousens: This bill provides a new mechanism for the resolution of disputes concerning access to children. Where an access order already exists, the court may appoint a mediator. On receiving the mediator’s report, the court may vary the order in accordance with the terms agreed to by the parties or the terms recommended by the mediator. The court may draw an adverse inference from a party’s unwillingness to co-operate in the mediation with respect to his or her ability to act in the best interests of the child. The court may also order that access to a child be arranged through a supervised access centre established by the Attorney General. The bill also adds the importance of maintaining emotional ties between the child and his or her grandparents to the factors to be considered by a court in determining the best interests of the child.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

Hon. Mr. Conway moved resolution 4:

That an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, request the appointment of Sidney Bryan Linden as Information and Privacy Commissioner for a term of five years, commencing on a date to be named by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, as provided in section 4 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987, S.O. 1987, c. 25; and, that this address be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by the Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I thought it was customary for the government House leader to consult the three parties when there is an agreement that he is not going to go ahead and make some comments with regard to a resolution. I guess I was a little surprised when government resolution 4 carried so quickly. I am quite willing to acknowledge that, but I did have some words to say about Mr. Linden and his appointment as Information and Privacy Commissioner. It is unfortunate we did not hear about this in advance.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would not in any way wish to deny the member for Carleton an opportunity to address this or any other resolution. It is a debatable motion; there was the opportunity. If the honourable member would like to address himself to government resolution 4, it being a free and open society and a very democratic Legislature, I for one would encourage him to do so.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Linden, I noticed, was here in the Speaker’s gallery, perhaps expecting some remarks. He has gone at this particular time so that some of the import of making those remarks has been lost. Therefore, I will waive and continue on.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if I could advise the members that pursuant to standing order 30 the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten) and this matter will be debated at 6 p.m.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Philip: When we adjourned, I was talking of my concerns about Ontario Housing Corp. My concerns were certainly not in any way lessened by the Provincial Auditor’s report today. Over the years, we have called OHC officials before the standing committee on public accounts and brought numerous cases of inappropriate violations of the corporation’s field manual procedures regarding public tendering of contracts over $10,000, and once again we find that the OHC, and indeed a number of the housing authorities, are guilty of this same practice.

It is unfortunate that a crown corporation that is dealing with something so important as housing for people who are less fortunate than the members of this Legislature should be violating its manual of administration, should be violating the tendering process and in effect squandering hundreds of thousands of dollars that should be spent providing adequate housing for the people it is supposed to be serving.

If we look at some of the changes that are taking place on the other hand, rather than leave Ontario Housing, which I have perhaps been somewhat critical of in my throne debate speech yesterday, I would at least like to compliment the Metro Toronto Housing Authority on some of the innovations it seems to have under consideration.

For one thing, over the years since 1977 when the standing committee on administration of justice report came out and recommended a more flexible transfer policy, Ontario Housing and indeed Metro Toronto Housing Authority have always balked at that. We argued in this House that it was simply their way of putting their bureaucratic considerations ahead of the tenants they were serving.

I do notice, however, that there is a program now that is called “You Swap” where tenants exchange units. It is covered in volume 1, number 4 of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority newspaper called Homewards. It is an experimental project, but none the less it is a move in the right direction. It is a very small move compared to the kind of recommendations the justice committee made in our report so many years ago.

1510

One of the things I do notice about the publication that I think has to be complimented is that this publication at least is not simply an apologist for the corporation. Indeed, the publication deals with some substantive issues and reports those instances where the tenants and the community may be in disagreement with the corporation and where there is some concern.

If you look at the publication, it deals with a spotlight placed on security, for example, and talks about some of the concerns of some of the security systems. After having been somewhat critical of the corporation, I must at least say I think some of the steps that seem to be under way are in the right direction.

I mentioned a minute ago the Provincial Auditor’s report. I will not dwell extensively on it, because we will have a great amount of time to do that in the standing committee on public accounts. However, what I think is notable about this particular report is that it is really the first auditor’s report that deals with the sins of the Liberal regime where they can no longer blame the Conservative government for its mismanagement, and I think there are at least three areas that will bear some considerable scrutiny.

One is pollution control, others are mental health and rehabilitation of injured workers and, of course, again we deal with the Ontario Housing Corp.

If we look at the environment, the auditor notes that the data filed under the acid rain control program are not independently verified but rather accepted at face value. He points out that more than one quarter of the pollution complaints sampled by the auditor were either not followed up at all or were inadequately followed up, that there is a serious lack of ministry-initiated inspections and that the government has no information on more than half of the corporate polluters that discharge directly into our provincial waterways. Only a minority file toxic tests of their effluent. Most of them fail the test.

It points out that of 50 companies selected for further future examination, two thirds were not being controlled in any way by the government pollution control program and 13 of the remaining 16 under government control measures were in violation of provincial standards but had not been considered for prosecution.

In terms of mental health, we have an even more disastrous kind of situation than we had perhaps envisaged. As someone who sits on the advisory board of Friends and Advocates, I frequently talk to people who have been in mental hospitals and therefore know in a very personal way some of the problems they are experiencing in the community. I have listened to some of the admonitions of this government by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville), who is very concerned about that particular issue and has spoken eloquently in the House about it. But what we have is a completely independent, nonpartisan report in the auditor’s report, and quite frankly, it is astonishing.

About 25 per cent of the patients would not have to be hospitalized if adequate housing and support facilities were available. We have residential care homes, a poor alternative, and roughly 10 per cent should not receive licence renewals due to noncompliance with fire regulations. Many psychiatric hospital facilities are physically substandard and have problems in areas of patient privacy, washroom facilities, temperature control and ventilation. We have many ex-psychiatric patients, according to the auditor an estimated 2,000 in Metropolitan Toronto alone, who receive room and board in boarding houses; and as the report notes, from a rehabilitation point of view these houses are unsuitable. Home operators were not required to have and in most cases have no particular training or aptitude.

What you have is a situation where seniors are in psychiatric wards of hospitals instead of being adequately placed in chronic care facilities where they can receive more humane treatment and where, in the case of many of the patients, more could be done in order to make these people comfortable. Instead, they are occupying active treatment beds in psychiatric wards.

It is a damnation of the mental health care services in this province. I think every member of this House should read the auditor’s report and be very, very concerned about what we are doing in a so-called civilized society to those who, unfortunately, at some time in their life happen to become mentally ill.

We will no doubt be looking at some of the other aspects of the auditor’s report in the standing committee on public accounts, including the real estate at the Downsview Workers’ Compensation Board facility, but I would like to deal with one last aspect I am particularly concerned about.

My colleagues and I have asked questions of the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) about his position on Bill 150, which he introduced in the Legislature and which indeed was taken by the Liberals, with the co-operation of the Conservatives, to second reading stage.

Bill 150, together with Bills 151 and 152, which deal with what the minister calls reregulation and which anybody who reads the bill understands is deregulation, will have astronomically terrible effects on the trucking industry in this province. Yet, despite questions from my colleagues and I in the House to the Minister of Transportation, he refuses to answer whether Bill 150 or its substance or contents will be reintroduced in some form in this House and carried through.

We know the results of deregulation in the United States. We know that it has had an effect on highway safety. We know that deregulation drove many companies out of business. We know that it meant decentralization or monopolization by certain companies in the transportation industry. We know that the same thing has happened in other countries. Those of us who were on the select committee on highway transportation of goods in 1976 were quite aware of what happened in Australia where competition was virtually eliminated by deregulation.

We know that deregulation will reduce jobs, wages and working conditions for those in the industry. We know that deregulation will hurt small and isolated communities. More particularly, we know that deregulation when coupled with the Mulroney free trade agreement will be absolutely disastrous to the Ontario trucking industry.

What we have is the failure of the Mulroney government to meet its objectives which were clearly stated when it started the negotiations on free trade; namely, to negotiate our access to the American market. What we see is that 43 of the American states are so highly regulated that despite the deregulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission we need a bag of money and a pile of lawyers to get any kind of access to their market. We understand from some documents I have been able to obtain that under the agreement there is what they call a transportation annex.

The transportation annex simply means that any regulation that is in existence at the time of the signing of the free trade agreement stays in place, but we cannot regulate more, we cannot control more and we cannot exclude more. If we come forward with Bill 150 or the substance of Bill 150 and leave the Americans with their present regulatory system, we will see American trucks paying American taxes, driving on roads carrying goods from Toronto to Peterborough to Renfrew and using American drivers who are paying American income tax while our drivers sit unemployed on the sidelines.

As the Toronto Star so aptly put it in an editorial, “Will Peterson Play His Trucking Card?” I am not going to read the whole editorial, but it basically asks: “Mr. Peterson, where do you stand on this? What are you going to do? Are you going to allow our trucking industry to be demolished by the free trade agreement or are you going to use the regulatory powers that you have constitutionally under your authorities not only to fight free trade but also to protect the Ontario trucking industry?”

With those comments, Mr. Speaker -- l took up a considerable amount of time yesterday -- l thank you and the members for their attention. Once again, congratulations on your new appointment. 1520

The Deputy Speaker: Would some members like to comment? If not, would other members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. McCague: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to congratulate you on your ascension to high office. As I told you at lunchtime, you look very elegant in your new frock. I wish you would pass on to the Speaker and the deputy chairman of the committees of the whole House my congratulations also.

It is a pleasure to participate in the throne speech debate. I understand the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) wants to say a few words a little later. I would have thought if he was that anxious to say something, he would have presented fewer bills today.

However, traditionally the speech from the throne outlines the government’s agenda for action in the forthcoming session of the Legislature. It is my perception that what we were offered can hardly be called an agenda but rather a rehashed mishmash of programs and policies which no longer serve this province or inspire its future.

I can agree with the government’s assertion that Ontario’s economy is fundamentally strong and diversified, and the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston) -- what a great job he has. I had the honour to serve in that position for somewhat over six years with no money. It must be great to have the luxury of all the dollars he has to spread around in all the Liberal ridings in Ontario.

In Simcoe West, this all means that many of our farmers have successfully switched from growing tobacco to growing potatoes, and that of course is a tribute to my colleague the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling), who persuaded them to do so. It means in the case of the fresh potato market these farmers are willing to take their chances for the best price without the benefit of a marketing board system. We have other farmers who, year after year, continue to plant improved varieties of corn to increase their yield.

A strong economy in Simcoe West means that we have many farms which do not provide a living and the farmer goes to work in town. A strong economy also means that we do have work in our towns. Alliston was chosen as a site for the Honda plant, not because of government grants but because the company perceived the qualities of hard work and devotion to duty among our people.

The town of Collingwood is weathering the closing of its shipyard thanks to its own long-term policy of attracting a diversified industrial base.

We have numerous examples throughout our area of commercial, industrial and farm success for which we can only thank the strong, entrepreneurial and management skills of our people.

Simcoe West is attracting new people. For the most part, they are young families who see in our area a quality of life and opportunity in which they can hope to grow and prosper.

We are a tolerant people. We have been enriched by folk from many lands. We are a self-reliant people. We like to make our own decisions.

My argument today is with a government which proposes to use its large majority to spend money on programs which are at best ill defined in a throne speech and at worst a poor response to the needs of this province.

We are told we are not immune to global economic pressures and conditions. We have just fought an election which came to centre more and more on the nonissue of free trade. Long before ink was put to paper, long before any person had any knowledge of what would constitute the agreement of our country with the United States, the candidates for the government saw fit to obscure the issues and raise cries of fear in the land. The government party saw fit to paint a picture of economic and cultural domination. The auto workers were told that the auto pact was threatened. “Marketing boards must go,” was the message to our farmers. “The arts will lose their identity,” went forth to our cultural groups. A litany of doom was chanted to appeal to the instinct for self-preservation which is present in us all. Out of the doom and gloom, like a cavalry coming to the rescue, the government appeared and, aided by an intrigued media, rode to electoral success.

Where are the old-fashioned virtues of hope and faith? Is there any evidence that the government has ever heard of thrift? In the throne speech, the government used the phrase “we must” 23 times. We are told “...we must set new standards of achievement for our children....we must increase the supply of affordable housing.” Every “we must” is a cost for the people of Ontario. Every “we must” proceeds a policy statement so fuzzy and so broad that one is left with the impression of a government careless of the people’s money and completely out of touch with the true needs of the province.

We are told “...we must maintain a commitment to develop innovative approaches to assist Ontario farmers.” How much room for innovation is there in feeding a cow or planting seed in the ground? Do the farmers really need the mountains of new bulletins and regulations which new programs bring? Is there any real commitment to agriculture and to a healthy and viable farming industry in this province? Do we really need to be told that we must maintain this commitment?

I must submit that agriculture is one example of the ad hoc approach of this government to the challenges and problems of this province. The government is blessed to be in office during a period of unparalleled revenue. Conventional wisdom would indicate that when we are going through a period of good times we should be paying off some of our debt and laying something aside for a rainy day. What does the speech from the throne indicate? Rather than sound financial management, we are offered a multitude of programs, each reacting to a situation rather than taking a new direction or providing leadership.

There is a tremendous increase in the total revenue since 1985, with not a thought of reducing those taxes, or any meaningful reduction of provincial debt. Nearly 11 cents of every dollar is going to service the debt. This is a situation where local ratepayers may have to pick up the tab to maintain essential health, education and municipal services.

