Hansard Transcript 1985-Jun-07 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table copies of two orders in council appointing the following members as commissioners to the Board of Internal Economy:

The Speaker, who shall be chairman; the Honourable James K. Gordon, Minister of Government Services, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council from among the members of the executive council; the Honourable Sam Cureatz, Minister without Portfolio, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council from among the members of the executive council; the Honourable Robert C. Mitchell, Minister without Portfolio, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council from among the members of the executive council; Jack McLellan Johnson, appointed by the caucus of the government; Robert Fletcher Nixon, appointed by the caucus of the official opposition; and Elie Walter Martel, appointed by the caucus of the New Democratic Party of Ontario.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

OXFORD REGIONAL CENTRE

Hon. Mr. Eves: Today I would like to bring the honourable members up to date on allegations concerning physical abuse of residents at the Oxford Regional Centre for the developmentally handicapped.

This matter has been of particular concern to the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven), who met with me just this week on this subject. I would like to share with all members a brief summary of events and subsequent action taken by ministry staff.

On January 31, 1984, a resident of Oxford received a bruised eye and a bleeding nose. Rumours circulated at Oxford that an employee had struck a resident. An investigation was immediately undertaken. During that time, my deputy minister received an anonymous letter with further accusations. Within weeks, the Ontario Provincial Police charged an employee at Oxford with assault. Initially suspended, he was convicted of assault and subsequently dismissed from his job.

In view of the serious nature of this incident, the deputy minister launched a detailed internal investigation at Oxford conducted by an independent ministry team. Their objective was to investigate specific allegations of abuse, examine the centre's procedures for investigating abuse and look into staff attitudes concerning abuse. That investigation, which made a number of recommendations, was completed last year and I am pleased to say that all recommendations have been acted upon.

These recommendations included an enhancement of staff training at Oxford to ensure the continued awareness of abuse procedures, behaviour management and appropriate handling of stress and medical concerns; the communication to all staff at Oxford of the ministry's firm policy concerning failure to report or investigate alleged abuse; and the establishment of a standing committee on resident abuse to investigate all reported cases of abuse.

This committee, representative of faculty staff, reports directly to the administrator of the centre. Since the establishment of this committee, any allegations of abuse within the centre have been referred there and dealt with fully and satisfactorily.

As the members are aware, public institutions inspection panels composed of community members regularly tour publicly funded facilities, and last month a tour of Oxford county included Oxford Regional Centre. The report of the panel, which dealt with a wide range of issues concerning the facility, contained in its concluding paragraph allegations of abuse of residents and intimidation of staff. Because of the hearsay nature of this information, the belief that it could have been based on prior incidents already dealt with and that it was presented in a generalized, unspecific manner, there was insufficient information to conduct a detailed investigation within the mechanism of the centre's standing committee on resident abuse.

As minister, I have made inquiries about this matter with our regional and facility staff. The seriousness of the allegations and the absence of specific details have cast suspicion unfairly on all members of the Oxford staff. Therefore, I have asked the deputy minister to initiate a full investigation. On June 3, senior inspection and investigation staff from the ministry's head office were dispatched to Oxford.

Finally, let me assure this House that in any case where there is a question of abuse in one of our facilities, that issue will be dealt with immediately and thoroughly. The health and wellbeing of our residents in our facilities are the ministry's foremost priority.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would have hoped that when this statement was being read we also would have received not only the statement but also the internal document on the investigation that was done by the ministry, which has not been available to the critics.

Hon. Mr. Eves: The internal report that was done last year has not been made public for the very good reason that in that report are specific allegations against specific individuals, all of which, except for the case of the one we all know about, proved to be totally unfounded. We are not about to malign the integrity or character of those individuals named in the report. We are prepared, however, to provide a summary of the 22 recommendations in the report and what has been done with them to date.

ACID RAIN

Hon. Ms. Fish: I want to inform the House about our latest actions to combat acid rain.

My ministry is proceeding with regulations that will ensure that Inco Ltd. meets its commitments to achieve significant reductions in acidic emissions from its Sudbury smelter. As honourable members are aware, Inco pledged at its recent annual meeting to reduce its sulphur emissions by 50 per cent from 1984 levels by 1994. The regulations we are drafting are designed to make certain that Inco will meet these targets.

The Inco and Falconbridge smelters in Sudbury, between them, halved their sulphuric emissions between 1970 and 1980 and have reduced them by a further 25 per cent since that time. These controls for further reductions will ensure that the Sudbury smelters will have a reduced impact on the central Ontario environment.

10:10 a.m.

In February, Ontario pledged at a federal-provincial ministers' meeting to reduce its total sulphur emissions by 53 per cent by 1994. However, the brutal reality is that our actions alone will not be enough to save our lakes and forests from the ravages of acid rain.

About 50 per cent of Ontario's acid rain is caused by sulphur dioxide emissions drifting across from the United States. Another 20 per cent of Ontario's acid rain comes from sources beyond Ontario in Canada and from other world sources. Clearly, we cannot bring down acid rain levels sufficiently unless we get matching action from the United States.

That is the message I will present personally tonight to Senator Edward Kennedy, who will be speaking at a dinner hosted by the Canadian Acid Precipitation Foundation. Senator Kennedy is a strong supporter of acid rain control legislation in the United States Senate. Like Ontario, his state of Massachusetts is suffering from acid rain generated beyond its boundaries.

Next week, I will also make a presentation at a meeting in Ottawa at which the Canadian and American special envoys on acid rain will hear submissions. The envoys, former Premier William Davis and his American counterpart, Drew Lewis, are working on the problem of acid rain at the request of Prime Minister Mulroney and President Reagan.

I would like to turn now to actions we are undertaking to save our lakes while we work out a long-term solution to the transboundary impact. We are beginning a lake restoration program. The government plans to restore the fish populations of acidified recreational lakes in the pre-Cambrian shield by liming and restocking. The program is called Operation Shield. The program derives from studies in which we have proved that the effects of acid rain can be reversed.

For example, we limed Bowland Lake near Sudbury. Restocked trout are thriving now, 10 years after the last of its native trout were wiped out. The lakes to be treated will be chosen on a priority basis from about 200 lakes that have lost almost all their native sport fish and would otherwise never recover, even with reduced acid loadings.

This leads me to report briefly on one of the most significant studies we have undertaken. The study is of 209 lakes in the Sudbury area. It provides the first scientific evidence that acidified lakes can begin to recover if sulphur deposition is reduced. The study, over a nine-year period, showed that as sulphur emissions are reduced the acidity levels decrease in the water.

For years, we have been hearing from opponents of acid rain controls in the United States that more studies are needed. This study demonstrates conclusively with sound scientific evidence that recovery from acidification can be accomplished by emission reduction. That has been proved in the Sudbury area. I have no doubt that the findings can be applied across the province and to the northeastern American states. I trust Senator Kennedy will take that finding back to his counterparts in the United States Senate.