This government has seen fit to add many civil servants in the last two years. More ministries have parliamentary assistants and larger staffs. It is interesting to note the size of the staff of the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet. He must have a lot of additional duties to what was the case three or four years ago. We are being treated to more civil servants and more ministerial staff in the name of better government, or is it simply more help for more spending?

We are told “...government must exercise leadership and set clear goals for our education system.” I could not agree more. We must equip our children with the skills, knowledge, creativity and entrepreneurial spirit they will need to meet the challenges of the 21st century. A select committee on education will be formed to develop new initiatives and to involve parents, teachers, administrators and legislators of all parties.

Just before school opened this past September, I received several near-panic calls from some parents in my constituency. They had just been informed that their children would no longer be carried on school buses, even though they had received this service for more than five years. These are parents whose children attend a private Christian school. These are parents who are content to pay over $4,000 each year for the education they want for their child. These parents pay without protest the same taxes to the county systems as everyone else.

Picture if you can, Mr. Speaker, a youngster standing at the road ready for school, a satchel of books over one shoulder and a lunch-box in one hand. The big yellow buses from the county systems, which once stopped for him, breeze by continually. Worse, in many instances he is bypassed not only by the board of education buses bound for the local grade school, but also by the board buses bound for the high school. Separate school buses also go by. Not one, but two: one for the separate high school and one for the grade school.

1530

How do you tell this child that he is not eligible for funding to ride the bus because he is going to a private school? In a rural riding like mine the provision of transportation to school is equally as important as the provision of the school. Of course we can say to the private school parents that they can pay a little more and hire their own buses, but then how do we justify to these parents that they are getting anything for their school tax dollars?

I bring this up as an example of the fuzzy direction of the Ministry of Education. I found a consultant in the ministry who, if not directly responsible for, was at least prepared to put forth a rationale for the suspension of bus service to private school children. I hope the minister is listening.

That rationale is that school boards are prohibited from engaging in any activity not specifically provided for by legislation. So much for creativity; indeed, not much can be said for common sense. With this caution, our boards went to their lawyers and were advised that there was a very remote possibility of liability should an accident occur to private school children on their buses. This ended five years of community co-operation. This consultant, this same person who could expound reasons why these children should not be allowed on the bus, was able when pressed to come up with an equally good rationale for carrying these children. It all boiled down to the perception the board officials wished to take.

These are the people the throne speech would have us believe are going to equip our children with creativity and an entrepreneurial spirit. I suggest that this attitude is not sufficiently innovative and forward-looking to carry us into the 21st century.

Simcoe West has over 700 students presently housed in portable classrooms. The throne speech is promising to reduce the number of students per room. Presumably, smaller classes will require more teachers, more rooms and more money. This is big talk indeed from a government which can give lipservice to funding 60 per cent of school expenses while, in reality, its contribution has fallen to the low 40s.

Perhaps the people of Ontario should be told that the new property tax base to be provided by market value assessment is their only hope for increased educational expenditure, or is this House to be treated to a Minister of Education with the ability to walk on water?

Most of our municipalities are facing waste disposal problems. The South Simcoe Waste Management Association is presently conducting public meetings to help solve these problems for five municipalities in Simcoe West. The Ministry of the Environment appears to hope that talk will make the problems go away. They know all too well that one of these days a new landfill site must be selected. I have already ordered my flak jacket for the explosion that will result in the neighbourhood of that site when it is announced.

Does this ministry not have confidence in its own technical personnel? Is this not but one more example where committees, public meetings and talk ad nauseam are considered a substitute for action by this government? Would not the money spent by these civil servants running all over the province be better spent on research and informed leadership?

When it comes to housing, there is a matter I have discussed with the Ministry of Housing. I would like to have passed on to the minister that I have an elderly friend who lives alone in her own house in one of our villages, Creemore. She tells us there are 73 like her, widows and widowers, living alone and occupying their own homes in that village.

We have a minister who says she cannot find ways to spend some $50 million. Here is a good place for her to get rid of a little of it. This lady has her own solution for a small part of the housing problem: building an attractive seniors’ complex and making it worth while for these single people to move in. Seventy-three houses would thus be freed up for young families. The village of Creemore has just been turned down again on a well-thought-out proposal for seniors’ housing. The reason this time is insufficient infrastructure in the form of sewage and water, another project for which funding is being refused.

In regard to the more affordable, quality housing, the speech from the throne says, “there is a great deal more that we must do to search out innovative and creative solutions.” Madam Speaker, I rest my case.

Mr. Chiarelli: The member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague) would tell us that the throne speech is based on programs which involve excessive spending at a time of great prosperity. I just wonder what type of throne speech would have been forthcoming based on the $8-billion worth of promises the then Leader of the Opposition made in the course of the last election campaign.

Mr. McCague: To give a Liberal answer to that question, I will check with the leader the next time I see him and get back to the member.

Mr. Mahoney: If members would bear with me, I would appreciate it, because I have to get some of the mould off this speech, I wrote it so long ago. I think it is appropriate that we are dealing with free trade and this particular issue, because I and many of us here on the back benches on this side of the House feel a little like Knute Rockne asking the question, “Now, coach?” I guess “Now, coach?” is here.

Madam Speaker, I too would like to congratulate you for your tremendous appointment. I know how thrilled you are. I think it is also fitting that the last time I had an opportunity to speak, you were also in the chair. I forget when that was; it was a while ago. But it is nice to see you, and I appreciate your leadership in your new position.

It is nice to see the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) here, because I am going to acknowledge a deed she accomplished on behalf of the city of Mississauga a number of years ago. She, as a councillor, Councillor Margaret Marland, and the mayor of Malton, Councillor Frank McKechnie, were kind enough to work on and design a coat of arms for the city of Mississauga and to present it to city council. The motto on that coat of arms is something that I have always thought was very distinctive and important, and it is, indeed: “Pride in our past, faith in our future.” I believe that before we can fully understand where we are going, we must know where we have been. We must know this as individuals, as members of a family and as members of the community and of this Legislature.

I would like to take just a brief opportunity on a personal note to read from Hansard of June 12, 1984, a couple of quotes. This is a quote from the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), who at that time was the leader of the third party:

“To know” him “was to know a great fighter, somebody who believed very deeply not only in the cause of trade unionism but also in progressive causes generally.”

I then go on in the same day to a quote of the Honourable Russ Ramsay, a favourite son of Sault Ste. Marie and a tremendous friend of mine and of my family. He spoke as the representative from Sault Ste. Marie and said:

“He certainly was the driving force behind our medical clinic, along with John Barker, who was a representative for the United Steelworkers....

“I rise today,” Mr. Ramsay went on to say, “on a personal basis to pay tribute to an old friend and one of our country’s truly outstanding citizens.”

Sheila Copps, whom we all know as a member of the federal Parliament, followed Mr. Ramsay. Ms. Copps said, “it seems to me the Legislature, as a gesture to this fine man, could do well to use the capitation clinic system which was begun in Sault Ste. Marie as a model for clinics across Ontario.”

Then the Honourable Mr. Drea, in his closing comments, said: “His contributions at a crucial time to the people of this province, to Canada and to the United States, through the world trade union movement were very substantial and will be remembered in a great many households for many years to come.”

1540

The gentleman they were speaking of was my father, and it was on the day that he passed away. I tell members this because I think it is important that we understand our personal backgrounds and our personal legacies. If he were here in this House, some of the members know he would be sitting right over there. He would probably be sitting right down beside the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) and maybe even on the right arm of the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Not so. He had a lot of sense.

Mr. Mahoney: He had a lot of sense, but I can tell the member that he would likely be there.

It was through that fact and indeed through those diverse opinions, often shared at Sunday dinner, that I grew to understand democracy and on some Sundays the lack of democracy, depending on the mood he was in. In fact, many of the debates in this House will be tame compared to the debates held in the Mahoney household. It was through a life of having the national director of the United Steelworkers of America as a father that I grew to understand what true opposition really is. In fact, with due respect, what I see in this House so far pales by comparison.

I tell members this again only to stress that if we are to know and understand our future agenda then we must remember and appreciate those in the past who have influenced us, knowingly or otherwise, and those who have represented us in various ways so we can indeed have pride in our past and faith in our future.

Mississauga West is one of the new ridings in Ontario but it is steeped in history. It was represented from 1919 -- and members should take note of this -- to 1959, with one three-year exception, by Thomas L. Kennedy. The Kennedy name is one that is associated with fine historical traditions

Such traditions are recognized by the names Tomken Road, Kennedy Road and Thomas L. Kennedy Secondary School.

I was interested to find out this morning that the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) is a graduate -- at least, I believe he graduated -- of T. L. Kennedy school. They must have had a public speaking section in that school which I am sure he would have thrived in. In fact, the honourable member for Durham East did inform me that Mississauga was his home town. I guess the operative word there should be “was.”

The traditions lived on with the election to this House in 1967 of Douglas Kennedy, a nephew of Colonel Tom; and with the 16 years of public service on Mississauga council of Harold Kennedy, another nephew and a close personal friend. He is currently the member for ward I in our city.

We have had many years of service in this House representing our community from people like the Kennedys, the Gregorys and the Joneses, but times change. Our past has been glorious in many ways, but the future is indeed exciting and challenging. The traditions, Madam Speaker, the torch if you like, have been passed on to us for safekeeping. Those folks are gone. They have left either their human bodies or their political bodies and it is now up to us, the Offers, the Solas, the Marlands and the Mahoneys to carry on the traditions, and most important, to start new ones for Mississauga.

In 1985 those new traditions began; in 1987, on September 10, they were enhanced and expanded upon; and in November the throne speech set out the plans for our future based on an understanding of and a sensitivity to our past achievements and our future requirements. Mississauga West is pleased to see this government’s commitment to education, housing and transportation.

In 1974 we became a city. In 1974 the towns of Streetsville, Port Credit, Cooksville and Mississauga merged, along with the many communities within our boundaries. We were approximately 120,000 people. Today, a short 13 years later, we are pushing 400,000 and heading towards the 750,000 envisioned in our official plan. We grow by in excess of 20,000 new people each year. Our industrial tax base has blossomed in the past dozen years to make our community financially sound and the fiscal responsibility shown by the city administration over the past 10 years has worked to make us a truly great new city with traditions, with pride in our past and faith in our future.

We are no longer a boardroom community. We are a net importer of jobs.

Mr. Wildman: B-o-r-e-d?

Mr. Mahoney: That is b-o-a-r-d, for those who cannot spell.

We are a net importer of jobs. That is, more people come to work in our city than leave every day. We are a creator of jobs and economic stability for our thousands of families. We are indeed strong. In fact, since 1986 we have had over 1,100 new businesses open and created 15,000 new jobs in our city.

As I mentioned in a statement to this House earlier in the week, we are the Japanese capital of Canada, with 63 Japanese corporations, many of them head offices. But we need to know that the province of Ontario understands our needs. The throne speech addresses those needs in very real terms. We have just fewer than 7,000 businesses, not counting our very major retail component, which takes us up to 13,000 businesses in our community, and we need to know that Ontario understands their needs.

I believe that the free trade initiative does address those needs; it addresses free trade, or so-called free trade. Being a major market of production and consumption, Mississauga West will clearly be impacted by this Mulroney sellout of our country.

Indeed, I have a suggestion for Mr. Mulroney that I think would solve the free trade problem, and that is that he should fire Mr. Reisman and he should hire Peter Mansbridge and Knowlton Nash to head up a new negotiating team and start over. Peter Mansbridge is a Canadian who understands what it is like to negotiate with the United States and who cares about being a Canadian. I say that somewhat tongue in cheek but also quite seriously, because I believe part of the problem in the free trade deal has indeed been the negotiating team and the authority it has been given by the federal government with what, in my opinion, is not its right to give that authority away.

I would like you to ask yourselves a couple of questions on free trade. Does the United States of America, a country of 250 to 275 million people, really want access to our market? Sure we are attractive, but do they need to sell wine in our country? Do they really care about our auto parts industry? Do they really want to share the market in the agricultural industry? Clearly, to do more business in Canada would be nice, would be profitable and a good deal for Mr. Reagan, but is that the important factor in their agenda?

I suggest it is not. The real area they are interested in is our natural resources. They want our water; they want our forests; they want our oil and our gas; they want our uranium. They want our blood, and Brian Mulroney is giving it away.

This government, through the throne speech and the actions by our Premier (Mr. Peterson), is taking the message to Canadians. We are one of the only voices of reason, of caution, of calm deliberations, and we say to Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Reagan, “What’s your hurry?” Mississauga West says, “Hold on, slow down, listen to what we are saying”; and so does this government. We should not sell our children’s assets. We should not mortgage their future. Do not leave them a legacy they will never understand.

With 20,000 people coming into our community every year, Mississauga is concerned about many items in the speech.

On education, we have the largest public board in the province and the fastest-growing separate board. I met with them this morning over breakfast, and I know other members of this House met yesterday to discuss many of their problems. If you want to see kids, come to Mississauga, we are very productive in that regard as well. As such, it is vital that we establish new programs in education.

We have a minister, and the minister is here in the House, who I believe understands our needs who comes from a municipal background and who cares about education and about people.