I remind honourable members that the federal Minister of the Environment, Suzanne Blais-Grenier, announced at the February meeting I referred to that Ottawa would take the lead in funding reductions by smelters. We are prepared to assist her department to achieve those goals as soon as possible. Our lakes and forests cannot wait much longer.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join me in recognizing some distinguished visitors in the Speaker's gallery: Senator Arthur J. Miller, Jr., minority leader of the Michigan state Senate; Representative Dennis M. Dutko, Michigan House of Representatives; and Senator James A. Barcia, assistant minority whip of the Michigan state Senate. Please join me in welcoming our visitors.

GRAIN FINANCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAM

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. It was my understanding from the response we received yesterday to our question on the R. B. McKinlay and Sons Ltd. insolvency that we might expect a statement from the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stevenson). I wander whether that statement is forthcoming, because the farmers can no longer tolerate the negligence on the part of the ministry in addressing the problem.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Speaking briefly on the member's point of order, the Minister of Agriculture and Food tells me he has the answer to the previous question and will give it later this morning in question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Nixon: I have a question for the Premier pertaining to the Ontario Hydro rate increases announced some six to eight weeks ago.

How did the Premier persuade the present chairman of Hydro, who is well known for his independence and business acumen, to announce during the election campaign the proposals for Hydro rate increases for 1986 of only 3.6 per cent, when Hydro's own document, entitled 1985 Strategic Marketing Plan, indicates clearly that an increase of at least eight per cent in each of the next three years would be necessary to meet Hydro's responsibilities, particularly those associated with its $23-billion debt?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The answer is very simple. I never talked to the chairman of Hydro about what his rate increases should be. The rate increase that was published, as I recall, was the decision of the board, not of the chairman. It was not influenced by the government.

Mr. Nixon: Since the Premier and his colleagues have expressed some concern about the credit rating of Ontario -- and he knows himself that if the credit rating is susceptible to being changed, it is because of Hydro's profligate spending procedures -- would he not agree, since Hydro's internal documents have indicated it needs a rate increase of eight per cent to meet its requirements, and since even last year, when its growth was five per cent, it requested a 10.3 per cent increase, that perhaps the announcement of a 3.6 per cent increase was intended to be helpful to the Premier, whether or not he considered it to be helpful, and in some respects was somewhat irresponsible?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I reject all of that. I point out that the credit rating, which the honourable member is trying to tie to Ontario Hydro, is not at all related to Ontario Hydro. If he ever has the opportunity -- perish the thought -- to go down to have a chat with the underwriters or the evaluators, the bond rating specialists, in New York City, he will find that they consider the current debt-to-equity ratio of Hydro and its income and coverage ratios all to be satisfactory.

They base the triple-A or whatever other rating we have for credit in the United States and in the bond markets of the world upon the affairs of the province, the way it runs its own budget, the predictions of future income and the predictions of future spending. Their most important criterion in the whole group is simply whether we are borrowing for current expense or for capital expense.

Mr. Nixon: Since the chairman of Hydro meets with the special advisers to the Premier -- I guess he has breakfast in the Park Plaza on a regular basis, or something like that, according to the rumours we read in the Toronto press -- will he not express some concern that the 3.6 per cent rate increase announced during the election campaign has been edging slowly upward again as Ontario Hydro changes its position and moves back towards its original statement that eight per cent would be required?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First let me disabuse the member of that allegation, which I do not think is fair when the chairman is not here to defend himself. The chairman has not met with any group advising me since the election, period. He has seen me at times before that to advise me on Hydro.

ORGANIZED CRIME

Mr. Nixon: I have a question of the Attorney General relating to the convictions obtained recently in an $80-million hashish and marijuana case. The judge, Mr. Justice Eugene Ewaschuk, is quoted in the press as indicating that this is an example of organized crime.

The Attorney General may recall that this matter has been raised regularly in the House, since the threat of organized crime has been a continuing matter of concern in this jurisdiction. The Attorney General may also recall the matter of a series of murders, bodies found in communities to the west of Toronto, was raised repeatedly in this House, and we were assured the Attorney General's special liaison group involving police forces from many levels had this matter under control.

Can the Attorney General report to the House on the efficiency of this group and why these problems associated with organized crime, particularly associated with drugs imported from the United States and other centres, continue to plague us?

10:20 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Obviously, the efficiencies of the group do not need any comment from me as Attorney General. The number of prosecutions and arrests and the discovery of these caches and supplies of illegal drugs speak for the effectiveness of the organization on the federal and provincial level to combat this criminal activity.

Mr. Nixon: The path of introduction comes across Lake Superior to Sault Ste. Marie in northern Ontario and then down into Muskoka in the Huntsville area, where there was a central cache of these drugs to be distributed. Since this case goes back to 1981, while we congratulate the Solicitor General (Mr. Gregory) on the efficacy of the arrests, we are aware this has been going on for many years and still there is no indication, since the judge referred to it as another case of organized crime, that it has been rooted out in any way.

Can the minister report to the House on the organization of the various police forces under his direction that have special responsibility in combating organized crime, which the judge says is still a problem with us?

Hon. Mr. Pope: The honourable member is aware of a North America-wide organization of police forces and prosecution forces that has been mobilized to fight this criminal activity, not only here in Ontario but also across Canada and North America. The member is as aware as I am of the multitude of arrests over the past couple of years and the accelerated investigation activity both in the United States and Canada with respect to drug trafficking and drug distribution activities. He is also aware of a multitude of prosecutions in Ontario and across North America. We are fighting together to root out this criminal activity.

Mr. Nixon: Since the minister is no doubt aware that crime experts believe the cases of arrest and conviction and the seizure of contraband material amount to less than 10 per cent of the total activity, can he indicate whether there is any stepping up of the program he and the Solicitor General share to combat organized crime in this jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Pope: We intend to continue to accelerate our investigation and prosecution activities with respect to drug trafficking activities in Ontario and we will do so in co-operation with all other police and court jurisdictions across North America. I am confident that when the member examines the record he will see there has been an acceleration of prosecutions and successful arrests in the past three years.

ACID RAIN

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier about the announcement made today by the Minister of the Environment (Ms. Fish) about Inco and acid rain.

In what has to be seen as an incredible example of government regulation by the private sector for the private sector, the minister announced today that since Inco has said it is going to reduce its acid gas emissions to a mere 1,000 tons a day by 1994, that is good enough for the government. All the government regulations are going to do is simply put Inco's program in place.

How can the Premier justify that kind of approach to environmental protection, when surely it is the job of government to use whatever means there are? Information is available in a federal-provincial task force report released five years ago that indicates Inco's acid gas emissions could be reduced by 86 per cent. Why has it taken the government five years to come up with regulations that were written by the company itself?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First of all, it has not taken me five years. I have been in this House for only two days and not too long as Premier. The member knows full well I set that as one of my personal priorities and we are working on it.

Mr. Wildman: Was that not a Conservative government --

Hon. F. S. Miller: Just be quiet over there.

I would also suggest the member has missed a couple of points. The very determination of this ministry and this government to see the emissions of the largest single-point emitter in the world cut back is very much a function of our diligence and pressure.