This government, as promised in the election campaign, will drive for higher standards in education, provide school boards with the resources -- and I say that again because that is the key --provide school boards with the resources to reduce class sizes in grades 1 and 2 and increase the use of computers and education software. This government believes, and Mississauga West concurs, that it is vital to turn around the many years of neglect in education, particularly in terms of the years 1975 to 1985.

1550

To turn that neglect around, we must start with early education. We must start, at an early age, to establish new provincial benchmarks for literacy, languages, math, science and social studies. The speech from the throne clearly sets out a nine-point program in this regard, and all week honourable members opposite have been calling that inaction. With respect, that is probably because many of them would have trouble recognizing action if it hit them in the face. I understand it is their job to avoid action and confuse the issues.

Mr. Wildman: No.

Mr. Mahoney: I think it is and I respect that. They are indeed the loyal opposition and will remain so for many years to come.

The speech outlines new provincial benchmarks, more effective ways of measuring student achievement, more information for parents on the progress of their children, a select committee on education and more child care spaces in existing schools and new schools.

It promotes literacy training for special groups and increases public awareness of the cost of illiteracy, all this to go along with our financial commitment to education. That is hardly inactive. That is hardly boring. That is leadership and it has set the agenda for this government. Mississauga West applauds that.

These kids that I speak about have many needs. They have the need to be part of a family. I believe very strongly that we must strengthen the family unit as the basis of our society. To help do that, the speech commits this government to increase the supply of affordable housing through the nonprofit sector.

As a past president of Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp. and a board member for nine years, I think I understand the needs, and as I said a couple of weeks ago in the emergency debate on housing, I understand that this issue, just like education, is a problem because of past neglect.

I am interested to hear the leader of the third party defending the municipalities in areas of the environment, particularly landfill and waste management. It seems to me his party was never interested in defending them in any areas when it was on this side of the House. It is a little bit like Harold Ballard defending the Russians.

This government will provide more nonprofit housing. We will create and preserve low- and moderately priced housing. I am confident we will look at ways to create more affordable housing within existing housing stock, to use government lands to increase new housing starts, to help young people save to purchase a new home and to work with municipalities -- instead of treating them like the enemy -- to make the provision of low- and moderately priced housing a central part of the entire planning process.

We can create new partnerships between the different levels of government and the private sector that will not only create housing but also generate economic activity in the private sector.

The economy in Mississauga West is diverse, but it clearly benefits from bricks and mortar. Housing begets economic benefits, which in turn beget prosperity. Helping to solve the most critical social problem of our times not only will create economic benefits to the whole community but also will create new partnerships in the private sector. That again is leadership.

We have clear options. We can do nothing and create antagonism, as the third party has done. We can spend irresponsibly and take over the private sector, as the opposition would have us do. Or we can be responsible and work with our partners. Mississauga West prefers the latter and applauds those initiatives by the government -- initiatives in education and housing, initiatives to fund new technology programs, modernize our apprenticeship system, appoint an industrial restructuring commissioner, announce selected centres of entrepreneurship and generally show the private sector that we are indeed a free enterprise government.

Mr. Wildman: Oh.

Mr. Mahoney: I am sorry if I made the honourable member opposite choke, but we are a government that realizes we have a responsibility to deal not only with a progressive, businesslike approach to government but also with a strong social conscience that is not the personal purview of the opposition.

In the area of transportation, I believe the future of transportation to move our citizens lies in a strong commitment to public transport. Mississauga West and the city of Mississauga need that commitment, and I am confident that through the review announced in the throne speech to ensure the orderly and co-ordinated development of the greater Toronto area, that will be done. We will see a greater emphasis on public transportation for our community. At the same time, we need Highway 407, already committed by the last government, but we need the planned western leg of the 407 as soon as possible.

My colleague the member for York North (Mr. Beer) talked about growth. There is probably not another issue, in a broad sense, that impacts more on our lives, the lives in his community and clearly the lives of my constituents in Mississauga West. Many of the problems I have talked about are due to growth; many of the good things that happened are also due to growth. As a nine-year member of a municipal council representing the fastest-growing area in our city, now part of the Mississauga West riding, I can say that growth is a double-edged sword.

The housing industry has problems, and we must work with the home builders, the Urban Development Institute, the municipalities and the home buyers to increase protection for buyers of new homes. Personally, I would like to see a 10 per cent holdback on closing to be held by the Ontario New Home Warranty Program as an incentive to the home building industry to complete its homes both on time and with better quality than we have seen in the past.

This is the largest single investment a family will make, and I feel it is vital for us to address home protection measures to reduce the stress associated with buying a new home, smooth out the move-in transition period and generally ensure that our families are treated fairly.

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to you, sir, on your appointment to the chair. It is nice to see you here.

While building our communities, we must address the problems of health care, senior citizens and the disabled. I really believe the way one can judge a society is by the way we treat our senior citizens. Mississauga West has a number of seniors’ homes which are very successful. Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp. provides first-class facilities at an affordable rate, but we also have private sector homes such as the Ivan Franko Home and Sampaquita Filipino Village as well as a large number of private seniors’ buildings in the riding. I believe every member of this House on both sides of the floor is truly committed to providing the best care and the best facilities possible for our parents and our grandparents.

Finally, I want to say that Mississauga West and the entire city of Mississauga will be well served by an open, accessible, caring and proactive government. I look forward to the problem solving that will take place over the next four years and on into the future, remembering my city’s motto, “Pride in our past and faith in our future.”

The Deputy Speaker: Do some members wish to comment?

Mrs. Marland: I could not let this opportunity pass without first of all acknowledging the fact that I served on the Mississauga city council for seven years with the member who is now representing Mississauga West. I would like to stand in this House today to congratulate him on his response to the throne speech, not on the content but on the presentation.

In so doing, I can certainly understand the comments in that speech, which I think were very well delivered by the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney), and I can tell from them that the great debates and discussions that he and I had enjoyed for seven years on council will undoubtedly now continue in this House.

The member for Mississauga West was very gracious in acknowledging the past achievements in this great province. The fact that Ontario is the premier province in Canada has nothing to do with anything that could have happened in the last two and a half years but everything to do with what happened in the 42 years preceding that. Obviously there is a reason that Ontario became the jewel in the crown of our great nation, and obviously that reason is the good management of an excellent government throughout many years.

It is significant that the member for Mississauga West commented on the fact that he met with the Peel Board of Education this morning. At this precise moment the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) is not in the House, but I hope he will take careful note. The necessity for that meeting was the tremendous underfunding versus the tremendous need to meet the growth of the school system in the region of Peel.

The initiatives in education that have been announced by this government are a great concern for those boards of education, namely, the reduction of class size across the province, whereas in Peel we already have an average class size of 25 children.

1600

Mr. Mahoney: I would have been actually shocked if the member for Mississauga South had not replied. I was used to her responding to my speeches when we served together on city council. I think the point is well taken, and many members in this House have recognized the contributions that have been made by many people in the past. The fact that I referred to the Kennedy family and people like that is because they are obviously very significant.

I would like to add, however, a remark about some of the comments, not personal in any way but in a general sense, that have been directed to this side of the House, particularly and most notably to me and my colleagues in the back benches of this Liberal government, up here where the air is thin --and they have seatbelts on the chairs, I was quite pleased to find when I arrived here.

The comments have been delivered in such a way that they would be taken as advice from honourable members opposite, who seem to have a number of years of experience in this House in dealing with matters. Both the member for Durham East and the member for Algoma have suggested that we should form -- they did not use this term --a rat pack of some kind to bite away and nip at the ankles of our cabinet colleagues.

I just want to say, while I have 44, 43 or 42 seconds left, that they do not understand this caucus if they think that is the way we would operate, because we are indeed unified and we are strong. I am confident we will remain that way for the duration of this government. We will do that for one main reason. That reason is that the people leading our government understand the need to allow us to participate, to encourage our involvement and to actively have us working on various committees. They will not attempt to stifle us, because they know they would not be able to. There is too much talent on this side of the House. I can understand how someone who is involved in a Progressive Conservative caucus would feel he would have to be part of a rat pack.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, in the very few minutes that are remaining, I would like to observe the niceties and congratulate you and the other officers we have now in charge of the House, and also to add my congratulations and best wishes to all of the new members who have been elected.

l have no intention, I can assure the member for Mississauga West, of trying to offer advice, but I cannot resist telling him that if he wonders at some of the comments directed at them from this side of the House, imagine what we are feeling when we look at the throne speech.

In the 12 years I have been in this House, I have heard from every government, and this is a throne speech that is probably even less proactive and progressive than one or two I have heard in the past 12 years, one that certainly has no comparison to the kind of agenda that was set before this government was elected.

This was a rather interesting and strange House when I first entered it, but I entered it at least in a minority government situation, which had not happened in a long time. We had a government which at that time had been in power 30-odd years, and it did not quite know how to handle the increased numbers in the opposition and the fact that the opposition actually had a majority. I guess we did not either, because we did not set out any hard terms and we rolled, issue by issue, with them. As a result, we did not achieve an awful lot, but at least you had the feeling that you had some input into what was going on.

Then we came to the election in 1981, and the Tories swept back in with a large majority in this House. It was a very unsatisfactory time for most members of this House, for most concerned members; I can say, I think, that included members in both of the opposition parties at that time. On many days, you might as well not have sat in this House, because you got nowhere, you had no input into what was going on, you had very little being done in the way of positive legislation in Ontario. Really, we might as well not have been here. It was probably the most frustrating four years I have spent in my life.

We then had the election before this one, where I think everybody was surprised. Certainly we were. I suspect to some extent the Liberals were, but probably not as much as we were in that election, and the Tories obviously were devastated. People did not know what to expect at first, and of course what was worked out was the now famous -- or infamous, I guess, depending on where you sit --accord in this Legislature. That accord did set some 22 specific and, I think, rather progressive items. Most of them, with some notable exceptions, were carried out.

It was a rather exciting two years, or less than two years, in this House because you did feel that you were accomplishing something. You did not know what the cost of it was going to be or what price you were going to pay for giving that kind of power to another party that we quite frankly had not expected too much from in the past, but at least the members of the House felt they were involved and felt things were going to happen. And I think that during that period of time in this House things did happen.

Then we went through the last electoral exercise in Ontario, and we have a majority even bigger than the Tory majorities that we used to see in the House. What have we seen since then? Once again, your perceptions will be different depending on where you are sitting, but it feels an awful lot like that four-year period from 1981-85 in this House. The answers we are getting to questions in this House are almost identical to the answers we got from the Tories during that majority period. Also, when we got this throne speech there was none of the thrust of that accord presentation and there certainly was not a feeling that we were into a new progressive period in politics in Ontario.

I want to ask the members in this House -- and I guess it is not meant as advice but as an admonition to the members on the other side of the House -- to stop and ask themselves for a minute: is that what the people of Ontario wanted? Another Tory government? I see the member nods his head. If that is what he thinks they wanted, fine and dandy. I want to tell him that if he thinks the perception is one that is ours only, he is badly mistaken.

Like some members, I sat in at the forest industry breakfast the other morning, and I found it very interesting that the first comments and needles I got were from an ex-colleague of mine from our area, Eric Cunningham, a former Liberal member. For a number of terms I sat with him in this House.

He said to me, with a smile on his face, “Bob, I get a kick out of watching you people now that it’s all on television, and seeing my members answer the questions exactly the way the Tories did when I was there.”

That was his exact comment at that breakfast, and let me tell you, that is exactly the perception over here. When I see some of the answers we are getting from the Ministry of Labour, if anything it is worse because there is a little bit of preaching to us as well.

Mr. Laughren: Who said that?

Mr. Mackenzie: Eric Cunningham.

I want to say simply that we have obviously not, in this throne speech either, dealt in a way that most of us would appreciate with what I think is the most fundamental issue facing us in Ontario and indeed our entire country, and that is the free trade issue. I say to the member for Mississauga West that it is not good enough to give us the big words, just as that was not good enough for the bottom-line pitch that we got from the Premier during the election campaign.

I am saying that what we need, and what we need desperately, is some clear indication of action that Ontario is going to take -- the fact that we are not going to sign or agree to anything that has provincial jurisdiction responsibility. I can say from the trips our committee took to Washington, if that message is clearly sent down there we will see a backing off or we will not see this agreement go through, but I do not have any faith that this government is going to do exactly that. I have not heard anything in the words and the answers to questions we have had on this issue that convinces me that they know where they are going or that they are willing to bite the bullet and say, “No, that bottom line is a bottom line.”

I am disturbed. l am very frankly quite disturbed. We have won very little in that agreement. I do not have time to go over it, but I think you should take a look at it for a minute.

The benefits to this country are theoretical at best. However, if you take a look at the agreement, the United States has obtained numerous concrete benefits that we do not have in this country: a wide-open investment policy; guaranteed access to Canadian energy, maybe the single most serious issue in that agreement; the elimination of the auto pact in all but name; greatly improved areas of access for US wines; guaranteed continued access for US trucking firms; greater access for US poultry, eggs and grains. In addition, we do not have any effective answer to their countervail legislation. They can, in spite of that agreement, still bring an action whenever they feel they have been threatened or that there is an unfair subsidy, and we have not attempted to define subsidies in any way, shape or form.

1610

There are so many things that scare the living bejesus out of me in that agreement. I have to say that all Canadians should be upset at this point in time. I am wondering seriously when we are going to hear from this government that it is prepared to use that bottom line. If it is only going to talk it and say, “That is our position, you do not need to worry about us,” but is not prepared to exercise the authority it has, then it is not doing what it told the people of Ontario it would do.

There are a number of things I would like to cover, things that concern me that are not in that throne speech. I do not see the answer to the fact that a province as wealthy as Ontario still has food banks and soup kitchens and, if anything, they are increasing. When I saw the remarks of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) in the paper the other day, I did not see any perception, nor do I see anything in this throne speech, that tells me he understood one of the things we have warned about for years. That is, the threat from plant closures in this province is now catching up to us in terms of what he acknowledges is the new phenomenon of welfare. Those are older workers who are on welfare. There is a situation that should cause concern in all of us.

We have not seen adequate action on housing. I left the figures from my own area in my office, but we have some 1,100 or 1,200 people on the Hamilton-Wentworth Housing Authority waiting list alone. If you look at that waiting list, the tragedy of it is that over 350 of them are above 90 points; in other words, in a desperate situation. There is no answer to that kind of housing issue.

I do not have the time and I recognize it, so I simply want to say we have not dealt with labour issues. We do not see the pension reform issue before us and we still do not have a definite time frame on it. We have not seen an answer to the issue of hours of work. We have not seen answers to many other labour problems that face us. We certainly are not seeing answers to some of the serious safety and health problems in the workplace, and we have any number of cases to bring into this House that are even more startling and worse than what we have been raising in terms of the aircraft plants in the last two or three days, and they will be brought in over the next week. We have some serious problems in terms of health and safety and I see nothing here that gives me any confidence that that is the way this government is working.

Regarding human rights, if any members are dealing with it, it takes three years to get an investigation. If you go to a worker’s adviser at the Worker’s Compensation Board, do members know what you will be told in Hamilton or in the peninsula?: “It will be six months before we can even sit down and give you an interview and maybe another six or seven months before we commence action.” If new members have not run into that yet, do a little checking very quickly.

I could go on, but I simply do not have the time and for that reason I will bring it to a close, but there are serious problems for workers, for people. Indeed, the future of our province is at stake and this throne speech does not answer the problems. I am afraid that what we have is another Conservative government in Ontario, and I do not think people wanted that when they voted in the last election.

Mr. Harris: I believe the House leader for the government was supposed to suggest at the start of the debate, as is customary, that we would try to limit our remarks to half an hour for each party from here on in. Since that was not done, I will suggest that.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Harris moves that the remaining --

Mr. Harris: I do not think I have to move it. It is an understanding. There is no objection to that understanding?

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent in that case?

Agreed to.

Mr. Harris: I believe that was the intent. I better get started because I do not know whether I am going to have time to get to the throne speech.

I do have a few comments to make. Let me first of all thank my party for giving me the opportunity to speak today on this throne speech debate and to wrap up for our party before we have what could be, if the whip for the government party is not doing his job, a historic day. I understand where our party is going to go on this vote and where the opposition party is going as well. I am not sure where the government is going. I did not hear enough of them speak.

Let me start by congratulating the mover and the seconder of the motion for adoption of this throne speech, although it is a motion that neither I nor my party can support. But I do congratulate them for their election to this House and for their role in the traditions of this House. Through them, I congratulate all the members who were newly elected on September 10, particularly those from the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. It is a little tougher for me to congratulate those in my own caucus at this time, as members might appreciate -- newly elected I mean.

I congratulate Mr. Speaker on his reselection as Speaker of this Legislature, and while we are on the niceties, I will go a step further and congratulate His Honour the Lieutenant Governor for the fine manner in which he read the speech we are discussing. That too is a tradition that I cherish, as I do many of the traditions that we have in this chamber and that reflect on our parliamentary democracy.

I regret that I had to point out the unfortunate break with tradition this year on the introduction of Bill 1. I congratulate Mr. Speaker who, in making his ruling on the objection I had, I believe made the correct ruling, that it is the right of the government to break with tradition if it so wants to do.

In making that ruling, however, the Speaker pointed out that while it is the government’s right, it is something that the government ought not to do lightly and, correctly as well I thought, he suggested to the government that it would be well advised on this issue and on similar traditions not to do it again, particularly when it is as important a tradition as Bill 1 and what that represents for the supremacy of this Legislature in dealing with the affairs of the province.

As is appropriate as well in this first throne speech debate following an election, I would like to thank the people of Nipissing who were kind enough to return me to the Ontario Legislature. Let me also congratulate the other candidates in Nipissing who ran excellent campaigns and who, in my opinion, campaigned fairly, honestly and hard. That is the end of the niceties. Let me get into some of the other things that are appropriate to mention at this time.

I mentioned the campaign and it is appropriate in tradition that we comment briefly on it and refer to it in this first throne speech following it. I will start by looking at a quote from the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) and suggest, as the candidates in Nipissing campaigned fairly and properly, perhaps this quote from May 12, 1981, will reflect on what I feel about some of the central campaign that the government party put on.

The member for St. Catharines says remember now, this is May 12, 1981: “It was also stated during the campaign that it would be advantageous to elect a government member. If we were to take this to its full extent, we would have 125 government members and no opposition. What we have to be careful of now, what we in the opposition have to be ever vigilant for, is the fact that the government might well now attempt to punish those who did not elect Progressive Conservative members or unduly reward those who did. We in the official opposition will be watching very carefully to see that they do not conduct this kind of sleazy politics in this province.”

1620

I do not know whether that was appropriate on May 12, 1981, but it does give members some of the thinking of some of the members of the cabinet of this government. Knowing from his reply to the throne speech on May 12, 1981, that was the way some of those front-bench members think and reflecting on the recent campaign we just went through, where it was pointed out, certainly in the riding of Nipissing in the central campaign, that, one, David Peterson would be Premier when this was over and, two, Nipissing had to elect somebody on the Peterson team so that they could be a part of that government -- the member for St. Catharines-Brock (Mr. Dietsch) should not shake his head, because I will get him the quotes and the literature if he likes.

That was certainly part of the campaign. It is one area where it was used, in Nipissing, and it was totally rejected by the people. It is one I reject and one I think all honourable members of the Legislature would want to object to. It is certainly something that I, in my first campaign in 1981, never used and never referred to, and it is the type of campaign that ought to be rejected.

Interjection.

Mr. Harris: Yes, he did, and it was rejected out of hand by those of us in all three parties.

I point that out for two reasons: one, just to let members know I read some of this stuff; and two, knowing the thinking of the member for St. Catharines-Brock -- and I doubt it has changed much -- we will indeed be watching.

In looking through some of the Hansards, I thought I would refer briefly to some comments of the now Minister of Mines, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) on April 20, 1982. This would be the next year’s wrapup to the throne speech by those who are now members of the government.

I do not want to go through a lot of that speech. In much of the speech, he derided many of the contributions of the members who had spoken previously in the throne speech debate, something I would not do. Many of them at that time were relatively new members, and I thought the comments that were made were inappropriate. I do not want to do that, as I think that is a little unfair.

But I do want to mention one aspect, and it is good that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) is here. Is it Brant-Oxford now, no more Norfolk?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Brant-Haldimand.

Mr. Harris: Is that the new riding? He is in this quote as well. It is April 20, 1982. Where is the current House leader from? Did his riding change, Renfrew North? I think it is Renfrew North.

“Quite frankly, on that occasion I was distressed as well to have noted that we have now got to the situation where, while very few people come to the throne speech debates, those members who come to read written speeches avail themselves of what I think is a rather unparliamentary photo opportunity. The half dozen members who are here gather around the honourable member reading a speech so that a photograph might be taken, undoubtedly to send back to the local trombones so that perhaps a somewhat more favourable impression of the milieu in which the great oration was made --”

At that point he was cut off by the now Treasurer who said, “Misleading, that is what it is; misleading advertising.”

I have watched much of this debate in my place and have tried to be here as much as I could to hear the back-bench members of the government give their written contributions to this assembly. As I was reading through the comments made by the member for Renfrew North, I could not help but think that really not very much has changed in this chamber. The faces are different and the party mimicking these comments that are dreamed up by $2.7 million of government research --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Same old crap.

Mr. Harris: -- is the same old crap. Is that what the member for Brant-Haldimand indicated? I think that is unfortunate.

I mentioned that in some of the speeches and debates I heard -- some of which, I admit, I watched from my office, thanks to the $85 billion worth of new TV equipment we have, or however much it is -- a number of the back-bench Liberals commented on the lack of opportunity to speak and to enter into this debate. Some even criticized the opposition members for speaking out and for speaking too long.

I would like to point out that the mover and the seconder of the speech, traditionally from the government back benches, had all day to speak. They came up with about 15 minutes worth of written stuff and, in fact, the House adjourned an hour and a half early on the day that was set aside for the two back-bench Liberal stars to show their stuff. I guess they did not need the two hours or the two and a half hours that were set aside for them.

Then I heard others criticizing some of the opposition members. I heard it on two or three occasions. In fact, the member for Nepean (Mr. Daigeler) got up and criticized the member for Durham East who sat through some of these debates with me. The member said: “You took all my time. I hope you feel good about it. You are an experienced member. I do not even get a chance to speak.”

The member should analyse how this place works. The standing orders say there will be a minimum of eight days on the throne speech. If the government in its wisdom wants to stifle the back-bench members so they cannot get an opportunity to speak, particularly if it sounds like some of the speeches are a little anti-Meech Lake, a little anti-free trade or a little anti some of the frontline cabinet positions, then the government cuts it off and says: “That is it. That is all. We are not going to let you speak.”

We would be delighted to go on for another two, three or four days in this debate. It was not the official opposition and it was not my party that said “Let’s cut them off,” it was their own government, their own people, their own House leader and their own Premier who said: “That is enough. I do not want to hear any more from the back benches.” That is why they did not get an opportunity to speak.

I want to refer briefly to the Leader of the Opposition and the remarks he made in his reply. I will not have time to refer to everybody, but he had some comments I want to discuss just briefly. One that I found very interesting was his comment to do with universal sickness and accident insurance, “Here we have a government that is still not prepared to even contemplate or mention the words.”

That was in the context I mentioned earlier, the incredible differences in our society in what happens to people when they are injured at work, what happens to people when they are injured in a car and what happens to people when they are injured at home. I do not know whether it is Progressive Conservative to comment on this, but I thought the Leader of the Opposition made some pretty good points. I suggest it is something that should be looked at, particularly in view of the comments over the last couple of years that have been coming from the Workers’ Compensation Board and how it appears not to be spending money wisely and not serving the employers or the employees very well.

The Leader of the Opposition goes on to say “It is an idea that makes the same kind of sense as workers’ compensation itself did when a revolutionary Conservative government brought it in in 1915.” That is the last year on which the member has ever complimented a Conservative government, I take it. I suggest that it may be time we looked at where somebody gets hurt.

Most of us here and most of the newly elected members will quickly find out they spend a lot of time dealing with people who for one reason or another are not able to function or not able to work. We go through the workers’ compensation system. I do not know how many millions -- indeed maybe it is billions -- of dollars we spend determining whether this person is to get benefits from the Workers’ Compensation Board or not.

If not, then we give him welfare after having spent $1 billion. It just does not make sense to me any more that we go through this. We go through medical reports on one side, then on the other side, then hearings, then appeals and then lawyers.

1630

It may be that it was a radical government in 1915 that brought in the WCB and maybe I am radical for suggesting it: I do not know whether it would work but I do suggest that maybe it is time we looked at unemployment insurance, at the WCB, at the Canada pension disability, at welfare and at whether it is not time for an efficient delivery of --

An hon. member: As long as you identify the source.

Mr. Harris: I have given the member a fair bit of credit while he was out.

Perhaps we could save billions and billions of dollars in administering these programs, in paying all the professionals, and get more money into the hands of those who need it.

I am going to run out of time but the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae) had a number of points everybody will want to comment on.

He talked about, “Does the House remember Pierre Trudeau?” He said: “I do not know whether he is now regarded as a millstone, or what his status is now in the provincial Liberal Party. Do the members remember Pierre Trudeau in Timmins, Ontario, in the election of 1974 where he talked about wage and price controls? He said, ‘never.’ He made fun of Robert Stanfield and said: ‘What are they going to do with the prices of things?’” Blah, blah; well, we know the story.

I thought it was appropriate that it be brought up at that time in the member’s speech. I agree that the point of all this is that the Premier and this government cannot be trusted. We have now seen that clearly, so everybody ought to be able to understand it.

They campaigned as well on, “We did what we said we would do.” I do not have time to go through the old throne speeches and the old campaigns, the $100 tax credit in the north that the Treasurer ignored for a number of years and the promised action on higher gas prices. I mention these because I am going to have trouble getting to all the northern issues.

In the 1987 throne speech we see the same charade. I agree that this government is excellent on press releases, excellent on convincing people it is doing things that in fact it is really not doing. They are excellent at saying they will do things and then they do not deliver. Trudeau was good at that too. I guess I am one of those who believes that it is a disgrace what he did to this country and I think it is important we do not let the same thing happen here in Ontario.