As I recall, it has gone from 3,700 tons a day when I was Minister of Natural Resources -- and that is only six or seven years ago -- down to less than 1,000 tons now because of the pressure of this government to make sure they were searching for ways to reduce it and because of the pressure of the orders. The member should take great satisfaction in that. Would that our friends across the border would emulate Ontario's persistence.

Mr. Rae: That kind of Yankee-bashing by the Premier really does not suit him very well. Really, that kind of turnaround is not going to get him anywhere.

Mr. Speaker: I presume you have a supplementary.

Mr. Rae: Can the Premier confirm that all the minister is announcing today, the sum total of the aggressive, tough approach of his Ministry of the Environment, is simply that the government of Ontario is putting into place regulations that will allow Inco to do what Inco already stated publicly at its last annual general meeting it intended to do anyway? Why do we need a regulation if the government is not even going to do more than Inco was prepared to do on its own?

Hon. Mr. Pope: You do not want to regulate it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Indeed, that is exactly the question. Does the member really not want a regulation to put that in place?

I happen to live in the part of Ontario that is perhaps the most vulnerable to acidic precipitation; I think the member is aware of that. I cannot think of a single issue in the riding of Muskoka that concerns more people, many of whom, by the way, live in Toronto. I would suggest to the member that we have taken action in the long run to make sure those emissions come down.

The Minister of the Environment signed an agreement with the other provinces of Canada a few months ago to see emissions across this country cut. The member heard the fact that only 50 per cent of the emissions are from across the border, 20 per cent from other sources and the balance from inside Ontario, but we are meeting our commitments here.

In addition, I hope the member noticed that we are taking action to restore lakes, which is of course critical in the process, to get back the recreational and other benefits that come from that kind of thing.

I am proud of the actions we have taken. We are asking others to recognize the seriousness of the problem. We are going to continue to fight both here and wherever we have to in order to make sure that the residents of Ontario are protected from acidic precipitation.

Mr. Rae: A federal-provincial task force report produced in 1982 shows it is technically and technologically feasible for Inco to reduce its emissions not by 50 per cent but by 86 per cent, and not by 1994 but in the next five years.

How can the Premier justify a second-best, half-baked approach that was written by the company for the company instead of an approach written by the people for the people, which is why we are supposed to have a Ministry of the Environment in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member can work himself up into whatever sweat he wants. The fact is that the pressure from our Ministry of the Environment, which I would say has been one of the most persistent, determined ministries of its type in the world, has been the cause for that change, not the opposite. I suggest the member consult with his friends from the area who represent that city and see whether they share so totally his conviction that we have not had an effect.

10:30 a.m.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Rae: I have another question for the Premier. It concerns the exchange we had yesterday about separate school funding extension.

Given the reality, which he is aware of, that motions of no confidence are going to be moved today, and that the vote is going to be held by agreement of the House leaders on June 18, is the Premier prepared to reconsider and agree that whatever legislation is available now should be published and should be referred to a committee of the Legislature, which committee will be able to sit through the month of June, have hearings and let the people be heard?

I would like to ask whether he would reconsider that. I can tell him that proposal is made because it is in the interests of all parties to have this matter dealt with. I would appreciate it if the Premier would reconsider his remarks of yesterday and see whether we cannot get this matter to committee right away.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I agree with the member's last comment; it is in our interests to see it dealt with fairly. Before I refer to the Minister of Education (Mr. Grossman) to explain the process to the member, I simply say this is something we feel requires careful and thoughtful examination. I would like to refer that question to the Minister of Education.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I might remind the leader of the third party that I have meetings set up next week with the major groups involved in this legislation. At that time, I will be sharing with them some of the options for the key sections of the legislation. Those groups represent all the major interests throughout the province and they will then be equipped with what they need to be equipped with in order to debate the bill with adequate information and knowledge when it is introduced. That sharing of options is something that has not been done to date and it will be an important part of that process.

If the leader of the third party, or perhaps second, wants to specify what approach he would take in the absence of having the kind of input I am going to take advantage of getting, there is no impediment to his doing that. He should feel free to do that. If he wants to share that and invite public input on that, he can go ahead.

One day he may see the difference between those of us whose words and draft legislation are seen out there to be a decision of government -- legislation which may cause division if it is not carefully thought out -- and the luxury those in opposition enjoy, temporarily perhaps, of not having the responsibilities of office. As long as we are over here, we are going to look after those responsibilities as carefully as we have done for a long time.

Mr. Foulds: You are the ones who are avoiding your responsibilities.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are not.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Go ahead. No one is stopping you from doing it.

Mr. Rae: Since the Premier has referred this matter to the Minister of Education, I will put my supplementary to the same minister. I find it difficult to interpret what the minister has said as being anything other than a stall by the Tory party of its promise, some 359 days after the then Premier of this province announced policy on behalf of his party. The minister is not the only one who is meeting and consulting; all of us are meeting and consulting. Good heavens, we have all been doing this.

Given the reality that all party leaders, all critics of Education and all members of the Legislature have been meeting and discussing with their constituents, with different groups across the province and with the public, does the minister not think it is in the public interest now to get this matter before a committee and to allow the public to see the legislation and to come forward, not in the minister's office, not behind closed doors, but in public where we can all see the legislation and have a healthy debate and a clearing of the air? Does he not think that would be better?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I say clearly to the leader of the third party that if his concern is for having a healthy debate about this matter in open and in public, he is welcome to sit here for the balance of June. I will introduce the bill and we will have debate on the principle and on second reading. He can debate that legislation as long as he ought responsibly to debate it, instead of being in a hurry to dictate terms so he can get power. Is it power or is it a look at the legislation that the third party wants? Stand up and be counted.

Mr. Rae: The government has backed off. It is clear what is happening. The Tory party is in full retreat from a policy announced by the Premier of this province a year ago. That is what is happening today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the honourable member have a final supplementary?

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Treasurer, the Minister of Education, whatever he may be at the moment -- his temporary occupation of that post which I am sure he will enjoy for the two weeks remaining to him -- a simple question. What he is basically saying is that if we want to have a full debate, it is only the Tory party that has a right to govern in Ontario.

That is exactly what the minister is saying. For two days in a row, that has been the message from the Tory party. What it has said to the people of the province is that if we want to have a debate on the issue, then we are going to have to let the Tories stay.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Rae: Does the minister not realize there is another very reasonable and fair option? That is, that the government gets off the pot, produces the legislation, gets it into committee and lets the new government deal with it in June and July, which is what the people of this province want.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Might I respond to the Premier -- the leader of the third party.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why are the Liberals so worried when I say that? Why are the member's friends so worried?

The member is looking more and more each day like the dog that caught the car.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I take it no one really wants to hear the answer.

Answer, if you wish to, Minister.

Mr. Warner: Tell him to put his knives on the table first.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What did he say?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Put your knives on the table first. Talk about knives.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That member should keep his in his mouth.

Let us remember that the ordinary course of running this House would have the throne speech debated, then we move to legislation. This government is prepared to follow that normal course, but -- and I want to say it very clearly -- there is one thing stopping that ordinary course from running, there is one thing that will prohibit and prevent second reading of the bill, there is one thing that will prevent it from going to committee, and that is the simple fact that the third party in this House, the New Democratic Party, has made three decisions.

First, prior to reading the throne speech or hearing any intentions or specifics of our legislation, it decided to vote no confidence in this government. Second, it decided that getting power for its friends in the coalition was more important than hearing the bill. Third, it decided there would be limits on public input when the bill is debated. That is what it said.

The party may, therefore, feel it is in a position to dictate to others about open processes and public input, but I want to say clearly there is no single group in Ontario that has less of a right to talk to the public about input and dialogue on this important piece of legislation than the New Democratic Party of Ontario.

10:40 a.m.

OAKLANDS REGIONAL CENTRE

Mr. Offer: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services about the Oaklands Regional Centre for the developmentally handicapped, which received $6.5 million in ministerial funds. The minister will be aware that the concerns necessitating the minister's attention have existed since the fall of 1983 when a provisional licence was issued.

In December 1984 an operational review, which outlined 48 recommendations for improvements, was completed. Given continuing concerns regarding mismanagement practices, why did the ministry wait until May of this year to inform the board of the facility that ministerial interim management was necessary?

Hon. Mr. Eves: The member is quite correct in stating that this has been a long outstanding matter within the Oaklands centre. However, we have tried to approach the matter with a view to getting the co-operation of the board and the administration at Oaklands. There has been some progress made. We felt we should give them every opportunity.

The member will note that we did issue them some temporary conditional licences from time to time, hoping they would improve their performance. It did resolve some of the issues we raised. However, other ones seemed to keep cropping up; so eventually we took what we considered to be the proper initiative.

Finally, the board of Oaklands on its own initiative asked the ministry to go in and take over the management review of the facility.

Mr. Offer: The minister may think his ministry acted expeditiously, but I do not. I refer him to a letter dated July 24, 1984, sent by his predecessor to a concerned parent. It states, "Please be assured that I will be requesting a follow-up report to ensure that program problems at Oaklands Regional Centre are resolved."

Ten months passed before the ministry took decisive action a few days ago despite further complaints by parents, staff and the Liberal Party. How can the minister justify that kind of delay when his predecessor promised much more expeditious action to solve these problems experienced by the residents of Oaklands?

Hon. Mr. Eves: The member is quite correct in stating that some members of the Oaklands staff were not aware of the procedures they should be following in certain instances with respect to notification and consent of parents. We have followed up those. We have tried to act judiciously in the matter, but we have also tried to give the Oaklands administration staff an opportunity to review its situation internally and to provide better service to the parents. We have been in contact with the parents as well.

PCB SPILLS

Mrs. Grier: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and concerns the spill of PCBs on the Trans-Canada Highway last April. Will the minister tell this House what has been the cost of the cleanup of that spill, including both temporary and permanent highway repairs, the cleanup of the truck stop parking lot where the spill was identified and the compensation for the expenses incurred as a result of losses to individuals and businesses? How much of these costs have been borne by the provincial Treasury?

Hon. Ms. Fish: I am not in a position to give details on the cost today, but I will certainly take the matter under advisement and reply. I should advise the members of this House that charges have been laid as a result of the incident and that while emergency cleanup has been concluded, long-term cleanup procedures are still under way.

Mrs. Grier: As the amendments to the Environmental Protection Act, commonly known as the spills bill, would have designated responsibility and given clear guidelines for the actions of the ministry in the case of a spill such as this, will the minister please tell us why this bill has not been proclaimed? Rather, in the speech from the throne it is intended that the regulations will be delayed again by being sent to the standing committee on resources development.

Hon. Ms. Fish: This government does not feel that emergencies created by any hazardous waste accident should await the identification of those who have been involved. We moved in the Kenora situation as we have moved in others and as we will continue to move.

We will be bringing the regulations forward to the standing committee so that proper consideration can be given to a number of points of implementation. I would point out to the honourable member that we will also be bringing forward compatible regulations to implement in a harmonizing fashion the federal Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.

Both of those measures will substantially improve the safety provisions for the handling of hazardous waste. None the less, should an incident arise where there is an emergency and where there is a spill, my ministry, along with representatives from sister ministries in the government, will continue to move with the greatest dispatch and will step in immediately with a full response.

Mr. McGuigan: With respect to the transformer that was supposed to be empty of PCB oils but turned out to be full and to be leaking, does the Minister of the Environment not agree that had the spills bill been in force, the companies would have taken precautions, knowing the liabilities that would have been brought upon them, and that this incident would never have happened if the spills bill had been brought in years ago as it should have been?

Hon. Ms. Fish: I repeat that charges have been laid in this matter. They would be laid if any such incident occurred again, and it is conceivable that it might. The ministry acted with dispatch; it was on the site immediately and began the emergency cleanup and the long-term cleanup. The honourable member will appreciate that since charges have been laid, I am obviously not in a position to be able to go into matters that would be before the courts, such as particular details respecting the spill.

GRAIN FINANCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAM

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture and Food has a reply to a previous question asked by the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay).

Hon. Mr. Stevenson: The question had to do with the issue of basis contracts under the grain financial protection program in relation to the McKinlay situation.

Since being placed in this office, I have thoroughly reviewed the minutes of all meetings that have occurred between ministry staff and the three groups, the soybean group, the corn group and the grain elevators and feed dealers association. I have reviewed some of the discussions that had gone on previously in the House and I have also checked the acts that are in question. It seems to me there is some real question whether the original intention was to include basis contracts in the grain financial protection program.

I guess the problem under the acts is the date of sale. The ownership situation certainly is not clear under the present wording of the various acts in relation not only to basis contracts but also to forward contracts and other methods of selling grain that are not currently in that act. The problem relates to the matter of payment 10 days after the date of sale and when the date of sale really occurs.

10:50 a.m.

To clarify the situation, I have met with the soybean board and I have talked with the corn producers' board and there is a meeting coming up. I have also asked the ministry staff to put together a meeting of a few representatives of each of those three groups, along with the Grain Financial Protection Board and the legal counsel, to go over each of the commonly used methods of selling grain and beans to examine thoroughly how each of those methods fits in with the existing acts and how complications in determining the date of sale, the date of payment and the actual ownership of the various grains will be determined under some of the more exotic ways of dealing with these beans and corn.

That situation will be clarified. I have asked for the written position of each of the three groups on this issue. That will be forthcoming. I want the written position because there are very high-profile producers in both beans and corn that have been phoning me and telling me basis contracts should not be included; so I have asked for the position of each of the three major players in this issue. It is very important that we do not make a quick decision now that will set precedents that the three groups will not be happy with in the future. As soon as that is clarified, we will make a decision on the issue immediately at hand.

Mr. Ramsay: That reply is not good enough. The ministry certainly made a quick decision that these farmers who are holding the bag for $1.4 million do not qualify under this.

I refer to the pamphlet the ministry published on this matter. It listed some exemptions and it did not list forward contracting as an exemption to this; so reading this, a farmer would enter into this contract in good faith thinking it would be covered.

On another matter, I would like to say --

Mr. Speaker: I believe you have asked your question.