There were a few other comments. I did not agree with everything in the comments of the member for York South but there were a few I did. I enjoyed his speech and I have absolutely no doubt that he believes 100 per cent in what he said, which is different perhaps from what we hear from the government.

I want to comment briefly as well on the comments that were made by the member for Etobicoke-Humber (Mr. Henderson). I do so because his was probably one of the only speeches that the $2.7 million in research money that those guys grabbed did not write. I do not think he would have let them write it. It was a well-thought-out speech, I thought, as it pertained to free trade and Meech Lake.

I am going to run out of time. I had a number of notes that I thought we ought to refer to but I will instead suggest that all members, if they did not hear those remarks, ought to read them. They were well thought out. They were well presented. They were independent. I believe they brought intelligence to two very important issues: intelligence, not emotion, not what somebody else thinks they should be, not what will politically get us elected.

I guess if anything bothers me about free trade in particular, it is the stance of the Premier. The election is over, I thought. I understand why he did and said all the things he said to get elected. I understand that. I am a politician. It worked and it worked very well, but now we are faced with doing what is the right thing for this country and for this province.

I wish I had more time to comment on the remarks the member for Etobicoke-Humber made but I encourage all members to read the remarks in Hansard. Let me say that I thought I heard more reasoned arguments on free trade than I have heard from all the federal ministers, from the Premier, from the Prime Minister, from all the high-priced experts and from all the business people.

Let me comment too on one aspect of it that I have heard and I congratulate the member for it. There was one aspect. My colleague the member for Carleton in his remarks in this throne speech debate referred to it as well. He referred to the dispute mechanism. I am trying to find the part that was in the speech. When the member for Carleton referred to it in his speech, there was a lot of heckling and a lot of jeering from the back-bench government party members. Several of the government party members laughed at the suggestion that was being put forward.

I thought the member for Etobicoke-Humber made the point very well, as did the member for Carleton. What country would be willing to give a foreign state an equal voice in overriding the laws of its own legislative process? Would we? The member for Carleton said no, of course we would not. Of course the United States should not. That is why the compromise that was worked out is not giving control of American politics, of American decisions to Canada. It was a compromise that had to be worked out.

I guess all I am going to have time to do today is to suggest that those remarks are well worth reading.

Let me comment briefly on free trade as it is an important part apparently of this speech. Let me first of all, after having complimented the member for York South -- is it York South? I always thought it was.

Mr. B. Rae: Still is.

Mr. Harris: And still is.

Free trade is where I not only start to have some difficulty with the member for York South, but I also have difficulty with Broadbent and with Bob White. I understand the campaign and I understand positions in the campaign, but I think you really have to put into context where these people are coming from. First, they are socialists. Second, they do not want free enterprise to work. Anything that strengthens our Canadian and our Ontario economy through free enterprise lessens the appeal of socialism. I think you have to understand the political agenda all these comments come from.

The Premier on the other hand I thought should know better, but as I mentioned, perhaps he still thinks there is a campaign on. To me, nothing else explains his attitude. I do not believe his attitude is serving Ontario or Canada well, nor do I think that in the long run it will serve him well.

While I am on this, the throne speech says on free trade something that just boggled my mind. Listen to these four things. Here is what it says, that “we have given up far more than we have gained.” It “does not achieve the federal government’s stated goal of security of access to US markets. It does not provide a means of shielding Canadian exporters from restrictive US trade practices. The agreement contains concessions that will” -- not “might” -- ”seriously compromise Canada’s sovereign ability to shape its own political and economic agenda.”

1640

I disagree with all four of those but I assume the Premier believes them. He wrote them, so if he believes them, what is the debate? What is the argument? Why is he sitting on the fence on this? For the life of me I cannot understand how you can make those four statements and then say: “Well, we have got to look at the final text. We have got to look at this. I know I said I’d veto it, but I’m not sure I should.” That really is a contradiction that is unacceptable to me; it is unexplainable to me. I understand where the Broadbents and the Raes and the Whites are coming from and I put it into context, but I do not understand where the Premier is coming from.

What did we get in free trade? All tariffs will be gone in 10 years; a huge adjustment period as well for those industries that may have to adjust. Their laws stay the same; our laws stay the same. Nobody gives up any sovereignty there -- who the heck expected them to? -- but we gained an impartial review on the application of those laws. They gained an impartial review of our laws and their application, and how we apply them. We still have the right to pass all we want and we gained that in their system.

That has been the problem. It has been the political interpretation of those US trade laws that in my view has been the problem. With this mechanism I do not think we would have had the softwood lumber situation. I do not think we would have had the shakes and shingles situation. But now the disputes do not go to the American courts to be reviewed or interpreted. They go to an independent review board on which we have an equal voice. I say that is a huge gain.

The auto pact: interestingly enough, John Crispo says the auto pact is intact; it is exactly the same. He says that not only do we get to keep the auto pact but we in fact get what he calls auto pact plus. So the auto pact is intact plus; and the plus, of course, is the foreign car makers, the 50 per cent content that will have to be -- albeit it is North America-wide. Well, surely that is fair. That is the way it is now. We are competing very well under those rules right now.

We get servicing. If you cannot provide after-sale service, it is pretty difficult to sell. It is a major, major breakthrough in gaining access to the American market.

Because I am running out of time, let me go quickly to a few things that we did not give up. We did not give up everything the doomers said we would; we did not. We did not give up culture; we did not give up marketing boards; we did not give up regional development; we did not give up social security. Even the brewing industry -- I do not know how we defend that. I mean, if the Treasurer is able to defend that one against the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, he is doing well, but I do not know how. But even that we did not give up. Those were some of the things everybody is so --

An hon. member: Canadian sovereignty.

Mr. Harris: Well, let us talk a little bit about sovereignty. Did we give up sovereignty? What is our sovereignty? I guess to me, if you are economically strong, if you are able to function in the world, the stronger you are economically, the more you have an opportunity to exert, if you like, your own sovereignty. That is the economic opportunity, and without that economic strength I do not know what chance we have to maintain our sovereignty.

Well, I hardly got into the speech but let me say that we are disappointed with this speech from the throne. I have commended to you, Mr. Speaker, some of the comments from a number of the other members. I wonder how many, other than having listened to it on the day it was read --

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up.

Mr. Harris: No, I think that was one of the informal agreements and I am wrapping up.

How many actually read the throne speech after the time they heard it read that day? In our party we will be opposed, not surprisingly, to this throne speech. We will be voting against it today. I assume, I am quite certain that the official opposition will be opposing this motion today and if enough of the back-bench members have been listening to the debate, perhaps this might be another historic day. Who knows?

Mr. B. Rae: Off your feet. Come on.

Mr. Harris: Listen, I have got another 15 minutes or half an hour. If the members would like me to carry on, I would be delighted to do that.

Mr. Brandt: I would like him to carry on.

Mr. Harris: Thank you very much to my party and to you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity today.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: May I start by congratulating you, Deputy Speaker, on your election and your position? I know you will do well. I would like to congratulate as well the Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of the Committees of the Whole House. I am sure they will serve the members of the Legislature well; and if they do not, we certainly will do our best to remind them.

I also want to congratulate the new members of the Legislature. It is going to be very difficult for many of us to get to know the new members quickly since there are so many. I am sure this is not a problem the Treasurer will have; he knows all his back-benchers extremely well.

There are three new members I want to mention in particular, our three new members who have already made a name for themselves. The new member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) has, I think, made Sudbury proud already. Our new member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) and our new member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) have already spoken several times during question period and a couple of them have contributed during the throne speech debate. I know they will serve not only their constituents but the people of this province very well.

I do not see my new colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. M. C. Ray) here but I also want to congratulate him. I am sure he will enjoy the next four years serving the people of Windsor-Walkerville. Now, with the new pension rules, his pension will be vested after two years and then he can wait a number of years to collect the credits he will get after four years. In any case, I look forward to working with the new member for Windsor-Walkerville for four years only. That is the only concession.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: And then you’re going, eh?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I am coming back but he is not coming back. If one wants to take a look at the results in my home community and in our region, we did so well as a party that the former member for Essex North, the renamed riding of Essex-Kent, Pat Hayes, has taken a sabbatical but he will be back here. I think we can look forward to some other changes in that region of the province as well. He did extremely well. He scared the...out of the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. McGuigan).

I want to make a couple of comments about the role of our party and the other opposition party, but in particular about ours as the official opposition. We may have been diminished in numbers but I want to make sure the government and the people of this province understand that we take our role very seriously. We intend to hold these 95 Liberals accountable for the promises they made in the election and to good government in Ontario. That is our job and with 19 members we can do it very well.

I want also to point out that there are already signs this government is being somewhat aloof, complacent; arrogant is probably the word I was looking for. Looking at this afternoon, it took quite some time to even get a member of the cabinet to come in to listen to the throne speech debate. When my leader responded, the Premier certainly was not present for official responses. It was very reminiscent of 1981 to 1985, when we used to have windups for speeches and kick-off speeches for budgets and throne speech debates where the then Premier, William Davis, tended to stay out of the Legislature. The official opposition of the day used to kick and scream and so did we as the third party. We are already seeing that happen with this government, where the Premier thinks it is beneath him to come into the Legislature and listen to the representatives of the people of this province.

If they continue to go that route, the people of this province are not silly; they will reward the Liberal Party in the same way they rewarded an arrogant Conservative Party just a couple of years ago and again on September 10.

1650

I also want to make sure that people understand what is happening around this place. We are going to be adjourning on December 17. We will have had a throne speech with very little in the way of new initiatives, and we will have had a little bit of legislation but nothing of any significance that will be dealt with, and nothing new in the Legislature. The government proposes that we not come back until the week after the March break for the students. That will mean that while the free trade debate is taking place across our nation and while other issues need to be dealt with -- issues that are important, like the environment, car insurance and education, things that the government felt were so important that we had to have a provincial election -- we will not even be in session, because the government says we need a break.

Our party has gone on record saying that we do not want that break. We think there should be a short Christmas break and we should be back here debating the issues in the Legislature so that the opposition can hold them accountable, and so we can deal specifically with the free trade issue and hold the Premier accountable for some of the promises he made during the recent election.

If members want to look, as many speakers have over the last couple of weeks during the throne speech debate, there were not many new initiatives in this throne speech. There are a few new select committees. There are few referrals to committees. There is really nothing new on housing. There is nothing new on pensions, very little on child care and the same old approach to occupational health and safety. We certainly saw that very clearly in questions that have been asked in the last few days on McDonnell Douglas by my leader. It is the same old approach to insurance and an inadequate approach to conflict of interest.

One could very easily make the point that this government’s arrogance really got off to a quick start when they reappointed the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) to the cabinet after a committee of this Legislature clearly indicated that member of the Legislature was in conflict. Without even having conflict-of-interest legislation passed, they go ahead and reappoint the member for Cochrane North to the cabinet.

We have delays on pay equity, in the proclamation of that bill. We have real problems that are confronting the people of this province in the environmental field, the health care field, pensions, education, jobs and free trade. I want to just touch on a few of those.

I was Health critic for this party for a few years. It was a continuing frustration to myself -- and I certainly think it is to many of the health care professionals -- that there is nothing that has fundamentally changed in our health care system for many years. We have health insurance that came in in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but we really do not have a vision of medicare that was put forward by Tommy Douglas many years ago. We still have a system that is totally and completely dominated by the doctors and by institutions and takes up the vast majority of our health care budget.

We have things like community health centres and health service organizations which everybody says are cost-efficient and are the direction that our health care system should be going. We have Health minister after Health minister who endorse HSOs and CHCs, but we get nowhere with them, because the bureaucracy still continues to see those as not integral parts of our health care system. Therefore, there has been very little in terms of expansion.

I can use my home community of Windsor as an example. We have four hospitals and we have four hospital boards. We have hospitals that are competing with one another and very little, if any, accountability of those hospital boards to the people in the community. It can take one month to find out from one’s local hospital how one gets on a hospital board, and it is very difficult for people to get on a hospital board. Most hospital boards in this province do not reflect the community in their makeup whatsoever.

The only time the hospitals in my home community have been able to get together and take one position was when I publicly said we should have one hospital board and it should be publicly elected. All the chairmen in the hospital boards in the Windsor community got together and wrote a letter to the editor condemning me. Since I have been a member, that is the only time I remember when they agreed on something.

In between, they fight for computerized axial tomography scanners and for other high-tech health care, and they do not have a comprehensive approach to health care. There is this competition that exists among hospitals in communities the size of Windsor, whereas if we had one hospital board, we could properly plan our health care system. We could rationalize our health care system and, I believe, provide better health care at a more efficient rate of cost for the taxpayers of this province.

There are regions in our province that simply do not have the same access to health care as places like Toronto, London, Hamilton and Ottawa-teaching hospital centres. Northern Ontario is obviously a glaring example, but I would point out very clearly that places like Windsor and many other communities that are not teaching hospital areas have extreme problems with getting adequate numbers of speech pathologists and physiotherapists and access to some of the high-tech medicine, which we have to try to balance with the community approach and the health promotion approach.

Our family very recently went through something where my dad had a very serious heart attack. I would say the Metropolitan General Hospital took very good care of him, but the reality of the situation is that there is better treatment available in other communities across the province. There would be better services available in London, because it has a teaching hospital. One has to question whether the same access exists for all the people of our province and whether, if they cannot get access to that quality health care, lives are in fact put at risk because of the community they live in.