Mr. Ramsay: Is it not the ministry's intent and policy to encourage farmers to use tools such as forward contracting and hedging, as a course I attended at the ministry office in New Liskeard, urges them to do? Why are these programs not included in the financial protection plan?

Hon. Mr. Stevenson: As far as I am concerned, this legislation is enabling legislation to cover, with any reasonable sense of limit at all, anything the industry would prefer to have under this financial protection fund.

Certainly, one method of dealing with grains is delayed payment, and that is an accepted way. It is very clear from the industry that it does not want delayed payments covered. Just because something is an acceptable way of merchandising agricultural commodities does not necessarily automatically mean that it is going to be under this protection plan. .

The second situation is that as we get to the more exotic methods of marketing beans and grain, it will be largely up to the producers to decide whether they want to cover, and how much they are willing to pay for them, some of the higher-risk methods of dealing in those commodities. I am sure in the future, if it is the decision of the industry to cover some of these more exotic methods, which I agree are recommended, and if it is willing to pay for that risk, then there is not too much doubt in my mind that they will likely be covered.

Mr. Riddell: The minister is well aware that there is an obvious lack of clarification in the Farm Products Payments Act as it pertains to basis or option contracts. This lack of clarification was brought to the attention of the minister's predecessor last summer. Nothing has been done about it until now.

Does the minister not feel, with this negligence on the part of his ministry, that he has some obligation to see that the producers who sold those basis contracts are covered under the financial protection plan, as they believed they were all along, since the brochure the ministry sent out further confirms they were covered?

Hon. Mr. Stevenson: There was extensive discussion between ministry staff and the industry at the time this financial protection plan was brought in. I am sure just about everyone in the industry will admit the situation is much more difficult than almost anyone had ever anticipated.

As I said, I have thoroughly reviewed the minutes of meetings and the memoranda that flowed back and forth between the various groups. I can find only one piece of written information that states there was a need for basis contracts to be included. There is a letter on file which clearly indicates that some members of the industry did not want basis contracts included.

After a review of the situation, from what I can determine there was no major thrust to include basis contracts in the original situation. Quite frankly, I think it was an oversight on the behalf of a great many people involved.

There may have been some lack of thoroughness of discussion on some particular item, but most certainly there was no negligence. If it is decided by the industry that it is prepared to cover the extra risk of some of these more exotic methods of marketing grain and beans, then I am sure it will be put into the legislation.

Once I have the written position of all those people, then we will immediately deal with the situation as to whether there will be immediate coverage made now, as well as moves towards future coverage in those areas.

ENTERPRISE CENTRES

Mr. Van Horne: I would direct this question to the Minister of Industry and Trade. In the 1984 budget a new enterprise centres program was announced. The centres were to provide new entrepreneurs with low-cost startup space and common support services.

The budget also stated that assistance would be provided on a cost-shared basis to a municipality. It was later announced that four of the seven centres would be community or municipally based. These were originally to be operational in 1985, and yet not one is now open.

I understand the major reason for the delay is the dispute between the Ministry of Industry and Trade and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, with the latter asserting that municipal participation in a commercial enterprise would be contrary to the Municipal Act.

How can a major program be announced in the budget, guidelines prepared and applications accepted before the legal status of the program has even been checked with the other ministries involved? It would seem the right hand does not know what the left one is doing.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: With respect to the last part of that comment, I would suggest the left hand over there knows what that right hand is doing in some respects.

The honourable member is quite correct in suggesting that the enterprise centres were announced in the budget. The money is in place and negotiations are actively under way with the various ministries that are involved.

There is some element of truth, which does not happen too often from that side of the House, with respect to one part of the question that was asked relative to an internal negotiation that is going on at the moment, and it is with respect to something that we refer to very simply as bonusing. We want to make absolutely certain that with respect to the enterprise program all the municipalities in Ontario will be treated equally, that they will be treated equitably and there will be no unfair encouragement for industry, as an example, to go to an enterprise centre as opposed to another community.

I know the member raises this question because he has perhaps a more direct interest in London, which is one of the communities under consideration. Let me simply say that London is still very actively being considered. We have not made a final decision on it yet, but we will consider London along with a number of other centres.

I am pleased to say we may very well have an announcement with respect to the first enterprise centre on the part of this government within a matter of the next couple of days.

11 a.m.

Mr. Van Horne: The minister did not indicate that announcement would apply to all communities. It may well be an application of that program to a community or a situation other than one which is involved with this municipal legal problem.

My understanding is that the lawyers of the Ministry of Industry and Trade say there is no problem, but the lawyers for the other ministries say there is a problem.

Municipalities such as London, in presenting their applications, had to do such things as negotiate with the university and find accommodation. In some cases municipalities had to put down some money to get a building or a property in which they could house the program. They cannot wait for ever.

If the minister is going to announce something next week that would cover part of the program, is he going to get rid of the legal problem within an equally short period of time so municipalities such as London can carry on with the program if they are accepted?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The London application is still very much alive -- it has not been rejected -- along with those of a number of other communities. There are some complications, for example, relating to the federal involvement in The Innovation and Entrepreneurial Management Corp. program, which deals with the same concept at a national level.

Provincially, we are looking at an announcement that may include as many as five centres very shortly. I alluded in my earlier response to the question to the fact that we have one centre, which I believe will be ready to be announced officially at the first of the week. I can promise the honourable member there will be a release on Monday or Tuesday of next week concerning the first centre.

The other four or five still have some complications that I want to deal with in a sensitive way, as the member would want me to deal with these issues. He would want me to look at them very carefully and make absolutely certain that London was being treated in a fair manner. I want to assure the member I intend to do just that, so he can rest comfortably knowing that this government, as it always has in the past, will continue to deal intelligently, responsibly and sensitively with all issues that come before it.

LEAD LEVELS

Mr. Reville: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The speech from the throne congratulates the government for caring deeply about the environment. The speech specifically notes the government's obligation to our children. Can the minister reconcile for this House these laudable sentiments with the less laudable reality that in south Riverdale our children continue to be threatened by elevated blood-lead levels?

Hon. Ms. Fish: The member for Riverdale, formerly the ward alderman representing the area in question, south Riverdale, will know well that Ministry of the Environment officials are working very closely with medical-officer-of-health officials in Toronto to undertake appropriate testing and to prepare jointly plans for remedial cleanup of the soil samples that have been found to contain excessive amounts of lead.

Mr. Reville: I am delighted that the minister knows the facts as well as I do. In view of the fact that her officials have had 15 years to think about this matter, will she instruct them to implement immediately a soil replacement program in south Riverdale?

Hon. Ms. Fish: The honourable member knows very well that tests are under way now at the request of the medical officer of health, the city of Toronto, the department of public health and the board of health. Joint planning is under way to deal with the contaminated soil. He should know this is not a matter that has been decided or has been dragging on. The ministry is responding in the fullest possible fashion to the specific request in co-operation with the medical officer of health.

Mr. McGuigan: Where does the minister stand on the matter of lead additions to fuel? The air in the city contains a great deal of lead from automobile exhaust, and that exacerbates the problem of lead in the soil. Where does her ministry stand on that?

An hon. member: It is the ethanol-methanol speech.

Hon. Ms. Fish: No, I do not think it is the ethanol-methanol speech.

The contaminants that result from burning gasoline, particularly in motor vehicles, are a concern of the ministry and of health officials as well. The honourable member will know that we have been engaged, with colleagues in sister ministries and with federal officials, in looking at changes in requirements in the processing for lead levels in gasoline and, of course, in the discussions that led to the recently announced requirement for reduction of nitrous oxide emissions.

I note that in both these cases we are concerned about the health of individuals within our society. We are also quite concerned about the impact of both lead emissions and nitrous oxide emissions on the environment and the possible negative effect in several farming and forest areas.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Since there is some conflicting legal opinion about our constitutional responsibility for the funding of separate schools, can the minister indicate to the House exactly what the position of the government is in this regard? What is the constitutional responsibility of our government to fund separate schools at this time?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The government got extensive legal advice from the Ministry of the Attorney General before introducing the policy statement last June. At that time the Ministry of the Attorney General offered the advice that it was both constitutional and proper in the circumstances, given the history of this funding since 1840.

Mr. Sterling: Does that mean we are constitutionally required to provide the funding to the end of grade 13?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is a question on which I think there will be a division of opinion with regard to the word "required." The important matter for us to deal with is the fact that this government has not backed away from the premise that it was its view that basic education now includes funding through the high school and secondary school period of time.

The opinion as sought from the Attorney General -- I stand to be corrected -- was not on the question of whether it was required but on whether it was appropriate and constitutional to so do on the basis of the Constitution, the British North America Act and the history before that going back to 1840.

11:10 a.m.

ACID RAIN

Mr. Poirier: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. This morning in her statement to the Legislature the minister talked about Operation Shield, which is to help correct the acidity level in lakes in Ontario's shield.

In view of the Conservative government's evidently poor record of preparing and enforcing strict and even stricter environmental regulations, I would like the minister to explain how we can feel reassured this time that her ministry will really fulfil its pledge to reduce Ontario's total sulphur emissions by 53 per cent by 1994.

The Minister of the Environment loves to point out the transboundary sources of acid rain. How does she expect to make a serious impact on Senator Kennedy and other American officials when her own ministry permits Ontario Hydro to emit more than 500,000 tons of sulphur dioxide per year?

Hon. Ms. Fish: I thought I indicated very clearly in the statement that Operation Shield is a reclamation project important for those lakes that have been damaged by acid precipitation. However, reclamation, restoration and restocking obviously are not the answer. The answer is in decreasing the sources of the acid precipitation in the first instance.

To that end, we have signed federal-provincial agreements for reductions. We have implemented targets with Hydro, which I am pleased to report is ahead of schedule on its reduced emissions. Notwithstanding the scoffing of the leader of the third party, we are going to move to apply a nonappealable regulation against Inco. That particular requirement was welcomed, and in fact sought, by the environmental groups with whom I met not a week ago, which had indicated their pleasure at the announced 50 per cent reduction and had expressed their main concern as being whether Inco would meet its requirement.

Their specific request was that the minister move to place a nonappealable regulation against Inco to ensure the necessary reduction. I was pleased to attend to that advice and was pleased this morning to announce that very firm regulation which will require that reduction.

Mr. Poirier: Some of the worst acid rain fallouts have occurred in my riding of Prescott-Russell in eastern Ontario. Rain with a pH value of 3.6, almost as acidic as vinegar, has fallen in my riding. Much of it has come from Ontario sources, contrary to the minister's preference to blame transboundary sources, and the government has done little in my area to solve the problem.

If the government were to have lasted longer than three weeks, what would the minister have done to correct this situation in eastern Ontario?

Hon. Ms. Fish: The honourable member is simply misinformed with respect to the sources. We are very clear and have been prepared to move very specifically to control the sources of acidic precipitation within Ontario which affect parts of Ontario and elsewhere. There is no question in any of the studies that have been done by officials of my ministry, by independent university people or by the environmental groups themselves that the major source of acid precipitation in this province is transboundary.

I have tried to make very clear that while that is the case and while we will continue to press in the strongest possible terms for improvements to be made in transboundary emissions, none the less we feel it is important that we clean our own house because our own house does affect parts of our borders as well as our sister provinces to the east.

To that end, I repeat, we have moved in the firmest possible way against Inco. We have established very firm requirements for Hydro, and Hydro is ahead of schedule. Also, we are engaged in restoration and reclamation programs which surely are the next logical step when emissions have been sharply controlled.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to direct my fast question in this parliament to the Minister of Energy. My question concerns a government that has neglected northern Ontario for 42 years, resulting in higher unemployment, lack of industrial diversification and higher costs of goods and services in the north.

In particular, I question the unfair prices charged for gasoline and home heating fuel in northern Ontario. Why do northerners have to pay eight, 10 and even 15 cents a litre more for gasoline than those people in metropolitan areas of the south?

Could the minister explain why we can have one price for beer in Ontario but we cannot have fair prices for gasoline and home heating fuel in this province?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There may not be time for the minister even to give an answer.

Hon. Mr. Harris: I suppose one's definition of what is fair varies, depending on whether one is selling and involved in the industry and the jobs of the industries that are selling, or whether one is in the business of buying.

Several of the prices the honourable member talks about are regulated. As he knows, gas prices are regulated through the Ontario Energy Board, and there is a vast and extensive hearing process that goes on as to the prices of those commodities.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The members of the House are not interested in the reply.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Peterson: I am very proud to open the discussion on behalf of my party. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have all faced some very interesting times in the last little while, and I am one of those who is persuaded they will continue to be interesting. I believe our party is ready to assume the challenges that lie ahead, whatever they may be. I believe, in spite of some of the differences, we have developed many things in common among the members of this House that are going to serve us all well in the future.

That being said, the people of this province did speak for change with a very clear voice not too long ago. I have been here for 10 years, and I believed change was necessary for all that time. The people spoke in the last election and confirmed that view.

For anyone who had any doubts, watching the Conservatives in action for the past three weeks has confirmed very clearly that change is the order of the day. The performance of that party in the past three weeks has turned many of its supporters against it. It is a record of which none of the Conservative members individually should be very proud.

I have never seen such philosophical harlotry. I have never seen such lack of dignity in facing the inevitable. They know and I know about the appointments putting in their friends and abusing the situation that lies in front of them. They know and I know the daily reports of the purging of files. I do not think history is going to treat them very well. This is not their finest hour as a party. It is not something any of them should be very proud of.

I am very proud of the new group with whom I stand. The many new members in this House are evidence that the people of this province did want change. We are prepared to join with others in being agents of that change. When people cast their ballots on May 2, not only did they give the Liberal Party more votes than any other party for the first time in 48 years but also they brought this House and this parliament into the 1980s in one quick spring. They injected our party with a great new dose of talent to bolster the already proven talent we have.

11:20 a.m.

One of the things I am proud of is the fact that our party, more than in the past at least, represents the mirror of the new face of Ontario. I can assure the House the difference is more than meets the eye. The difference is a new perspective, new points of view unencumbered by the past and perspectives that will give a new voice to many in our society who have not previously been heard in these chambers.