I think it is something the Ministry of Health is going to have to come to grips with. Health transportation in the north has been looked at and some assistance has been provided, but if one wants to count the number of people who are travelling back and forth from communities like mine to London every day, I think an argument could be made that we are also going to have to start looking at proper assistance to the teaching hospital areas so that everyone can get access to that quality health care.

I obviously cannot go through a response to a throne speech without making some comment about health care for our seniors. During the minority government, I think we passed substantial amendments to the Nursing Homes Act as part of the accord, the agreement that had been struck by our party and the minority Liberal government at the time. We now have some good sections of the Nursing Homes Act and I know the regulations are now being worked on, but the fact of the matter is that nothing has changed in terms of enforcement of the Nursing Homes Act in this province.

The Premier said during the election that we had the best government in the world. We can have the best Nursing Homes Act in the entire world, but if the government is not committed to enforcing that act, then it is an absolutely meaningless achievement that a bunch of legislators have accomplished together by sitting in a committee room and will have no direct impact on the residents in the nursing homes of this province at all.

I am absolutely amazed that after a bill of rights was passed for nursing home residents, nobody in the Ministry of Health has bothered to communicate the fact that there is a bill of rights that can be enforced by residents and their families in the nursing homes. There has been no effort to try to communicate with nursing home residents and the relatives of those residents so that they know of their new rights that have been established in the statute. We have a report that was put together on advocacy, but nothing at this point has been achieved by the government to have advocacy in this province or to introduce legislation based on the report from Father Sean O’Sullivan.

I do not believe there are going to be those kinds of reforms unless communities like Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities and opposition parties like ours push this government into making those reforms, because I do not think this government is fundamentally interested in making those changes to our health care system or to the nursing home system.

In addition to being House leader for our party, I am now critic in the area of pensions, and I certainly admit I have a lot to learn. Up to this point, the pension plan I knew best was the pension plan that we as members of the Legislature participate in, but I am beginning to learn what the difficulties are for other working men and women in this province.

Three million working people in this province have no private pension plan whatsoever; 60 per cent of the men who work do not have a pension plan and 70 per cent of the women who work do not have a pension plan. Surely, in 1987 it seems a little bit unfair that 25,000 nursing home workers are not able to access a pension plan in Ontario.

1700

We certainly need to have the ability for people to take early retirement if they want to take early retirement. That financial option should be available. It should not be a matter of calculating your pension and deciding whether you can afford to retire. Early retirement should be an option that is available to the worker and the only way that is going to happen is with substantial reforms taking place here in Ontario.

There are examples that were used during the election but I am going to give the members an example again that refers to my father because he was in the auto industry for many years. He worked at Ford Motor Co. Ford Motor Co. picked up and moved out of Windsor to Oakville back in the 1950s, so he lost all his pension credits. He worked at Chrysler Canada. Many people forget that Chrysler Canada almost went bankrupt in the 1950s and he lost his pension credits. So now he has 29 years in at an auto company and cannot afford to retire until he gets his 30 years’ pension credits because it makes that much of a difference.

You have an older worker who has not particularly enjoyed working at the plant where he works. At Champion Spark Plug, where he worked, there are 200 people or more on layoff who are collecting either unemployment insurance or welfare benefits. The insanity of it is that all someone has to do is properly top up those kinds of pensions so somebody can afford to retire with decent credits, with a decent pension, retire with dignity and enjoy retirement, yet the system does not allow for that. Instead, we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars, billions of dollars for unemployment insurance. We pay welfare benefits when we could in some small way alleviate that problem by having decent pensions for people so they could take early retirement and take advantage of retirement.

My leader and my party suggested during the last provincial election that there should be an Ontario pension plan that would guarantee 50 per cent of the average industrial wage in this province. I do not think that is an unrealistic expectation in 1987. If this government is really interested in older workers and opening up jobs and treating people with dignity and respect, it would explore those alternatives and move on those alternatives. God knows there is a requirement and a need for it. Pensions are one of the issues uppermost in people’s minds in this province.

I want to refer briefly to the whole issue of jobs. I get a little frustrated when I hear governments --we heard the economic statement of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) last week -- paint this rosy picture that everybody is at work and that we have created 140,000 jobs in the last 12 months, when the reality of the situation is there are still thousands of people unemployed in our province.

In northern Ontario there is a huge unemployment rate, a huge difficulty that has not been addressed by this government. Even in communities that are supposed to have experienced this great recovery -- we all know our own communities best. My home community still has 10 per cent unemployment and we are supposed to be in the midst of a boom in the auto industry. One can only fear what is going to happen when this free trade deal goes through or when we experience a recession and see the ramifications, because in the last number of years every time we go into a recession and then come back to a recovery, the acceptable unemployment rate seems to be higher than the pre-recession recovery. That is exactly what has happened in this case.

We have an unacceptable unemployment rate in this province, yet jobs do not seem to be a top priority of this government. If in fact the free trade deal goes through, we are going to have less of an ability in this province and in this country to plan our own economic destiny and create jobs in this province than we had prior to the free trade deal.

During the election, free trade and insurance were the number one issues in my riding and in my region. Certainly, it was by no accident that the Premier made his announcement in Windsor of the six conditions by which he would accept a free trade agreement and it was no accident that other spokespeople for the Liberal Party made statements in the Windsor area on free trade.

I remember very well a visit to the Windsor area by the Treasurer when he was asked a question by the press: “What do you think of Mr. Grossman’s $2-billion adjustment fund that he is proposing when free trade is phased in?” The Treasurer’s response was: “Why the heck would we want an adjustment fund? If it is going to cost us $2 billion, we should say no and stop free trade.” I totally agree.

The fact of the matter is, as the election went on, the rhetoric got turned up, the radio ads that were used by the Liberal Party were very interesting and obviously very convincing, if very misleading, as we now find out after the election. On August 11, 1987, the Premier said, “Industrial centres such as in Windsor could be reduced to no-industry ghost towns if the United States succeeds in removing tariff protection from the Canadian autos and parts provided for in the auto pact.”

That is exactly what has happened. The current safeguards under the auto pact are very weak but they have been absolutely eliminated, and they have been used in the past. One of the things Mr. Reisman seems to forget, when he talks about the gutting of the auto pact safe-guards, is that we have used them. In fact, there is a huge auto plant in my riding that was a result of the fact that Chrysler did not meet its requirements under the auto pact. The federal government negotiated with the company and, as a result, the Chrysler van plant exists with several thousand jobs in my riding.

I spent some time in the last few days re-reading some of the speeches that took place in this place when we were in the depths of the recession. We have to remember that the only time we have had a surplus under the auto pact, with the exception of the last couple of years, was in 1973 and 1974. Every other year the Americans had the surplus. We had an incredible deficit that had been run up from the time the auto pact was signed in 1964 until the early 1980s. We still have some really serious problems in the auto industry, even with the auto pact.

Our auto industry is assembly-dominated. We have fewer skilled workers per capita than they do in the United States. We have little or no research and development done by the auto companies. Office jobs are not protected by the auto pact and hundreds of office jobs have been sent south of the border in the last several months or the last couple of years. The profits continue to go south of the border, obviously because these are American-owned companies.

When we see that those are some of the structural problems we have already had in the auto industry, and that is with some safeguards in the auto pact, it worries us. It scares the living daylights out of us as to what is going to happen to the auto industry without the safeguards.

I want to read again into the record the promises that were made by the Premier during the election. I want to read them because I think they were best put in his radio ad that was played time and time again in auto communities across this province:

“We would be better off with no deal if it is not the right deal.

“There can be no free trade deal without agreement on a fair way to settle disputes and guard Canadian industries from unfair harassment.

“There can be no free trade deal unless the viability of our family farms is safeguarded.

“There can be no free trade deal if it robs us of our essential right as a sovereign nation to try to ensure that foreign investment is in the interest of Canadians.

“There can be no free trade deal if it guts the auto pact.

“Canada’s auto industry cannot be a bargaining chip and that is my bottom line.”

That is our bottom line too, but the fact of the matter is that no one could possibly listen to or read that radio ad without coming to the same conclusion as we did when we heard it or that the people of this province did when they heard it. That was that the Premier was making an absolute promise that there would be no free trade deal unless those conditions were met.

Now we come back here and what does the Premier say? The Premier says it is going to have to be settled during a federal election and there is nothing he can do about it because 99 per cent of the deal comes under the federal jurisdiction. In particular, the auto pact is a deal between the American government and the Canadian federal government and therefore does not involve the provincial government, even though over 90 per cent of the auto industry is here in Ontario.

1710

One has to look at some of the western provinces, and Mr. Peckford in the east. When our federal government makes deals that are not advantageous to their basic industries, they stand up for their provinces, they stick up for their workers and their jobs.

This government is instead dancing around the issue and refusing to follow through on its promises in the last election. There is no other conclusion that people can come to by rereading these ads and rereading the speeches the Premier made in the last election than that we were misled, hoodwinked by the Liberal Party in the last election. There is no doubt about that at all.

If it was not so important to the future of this province and the future of this country, we could just argue about it. But the fact of the matter is that if Ontario does not stop this deal, and if there is not a federal election at which the people can stop this deal-and a federal election before the signing of the deal is highly unlikely-we are stuck with this deal.

Year after year after year since I have been a member, I have raised concerns about the auto pact. Every time I raised concerns about the auto pact and said that perhaps one of the solutions should be to sit down and look at some improvements in the auto pact, we were told: “You can’t do that. The deal has been signed, the industry is rationalized under the auto pact and it can’t be changed.”

The point is that once there is a free trade deal signed, the companies, the industries will rationalize and workers will be displaced, but once the economy has rationalized to fit that free trade deal, we are sunk. It cannot be reversed as easily as a federal election two years down the road and anybody just simply saying, “We’re going to give one year’s notice.” It is not that simple. I wish it was.

I read some speeches, and I want to quote some of the speeches that were made by Patrick Lavelle, now Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, when he used to represent the auto parts manufacturers in this province. This was a speech that he gave on January 19, 1982. He talked about how important the auto industry is to some of the communities in this province.

“In Ontario the figures are more dramatic, because every community in southern Ontario --Windsor, Kitchener, St. Catharines and many others -- are dependent for their very survival on the prosperity of the auto industry.”

He talked about the duty remission plan.

“In recent months we have seen the establishment of Volkswagen in Barrie and growing prospects that Toyota will establish an aluminum die casting plant in British Columbia. A number of French manufacturers who are suppliers to Renault have established in Canada. Many more are contemplating future investments here. These new activities are taking place because the Canadian government had the foresight a few years ago to put into effect third-country remission programs which introduced the concept of Canadian content in imported vehicles.”

We all know that by the name of the duty remission program, which is scrapped by the free trade deal. One of the economic initiatives that we had in order to develop a Canadian auto industry and get some Canadian auto parts into these Japanese and Korean and other cars that were coming into our country was the duty remission program. It is scrapped by the free trade agreement, so there will be no further development of that program in Ontario.

This point is interesting as well, on page 9 of the speech: “But we can’t provide Ford, Chrysler and General Motors with a blank cheque as we did 17 years ago. In making the concessions, we propose -- after all Canada represents over 10 per cent of the North American market -- all vehicles sold in Canada by North American producers should have 85 to 100 per cent Canadian content.”

What he is saying here is that while we had the auto pact and the safeguards, they were inadequate and we need to improve on that.

What we are doing here is that we are going back with the free trade agreement. We are eliminating the few safeguards that we in fact had, and the reality is, if the auto pact in 1964 was a blank cheque to the Big Three, this free trade deal, which they now embrace, is even blanker and it will allow the Big Three auto makers across this continent to do whatever the heck they want, with some guarantee of 50 per cent North American content.

I wanted to make some references to an old report I used to use quite often, the Gray report, which was done in the early 1970s on foreign investment and the need to protect our country against foreign investment. I will not be able to quote the section I wanted to, but we know the consequences of more foreign ownership of our economy and we know the free trade agreement takes away even Investment Canada. The Tories killed the Foreign Investment Review Agency and now with Investment Canada those rules will even be eliminated.

I think this government has an absolute obligation to fulfil the promise. This deal goes beyond fighting among political parties in this Legislature. This deal will hurt our country and eventually lead to economic union. The logical conclusion is obviously political union. The deal has to be stopped, and the only province that has the clout within Confederation and within the economy in Canada to stop this deal is the Ontario government. That is what they promised in the election. That is the major problem and concern facing the people of this province now. I hope on behalf of my constituents and the people of this province who have voted for the government that it will fulfil the promise, or as its members used to say to the Davis government, “Keep the promise.”

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate you on your reselection to the speakership of this House. In my experience in the chamber I cannot recall anyone who has been more effective in presiding over our affairs, which you do always with good humour and a resource of good sense, common sense, which has made our deliberations and debates much more productive than they sometimes have been in history.

I am also very pleased with the selection of the Deputy Speaker and the Chairman of the committees of the whole House. I am also delighted that so many of my colleagues have now found time to join us here in the chamber, because, as Treasurer, I told them that if they did not show up, terrible things would happen to them. I interrupted myself, Mr. Speaker, in making some comments about your jurisdiction here.

I am also pleased at the way we are served from the table. Our clerks have done good work, and the chief clerk, who has recently assumed his duties --about a year ago now -- has settled in and earned a reputation in which he enjoys the confidence of all members of the House. It is certainly apparent to all of us that when we ask him for advice, and I think it is obvious that when you ask him for advice, he can respond not only from his erudition but from his experience in a way that is productive and useful.

I notice in walking around the halls that the Sergeant at Arms has new quarters. I have not had a chance to visit him there, but I hope they are suitable to the importance of his position.

I had the opportunity and great pleasure of visiting Quebec City last week for a conference with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Financial Institutions. I can report to the House that we have what amounts to a regular exchange. We meet in Toronto and Quebec City a couple of times a year to keep up to date with new developments. One of the interesting things there, in line with my reference to the Sergeant at Arms, is that because of the terribly unfortunate tragedy involving a crazed gunman going into the legislative assembly, as we all recall, that House is now extremely well protected against people coming in who might very well be dangerous to the people working there.

I am not recommending anything similar here. We have had this debate before. The Sergeant at Arms there does have additional responsibilities to report to the Speaker and the House for the custody of the building and the safety of the people working there, something I think is worthy of our careful consideration.

I would like to comment on the speeches made by a number of members. I have just listened to the House leader for the New Democratic Party who speaks well and who projects, as is the socialist custom, great successes in the future. I was looking at the record of success of the NDP. When I was first elected there were five members of the NDP and there are now 19. Using the resources of the Treasury and the Ministry of Economics, I calculate that at that rate it will take 90 years for them to achieve a majority in the House, and even the present leader will be middle-aged by that time.

I think members are aware, however, that there was not just an ordinary arithmetic progression all the way from five to 19, that there were a few vicissitudes.

1720

Mr. B. Rae: Let’s have it. Get it out of your system.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The leader of the NDP is talking about me getting it out of my system, but in fact it might give him a bit of buoyancy to know that in 1971, the Liberals were 20, the NDP 19. In 1975, the Liberals were 36, the NDP 38. I remember the election well. In 1977, the Liberals were 34, the NDP 33. So during the years of my leadership it was rather neck and neck, often with the great Liberal Party of Ontario coming in third, but this has changed.

As I occupy my place here from day to day in the democratic process, I look at the opposition parties and find them really paling in significance beside that great group, sitting to their left, of talented new members of the Legislature just waiting for the favour of the head of government so they can show to an even greater extent their capabilities.

I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, that your application of the rules has been uniform and fair, but for some reason, from my present vantage point, the allocation of times in formal debates does not seem as fair as it once did. I have been very disappointed, to tell you the truth, that I have had the opportunity to hear just a few of my newly elected colleagues contribute to this important debate.

In each instance when they did, however, they very effectively constrained themselves to a relatively limited period of time while the opposition members rambled on and on in a way which I vaguely remember but which I think is best described by a paraphrase of the nonconfidence amendment. These are not the exact words, but they are referring to somebody else and I paraphrase: “Falling instantly into the miasma of complacency and doubletalk so often associated with small minority parties.”

I refer to that complacency because complacency is something we must guard against wherever possible. I wanted to warn the leader of the NDP so he could brace himself. I just wanted to quote from the November 20 issue of the Times of Oshawa. One of the leading articles quotes the former chairman of the caucus as follows, “‘NDP Too Complacent To Form Ontario Government,’ Oshawa’s Breaugh Says.”

When we talk about complacency, in this amendment that is put to bring about the downfall of this government or at least to indicate an alternative, the big objection the leader of the NDP has is to the complacency of the Liberal government. What could be further from the truth when we look at the fine people here present waiting for an opportunity to express the views of the people in their constituencies, just anxious to add something new and vibrant to the deliberations in the House. Yet because of the complacency of the opposition parties talking endlessly about the same old straw, the same old baloney run through again and again, they have simply had to occupy their places and wait for their turn.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: And let you talk.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Actually, my time is severely limited compared to what has been taken by the opposition parties now.

I do not want to quote the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) other than to say that over the years he has indicated a fairly strong and perceptive, not to say independent, view of the democratic process. Unfortunately, being the messenger, he was severely punished by his betters in the party and consigned to the second row, dismissed from his job as chairman of caucus and not even allowed to be present today.

I am very concerned about the complacency. I feel that the leader of the NDP, an estimable gentleman indeed --

Mr. B. Rae: What does that mean?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It means I am going to say something nasty about the member.

I am trying to work in a reference to the little, old, log embassy, which is where he formed his views of what democracy is supposed to be and of what the plight of the little man is. I know he is sensitive about that and I am not going to refer to it, but I would say that when it comes to a severe case of tight halo, the Leader of the Opposition suffers more than anyone I have ever met. It is characteristic, frankly -- to spread the blame -- of democratic socialists in general that there is always a tendency to be holy, if not holier.

Of course, he rejects the title of socialism, and so he may want to set himself apart from that intellectual approach to superiority. But the one time that -- and some honourable members, knowing me in years gone by, know that I have difficulty sometimes in constraining my annoyance. I used to flush and get thick in the neck and say nasty things. I think the last time was when the former member for Sudbury East called me a liar, and we had a great confrontation here that lasted two or three days until that was finally --

Mr. Wildman: I thought he always spoke well of you.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Well, we are very good friends. I think the real problem is that it did not seem to mean much to him, but it meant quite a bit to me.

I heard the leader of the New Democratic Party on election night claiming the great victory, going from 25 seats to 19. But then he said, and it was at this moment that my neck bulged and my face got red, “I can tell you that as long as I have a breath to breathe, there will be no abuses of power permitted in this province.”

I found the quote a bit presumptuous, to say the least. I can assure the honourable member that there is not a member here elected who is not prepared to stop any abuse of power that he or she sees, and that the right to identify those and act against them is one that we all share, not just the Leader of the Opposition or the official opposition. I felt at the time that I wanted to be sure to bring that to the attention of all of us angels, and I now feel better having done so.

The Conservative Party is there, all four of them. Actually, I was very glad to hear the House leader make his address that they are in the midst of a leadership campaign. If I were betting money -- not that this will do him anything but harm -- I would say he is the guy to watch. If I were a Tory, I would probably get vaguely interested in the campaign.

But we know how difficult these things can be. Actually, the last time the Liberal Party was in the third position -- and God forbid that it would ever happen again; but understanding the democratic process, we know that the Leader of the Opposition is right, again -- but the campaign is going to be troublesome as far as the third party is concerned. Every time you get serious about anything, there is going to be some unkind person over here referring to the fact that particular questioner or the person making that particular intervention is moving ahead -- like right now the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) is ahead because he is pretty good in here. It is pretty tough, yes.

My honourable friend refers to the bluebirds that the Tory party is selling, the turkey sale, which was door-to-door before Thanksgiving and is now one of those boiler-room telephone deals where they are trying to move the stuff, but if they are working on that $5-million debt, it will take a little while. Even the books of the province look better than theirs, and that is not a compliment.

1730

But I know there is a tendency for the old-line parties to be talking --

Mr. Breaugh: I have been summoned.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am delighted that the member for Oshawa was permitted to join us. There are a few things I would like to go over, now that he is back.

An hon. member: See you Monday.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Well, I do not know. I probably should not waste time on this, but I will anyway since it is my time.

There is a tendency for us to be concerned, I guess, with the evils of patronage, and now that it has been eliminated once and for all in the province, I just could not resist looking at this report in the Globe and Mail of November 21 about the federal appointments to the Northern Ontario Development Advisory Board, with Leo Bernier as chairman -- not a bad idea. We have been known on this side to appoint Conservative cabinet ministers to positions of importance. I just wanted to mention that in case any of the members opposite want to make any long-range plans.

But really, when you look down the list, Alan Pope’s daddy is here, he is a member of the board; so is Gaston Demers, a former Tory MPP. As a matter of fact, he came to a Liberal meeting in Sudbury during the campaign. I probably should not let that out among his friends, but there he was. Of course, he wanted to see what our side had to say.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That’s when Nickel Belt had good representation.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: That is right. It is the only riding we came third in, as a matter of fact.

An hon. member: Actually, I do not think that is right.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Oh, there was another one? Anyway, we are going to correct that.

I can go down this list, and this whole northern development board at the federal level is made up of these great old retreads from the Tory party. I just wish that Mr. Mulroney would take a leaf out of the book of the Premier of Ontario and put that all aside. Appointments on the basis of merit rule the day, and I think it is a --

Interjections.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Well, it is a fact, and it is just one of the things that has made the government establish itself in the hearts and minds of the people of Ontario, however temporarily.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Russ Ramsay, Ross McClellan, Odoardo Di Santo.

Mr. Harris: John Follis is from a well-known Liberal family.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: That is not the way he is identified.

“John Follis of North Bay runs a chain of shoe stores in the eastern half of the region and is a friend and supporter of Conservative MPP Michael Harris.”

I did not want to say that. Is there anybody else the member wants to refer to?

Actually, I was just talking about the relative numbers of socialists, going back to 1959 when the great Donald C. MacDonald was leading the party from nowhere to great successes, and it is nice to know that he is still active in public affairs. The Tories, in that time, however, 1959, had 71 out of 98. Those were very depressing times.

As I said, in going from five to 19, it will take the NDP 90 years to form a government. The PCs, going from 71 to 16, are going to be as dead as the dodo by the time the NDP makes its final emergence that has been so long predicted.

However, although there are no new Conservative members this time -- and we had the opportunity to hear their views expressed at length one more time -- we all know that every member of this House shares in a commitment to the welfare of the province which is totally unquestioned.

When it gets to the issues of the day, and there are many of them and a variety of importance, we know that our motives are pure on all sides. I believe that to be true, and until we accept that on all sides and accept the motives of all members of the Legislature, in my view, the effectiveness of the chamber is somewhat constricted.

The House leader of the NDP referred to the Liberal campaign platform as being misleading. From his point of view, it probably was. The voters did not find it so. I cannot really object to the utilization of that word.

The House leader of the Conservatives said the Premier cannot be trusted. That is getting fairly close to the point where I feel it contributes to an attitude in the community that is not so good about politicians. If he really believes the Premier cannot be trusted, that is a serious thing. I do not believe that he believes that. Sometimes in this House we get into an exaggeration of our views, which is seriously nonproductive.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Say one thing and do something else.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Well, I am sorry. These are my views; this is my time.

I go back to the leader of the New Democratic Party, who earlier in this session repeatedly used the word “fraudulent” in referring to the Premier and his view of the campaign issues. If the member cannot see my point, I cannot help him. I just simply suggest that there are certain words and phrases that do not belong in an appropriate discussion of the issues. It is quite possible to express the strongest possible difference of opinion without saying the leader of the government is fraudulent or that he cannot be trusted. That is my view.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The member should just think about the sermon and he will be a much better politician, I will tell him that.

I want to refer briefly to the report of the Provincial Auditor which was tabled today, and I read from page 3, section 1.2:

Mr. B. Rae: Keep your sermon for somebody else.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Your neck is beginning to bulge.

Mr. B. Rae: Patronizing nonsense.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Just a little advice to people who need it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Quoting from the auditor’s report, page 3, I read that “it is our opinion that the areas audited during the past year have been satisfactorily administered overall” and “it is our view...that...administration of public funds continues to improve.” I can assure members that, as Treasurer, I am delighted to read those words.

I listened to the question put before the House by the House leader of the Conservative Party indicating once again a need for improvement, and I agree with him in that. My own view is that we should always be doing everything we can, as a House, to improve the role taken by the auditor, who I would say is probably the cornerstone of keeping us all upright in the performance of our duties.

The honourable member, once again from the NDP, finished his remarks with reference to the issue dealing with free trade. He somehow believes the government was not expressing its view and acting in an appropriate manner. Right now, the Premier and a number of my colleagues are in Thunder Bay at a development conference which was scheduled many weeks ago, at the time when we fully expected this debate to be completed last week. Unfortunately, or fortunately, that is not the way it turned out.

Members are aware that a committee of members of cabinet was established as soon as the free trade proposals were brought forward with any definiteness, and the position taken by the government has been put across the province in a way in which the citizens’ groups and individuals can come and meet the members of the government and express their views.

The Premier has spoken both here and elsewhere across Canada, strongly expressing the view that while we favour any substantial and significant increase in trade, we do not support this deal. The details associated with it having to do with the auto pact, having to do with the new position in the marketability of our energy resources, having to do with opening up the borders of the nation to external purchase as far as our resources and our industries are concerned have been clearly expressed in the strongest possible terms by the Premier and a variety of members of the government.

There is no doubt about this, and there will be many further opportunities for this to happen. I cannot understand what the Leader of the Opposition and the principal spokesman are referring to today when they say that somehow there is something dishonest or fraudulent or untrustworthy about this particular position, because it is a clear statement of a position that is supported by many thinking people in this country and in this province.

When we refer to the speech itself, it seems really unbelievable that members of this House could contemplate voting against its contents. We have made and continue to support a commitment to quality in education. This is not just generalization; this is specific, referring to the provision of more teachers, particularly for the lower grades, and additional support at the post-secondary level.