Let me be charitable and congratulate the government on the speech from the throne, at least for the assistance it gave to the Lieutenant Governor in the preparation thereof. There is little in it that we would not have said ourselves; in fact, there is little in it that we did not say ourselves.

But at the very least the speech proved one thing: that the government of the day can interpret election results as well as anyone else can. It reminded me of the words of a commander in the French Revolution who said: "There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader." That is the spectre of what we have seen in the past few weeks.

There is one fundamental problem with the throne speech: it should have been delivered years ago. Also, many of the promises it contains should have been acted upon years ago.

We understood, and I think we have understood for some time, the depth of the people's real desire for change in this province. The people had before them a very clear option. They could have maintained the government of the day, but instead they voted by a margin of more than two to one a mandate for that change, and that is the reality of May 2.

It is not surprising that a number of things on which we campaigned were shared by the other parties, the New Democratic Party in particular and latterly the Conservatives as well. We obviously do not agree on everything. What has been established is not a coalition. We are not trying to persuade New Democrats to become Liberals; they are not trying to persuade us to become New Democrats any more than we are trying to persuade the Conservatives to become Liberals or vice versa.

But there has developed during and after the campaign a clear consensus on a number of issues. I do not expect it will always be easy going; I have some understanding of the difficulties and vicissitudes of a minority House. But I am also persuaded that we can all make it work.

As I said, it is also clear in many ways that we were brought closer together during this campaign and after, and I very much hope this spirit of co-operation will continue in the important things, because it is a reality of life and a reality of politics that no one person has a monopoly on good ideas, no one party has a monopoly on good ideas. That is why it is going to be incumbent upon every single member of this House to make the best of how the people have spoken.

We do have one very basic thing in common, and that is that we all believe in our system of democracy, the system of free people making free choices. When one looks at the relatively few places in the world that have our system, we are, in spite of our differences, fortunate to be here and fortunate to be participating.

As I said in this House last year, each legislator has a special responsibility. Each legislator brings something unique, individual perspectives and talents, to the process. In this House, there are no nobodies.

The people of this province must also be guaranteed an opportunity to participate. I do not have to remind anyone here that we are the servants of the people; they are not our servants. May I remind members of the words of Sir Edward Blake, who led my party more than a century ago. He said, "The privileges of parliament are the privileges of the people and the rights of parliament are the rights of the people." I think it is going to be incumbent upon all of us to try to match the spirit of those words.

We can do that by encouraging everyone in this province to play a role in the process of government. We in the Legislature must say to the people of this province: "This is your House. This is your parliament." Our job is to unlock the door. We must make everyone feel welcome here. It is time we gave government a human face, one with eyes that have a clear vision, ears that listen and, indeed, a smile as well. That is the way we would govern if we were given the opportunity, because we realize the essence of government is not command, but consent.

We must share all information freely and openly with those who belong to other parties and with those who belong to no party. We must give people the information they need to participate in the process of government. That includes not only freedom-of-information legislation but also the release of all information that can help people participate actively in the process.

For example, why should it be the exclusive prerogative of the government to see polls taken with public money? They should be available for all, for opposition parties and for everyone in this province to study, examine and draw one's own conclusions. Our guiding rule should be simple. Any information that helps the government to shape policies should be available to all so that they can assess those policies.

We have seen an example of that in the last two days in the discussions that have gone on in this House. I disagree fundamentally with the approach of the government on the matter. It should be shared now; we have been waiting almost a year with no public information. There is not one member in this House who is insensitive to the divisions that have been caused, essentially, I believe, not through lack of goodwill but through lack of information, consultation and discussion. We have failed, and I say even more critically, the government has failed in its responsibility in that regard because part of our responsibility is to restore people's faith in the good intentions of government.

It is not my view that the government of the day has been possessed by bad intentions, but there is little reason to believe that for the most part those intentions have always been matched by deeds. We must reverse that mentality. For example, we must change the rules on untendered contracts. We have to end cronyism. We have to make sure that public appointments are not based on friendship or political affiliation, but are based on merit. Our responsibility will be to establish public service as the highest calling in our society and to persuade people of all points of view, be they Liberal, Conservative or New Democrat, or be they the many who have no particular affiliation, to come forward to serve their province and their country.

I believe one of the strong messages that came from this election is that we have a mandate to end cronyism. When I see that cronyism continuing in the past couple of weeks, as the Conservative Party tries desperately to hang on to power, I do not think it speaks well of its judgement in this matter.

Perhaps the worst thing about the cynical manner in which the government has repaid its political debts in the past is the impact on the way in which people view the public service. It has made those who are willing to serve the public the subject of scorn rather than the object of respect. Cynicism breeds cynicism. That is the greatest debt this government bears at the moment. We must agree together to restore respect for those who serve the public. Our civil servants must not become part of the political battleground; neither should they be among the casualties when there is a change. Our civil service must not be expected to carry out our political tasks or to take any action to curry favour with this government any more than it should be permitted to obstruct the policies of this government.

We should be very careful not to take a narrow view of our job and our responsibilities. Our job obviously includes legislation, management of policy and the public purse, and charting a course for economic growth. However, it includes something more, something intangible. It is the job of government to raise the public will, to summon the public spirit and to motivate people to go the extra mile to aid their fellow citizens. From what we have seen recently, I believe every one of us has reason to believe that when summoned, when inspired, when called upon, people will respond.

11:30 a.m.

Government and politicians have been displaying a tendency to shrink from challenges, sometimes when people have been displaying a tendency to seek out those challenges. In our own country, we have recently seen two marvellous examples of people willing to rise to those challenges. We have seen a young man from British Columbia, afflicted by the most dreaded disease of our time, battle that foe on behalf of himself and millions of others. In Steve Fonyo we have proof that a journey of even 5,000 miles begins with a single step.

In our own province, in response to the tragedy of last weekend, we have also seen people rising to fight a common foe. Amid the terrible devastation that hit the central part of our province last week, one positive thing stood out very clearly. There were far more volunteers wanting to help than there were victims. When challenged, people respond, and proof of that was provided in Barrie, Orangeville, Tottenham, Holland Marsh and Grand Valley.

We must summon that spirit to help mould the kind of Ontario we want to leave to our children. One of the prime goals of this government should be to develop ways to unlock that spirit, to marshal that strength and find solutions to many of the problems that confront us. We must develop new ways to develop that potential for good.

The government's responsibility is to lead. Looking back for a moment, there is no question that in more than four decades there have been many accomplishments. We have achieved much that we in our party and I am sure those in other parties would want to preserve. We owe great debts, collectively, to Leslie Frost, George Drew, Bill Davis, John Robarts -- someone whose seat I now hold, redistributed as it is. I have always been very honoured to have that distinction. The history of Ontario is lined with testimonials to their dedication and their contributions.

But we must start facing today's problems. We must not saddle our children with yesterday's problems. It is easy to see why that approach was considered reasonable 40 years or 30 years or even 20 years ago. When times are good, it is tempting to think times will always be that way.