1740

The Premier’s Council on technology, which has $100 million this year to spend in the improvement of research and giving this jurisdiction a stronger competitive position in world markets, is among the leaders of North American jurisdictions in this connection. One of my greatest --

Mr. Brandt: They haven’t done anything.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member says they have done nothing. The commitment to centres of excellence, an additional $40 million this year, has been recognized by independent thinkers everywhere as one of the leading initiatives in this whole area of very high competition.

The improvements provided in health services are well known to all members. These have not been distributed in any way but the most independent and fair commitment of an additional $850 million across the province for new health services. We were able to reach an understanding and an agreement with our medical practitioners so that the doctors are doing their excellent work happily and effectively in all parts of the province.

We have moved under the leadership of the former minister and the new minister to provide programs for affordable, quality housing. We are very proud of our accomplishments there.

As for the development of the north, we now have a new minister who is associated with northern development, the House leader himself. Members from the north will be aware that the government’s commitment to moving offices and public service jobs to the north is well received. Some 1,100 new jobs are going to be put into the north.

In agriculture, our programs have been constructive and full of initiative. Very few rural communities have not responded to the leadership of the minister and the ministry as we have gone forward with an improvement to support this industry, which has been in the economic doldrums for so long, for too long.

The initiatives for the protection of workers however heartily criticized by the socialists’ still have been reasonable and the improvement is there for any reasonable person to see. The new minister and his predecessor have done an excellent job and will continue to do so.

The support for the seniors and the disabled is well known.

We have strengthened our environmental protection programs, and with the minister still in charge, we can look for even more of the same.

The government is based on accountability and openness. We are proud of the fiscal responsibility that has been our hallmark. While the people on the opposite side may titter, the Provincial Auditor supports the contention. I really am amazed that the opposition parties would continue to go through the pettifoggery of picayune criticism. Here is an opportunity for them to show they are larger than their reputations.

In the last few weeks, the people had an opportunity to assess the programs and personalities involved. Everybody can see what that decision has been. Here we are, in the very first session, with a speech from the throne that gives the sort of leadership the province can benefit hugely from, and which is presented in a fiscally responsible way.

I have already referred sufficiently to the amendment put forward by the official opposition. The Progressive Conservatives at least had the common sense, let us say, to realize that the government program is going to go forward, and if they want to mindlessly vote against it, then that is something they can do.

I would just say to all members here gathered that this is an opportunity, as we start the first session of a new parliament, where we are fresh returned from an election campaign and all that that entails, that we share the motives without any party exclusion for the good of the province. It is a chance for all of us to see that this program is well thought out and to join in a unanimous vote to support and strengthen the leadership of the Premier and this Liberal government of vision and accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker: I presume that completes the debate on the speech from the throne.

On Monday, November 9, Ms. Poole moved, seconded by Mr. Brown, that an humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

To the Honourable Lincoln M. Alexander, a member of Her Majesty’s Privy Council for Canada, Knight of Grace of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, one of Her Majesty’s counsel learned in the law, bachelor of arts, doctor of laws, colonel in Her Majesty’s armed forces supplementary reserve, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us.

On Tuesday, November 10, Mr. B. Rae moved that the address in reply to the speech from the throne be amended by adding the following words:

“This House, however, regrets that the speech from the throne fails to respond adequately to urgent and pressing issues facing this province and condemns the government for:

“Breaking its promise to veto the trade agreement signed by the governments of Canada and the United States, including refusing to commit itself unconditionally to not implement those parts of the agreement falling under provincial jurisdiction;

“Ignoring the enormous challenges of inequality and poverty in Ontario;

“Continuing to put the interests of private insurance corporations before the drivers of Ontario by proposing weak and flawed measures to deal with the insurance crisis;

“Failing to protect the environment and to enforce existing laws effectively;

“Failing to provide the means to deal with the challenges of education and literacy;

“Failing to act on the needs of our elderly by reforming the private and public pension systems in Ontario, including guaranteeing indexed pensions;

“Ignoring the ongoing scandal of the compensation and rehabilitation systems for injured workers;

“Failing to reform the administration of our health and social services in an imaginative and effective way;

“Insulting northern Ontarians with its incoherent, ill-conceived and underfunded approach to the serious economic and social challenges facing that area of our province;

“Failing to provide comprehensive and enforceable employment equity programs that would benefit women, visible minorities, the disabled and native Canadians in the workplace;

“Paying lipservice to the needs of the homeless and others unable to afford decent housing throughout Ontario, but failing to deal with the crisis with adequate programs;

“And falling instantly into the miasma of complacency and doubletalk so often associated with large majority governments.

“Therefore, this House declares its lack of confidence in this government.”

1757

The House divided on Mr. B. Rae’s amendment to the motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Farnan, Grier, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Rae, B., Reville, Swart, Wildman.

Nays

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Bradley, Brandt, Callahan, Caplan, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Cousens, Cureatz, Daigeler, Dietsch, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Epp, Eves, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Furlong, Haggerty, Harris, Hart, Henderson;

Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Kanter, LeBourdais, Leone, Lipsett, Lupusella, MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, Marland, Matrundola, McCague, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, Miller, Morin, Munro, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Offer, O’Neill, Y., Owen, Patten, Pelissero, Phillips, G.;

Poirier, Polsinelli, Poole, Pope, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Runciman, Ruprecht, Scott, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Sterling, Stoner, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Van Home, Velshi, Ward, Wiseman, Wong, Wrye.

Ayes 17; nays 89.

The House divided on Ms. Poole’s motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Daigeler, Dietsch, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Furlong, Haggerty, Hart, Henderson, Kanter, LeBourdais, Leone, Lipsett, Lupusella;

MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, Miller, Morin, Munro, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Offer, O’Neill, Y., Owen, Patten, Pelissero, Phillips, G., Poirier, Polsinelli, Poole, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Ruprecht, Scott, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Stoner, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Van Home, Velshi, Ward, Wong, Wrye.

Nays

Allen, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cureatz, Eves, Farnan, Grier, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, McCague, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Pope, Rae, B., Reville, Runciman, Sterling, Swart, Wildman, Wiseman.

Ayes 76; Nays 30.

Resolved: That an humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

To the Honourable Lincoln M. Alexander, a member of Her Majesty’s Privy Council for Canada, Knight of Grace of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, one of Her Majesty’s counsel, learned in the law, bachelor of arts, doctor of laws, colonel in Her Majesty’s armed forces supplementary reserve, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: On behalf of the members, I congratulate the table on what I thought was a stellar performance this afternoon.

I want to make an amendment to the business of the House that I read last Thursday, and that is, tomorrow the first item of business after routine proceedings will be a debate on government motion 5 establishing the select committee on constitutional reform. After that debate has concluded, we will proceed to the debate on interim supply, followed by the Ontario Loan Act.

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 30, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

Mr. Speaker: The member for Markham has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten). The member has up to five minutes to debate this matter, and the minister has up to five minutes to reply.

1810

Mr. Cousens: I am just surprised to see all the members of the House leaving at this point in time. We are dealing with an important issue and it does require the attention of the House for a little bit of overtime inasmuch as the people of Ontario would like to know who is responsible for the housing needs of the people on McClure Crescent.

As I count it, there are six ministries that could well be involved with this whole situation. There is no lead minister. Having presented the question yesterday to the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hosěk), I hoped indeed that this same minister, who once before had deferred the answer to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), would show some sense of leadership. Instead, she deferred it to the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten), who again, like the Minister of the Environment when he was given a chance to respond, did not respond to it fully.

It is going to involve Management Board of Cabinet in order to come through with some kind of recommendation and approval for whatever comes forward from the discussions that will undoubtedly go on among the other ministries. It will also involve the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, because indeed it is in a municipality of the province. It is also going to involve the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the Ministry of Economics.

There are at least six ministries involved with McClure Crescent, and there is not one minister who is prepared to stand up and make a commitment for this government to the people who are involved. It starts back with a statement and a commitment made by the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who said several years ago, “No one in his right mind would live in that neighbourhood.”

In the meantime, some 40 or so people in the neighbourhood have gone to court. They have fought their case and they are now in the process of having meetings with the minister, hopefully by Friday. I think the lawyers and their people will be making representations to each other, but there is little hope of a resolution to this problem.

I hope the TV cameras are picking it up that all these people who are sitting around the minister are moving in to give him comfort. I should think there would be a lot more comfort than what they can give him. There is little comfort to the people on Malvern Crescent, because they are the ones who have asked for some action by this government and it is not forthcoming.

An hon. member: You have the wrong street. You do not even know what street it is.

Mr. Cousens: McClure Crescent. I got so distracted with all these new faces. I thank the member.

What we really face up to now is, what is this government going to do ? There are 40 that will be addressed. What happens to the other 60 or so? That was the substance of my question yesterday. I asked the Minister of Housing and she deferred this to the Minister of Government Services.

Maybe he did not have enough time to think about it. What does the Minister of Government Services then have in mind for the 60 or so residents on McClure Crescent who have been unfairly excluded from any form of compensation? What is he going to do about the rest of them?

It was the opinion of the Premier and it was the opinion of the minister’s party long before it took government that it was going to do something for these people. It made that commitment.

In the process of working things out, it was thought that maybe there would be a place found for removal of that soil. If it turns out there is no place it can be moved, there was at least an opportunity up until last year that these same people who are involved could have been moved up into the Malvern development and that in fact there would be a transfer of properties considered. The Ontario Land Corp. owns a considerable amount of land up there, or did own it. It has now sold the property to a private developer. The province reaped its harvest and now that opportunity for working out some kind of resolution for the people on McClure is out of the question.

I am concerned about a deep, underlying problem of people in this province who do not provide enough votes to elect a councillor, let alone a government. There are only 100 homes or households, there are only about 250 or 300 votes, but there is one principle. The one principle we are talking about is the principle of honesty and integrity to stand up and follow through on the commitments that were given by this government, by this Premier. All 100 people who are involved in that neighbourhood had a commitment that the government would do something for them. The Premier, when he said that no one in his right mind would live there was not talking about just 40 of them; he was talking about the whole street.

Come on. We want to see some follow-through on it. We want to see some action. We want to see someone stand up to the bar and say, “I am willing to stand up and do something for these people.” The Minister of Housing has refused to do that. Why has she not come forward and said “I am going to take a lead” in any of the things? She has not for the 102,000 affordable units, and she has not for this. Maybe today we are going to hear the answer.

Hon. Mr. Patten: In response to the honour-able member’s comments and concerns, I would like to tell him that I personally identify with and share his concern. I think, if he will listen to me for a moment, he will see that the government also shares that concern by its demonstrations of what it has done to date and what it is doing at the moment.

First, I would like him to know that my ministry, in essence, is a service industry for the government of Ontario, and our involvement in McClure Crescent began as a service to the Ministry of Housing. As our continuing role is to work for and with others, such as the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of the Environment, to address all of these particular aspects, we have done so. But the issue of low-level radioactive soil on these particular properties has been ongoing. In fact, radioactive materials were disposed of at this site long before the provincial and federal governments purchased this land and, in fact, long before the housing development was begun there.

Nevertheless, we feel an obligation to the people in the area, and I think we have demonstrated this. An interim site to store this low-level radioactive material was selected by the previous government; I think the member would know that. But as the honourable member is aware, this was the subject of a court injunction, which took effect in April 1984. The court’s decision came in June of this year, and the period for the appeals expired in late September.

This government has taken steps to help the owners of the houses that are directly affected, as the member has said. The honourable member knows we offered to purchase 40 properties where some radioactivity was found. Since that offer was made, he well knows, 29 home owners have exercised their right to sell their homes. I should point out that at the present time these particular properties are rented, and the tenants were shown the soil survey reports before, of course, they exercised their option to lease these homes. The government’s offer to buy these properties was made out of concern for the individuals living there in order for them to keep open their options to move to any other place in order to live.

We are also aware of the concern from owners of adjacent properties about how low-level radioactivity on their neighbours’ properties affects their own property values, in particular -- I suppose this was the part I had left out yesterday in response to the member’s question -- the 60 people. Many of these concerned home owners are involved in litigation with the government. In fact, at the moment, the judge has given his decision on liability in favour of those home owners. This is recent. Currently what is proceeding is the consideration, in fact, not of the nature -- because there will be compensation -- but of the level of compensation to the particular people about whom the member expresses a concern which I share and so does this government.

Finally, we have not lost sight of the need to deal effectively and responsibly with all of the concerns related to this particular issue.

The House adjourned at 6:20 p.m.

November 24, 1987

ESTIMATES

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

INJURED WORKERS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION

EASTERN ONTARIO ECONOMIC OUTLOOK CONFERENCE

CHRISTMAS TURKEYS

EDUCATION

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CANADIAN INSURANCE EXCHANGE

RESPONSES

CANADIAN INSURANCE EXCHANGE

ORAL QUESTIONS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ACID RAIN

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ONTARIO HYDRO

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

GREENACRES HOME FOR THE AGED

INCINERATOR

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

CANCER TREATMENT

TRANSMISSION LINES

VICTIMS OF CRIME

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

TRANSMISSION LINE

CANCER TREATMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

DISABLED PERSONS EMPLOYMENT ACT

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC SERVANTS’ POLITICAL RIGHTS ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

RADIOACTIVE SOIL