One can understand how governments can be deceived into believing the good life was easy, always there and impossible to lose. What is difficult to understand is why we were still deceived after the blinders were ripped off us with such force in the early 1970s. What is sometimes difficult to understand is the self-deception. Over the past four decades, governments of this province, when faced with long-range problems, have often shuffled them aside. If that would not do, the Premier would simply shuffle the cabinet, but many of the problems did not disappear in those shuffles.

We have to think of the problems of an ageing population. We have to think about the fundamental changes that are affecting industry. We have to ask ourselves where our young people are going to work 10 years and 20 years from now. Do they have the skills? We have to set on course now the plans and the motions to make that happen. We must not let the deficiencies of the past become ingrained in the name of false progress.

We have to think about the environmental problems we are still creating today, in 1985 -- a major subject of discussion in this House because of our failure to lead and our tendency to apologize, to be always behind.

Many of these problems were predicted or could have been predicted. We have had many discussions in this House and it is probably not productive to go back and say, "We told you so, because we talked about this 10 years ago or five years ago." The reality is that many of these things were not acted upon.

The Tory throne speech is a perfect example of that. It is a 37-page apology, an admission of where things were wrong and perhaps a misreading of the political mood of this province. I have no idea. It is living witness to the fact that we have a number of problems we have not faced in the past and now we have to take up that challenge.

We have seen policies that could stand the test of politics, but they have not stood the test of time. We have failed to prevent many of the things we could have prevented and we have failed to deal with our potential problems. It is as though this government has been late for every deadline. It is like trying to catch a train without a schedule.

The important thing now, however, is not to fix blame, but to chart the course for the future. One thing we have learned is that government must not only be concerned about the next election. Politicians tend to see the future in terms of the next election, but we must see it collectively in terms of the next decade and the next generation.

In the past four decades we have passed through an era of rapid growth, an era of consolidation and an era of retrenchment. Now we have to go back and build the new opportunity. Before we enter this era, we must decide where we want it to take us and how we are going to get there. It is not good enough to get off to only a fresh start; we must get off to a good start.

We have to do that with our eyes open. We must enter this era thinking about where it will lead us and planning the course we will all follow, unlike the way we embarked on the previous eras in our post-war history. The prospect of change often brings with it apprehension, but I am sure it will become very clear in the near future that there is no reason for that concern if we confront that future and discuss collectively the kind of change we want to see.

We have to stop telling people to expect less. It is this kind of talk that blunts ambition and saps the spirit, because it is a desire for a better life that motivates people in a free society. We have no reason to curb our expectations. We just have to use more ingenuity in the future to achieve them. Over the next few years we can expect major changes in industry, job creation, education, training and health care, especially for a growing and ageing population.

I want to speak very briefly about what I consider to be three of the fundamental challenges any administration faces in this province today. There are the day-to-day concerns, the things that have to be dealt with, and good management is obviously the order of the day. There are some basic things as well, however. We must not let the events that intercede in our political lives take us off the path of our basic commitments to change society.

I am very mindful of the influence of events on political life. I once saw an interview with Harold Wilson. He was asked by David Frost what the chief influence in his life was. It was a very in-depth interview. Mr. Frost was looking for an answer that would give a philosopher, teacher, or mother some credo Mr. Wilson lived by. He asked, "What is the major influence in your life?" Mr. Wilson turned to him and in one word answered, "Events." We all know how events conspire to shape political life but let them not take us off our basic course.

Our party is dedicated to fundamental reform in work, in school and in health. It is a cliché to say that the nature of our industrial economy is changing very rapidly around us. We have had a Minister of Industry and Trade, and I am not being critical of any particular one, who has done essentially two things. He has travelled abroad selling our products on trade missions, all quite wonderful and worth while, and he has run around bailing out and trying to prop up failing industries.

Both of those activities belie the fundamental changes that are going on in our society today, the move to high technology, the move to freer trade around the world and international competition. These are dramatic changes that I do not believe have been fully comprehended or worked into public policies in this province.

Many of our traditional industries are under siege today, and many may not be there, at least in the same form, five, 10 or 20 years from now. We have to ask ourselves where our kids are going to work. Where are they going to find the kind of opportunity to allow them to make their choices to build their kinds of lives and have their own economic opportunities?

When I look at the slow erosion and at the changes that have gone on, I become very concerned at the fundamental inability of our system to deal with those matters. I do not think they can be solved with a conference once every four years, bringing together 150 players from various sectors and with nothing happening but the publishing of a very glossy and attractive report. That is not the kind of dialogue nor the kind of leadership we are going to have to have. It is going to take a lot of time; sleeves rolled up; a lot of work; people from all sectors working together, identifying common objectives and working towards them.

11:40 a.m.

I do not suggest for a minute that the solutions are simple or easy. I do not suggest for a minute that it is not one of the most complex questions we face as a society. But we have no choice other than to address it, and I hope to do so with the help of all my colleagues in this House and to start that process now. That is one of the great challenges we face, and we will not know the results of it for many years down the pike. But when its history is written, I hope it will be written that this Legislature, this group, understood the depth of the problem and was prepared to address it in all its various forms -- high tech, ageing industries, smokestack industries -- making sure that people are not displaced unduly by these changes, that we approach them in a compassionate and thoughtful way, not clinging to the past but moving ahead with courage and a sense of direction.

I believe as well that another of our great challenges is to make our school system, our education system, relevant today. We have had many discussions about this in the past. Interestingly enough, for probably one of the great areas of jurisdiction of this Legislature, it is an area that has probably had less discussion. Unless a bill comes around, such as Bill 127 or a forced universities reference, there is very little real input from this Legislature in those matters.

You know, Mr. Speaker, as I know, the great consternation in the education community on the part of both the practitioners and the consumers -- parents, young people and everyone else. When one throws in the number of things that have been thrown in, such as the separate schools question, something we believe in, that consternation rises even more.

We must now reassert our commitment to quality education at all levels, recognizing that it is the single most important resource we have: trained, educated, entrepreneurial and creative young people. Without going into detail, Mr. Speaker, because you will know some of our discussions in this party, there are many things we have to do and do quickly.

Again, we will not see the results in six months; we will not see them in two years; we may not even see them in five years. But I hope when history is written, the direction of the ship of state will have been turned and we will be making our system more relevant and more meaningful.

Those are basic challenges we face, just as we face basic challenges with respect to our health care system, an ageing population and tremendous pressures on every facility that exists across this province. That, too, is going to take major and fundamental rethinking.

We have talked about noninstitutionalized programs; new, thoughtful and, I think, sensitive and cost-effective ways of dealing with some of these problems in the future. We are prepared to chart new directions, we are prepared to deal with these fundamental problems and we do believe we can turn the direction of the ship of state and make a meaningful contribution over the years.

Those are things that we in our party believe in because the Liberal Party has never feared change. The Liberal Party has historically been an agent for change, believing it is our responsibility to move forward with courage and not to seek the security blanket of some 20 years ago.

Just as we have major problems in our environmental area -- and I will not go into detail -- the deathbed conversion of the Tories on this matter is not credible, to say the very least. But we are going to move ahead with courage in that area as well.

One of our great responsibilities is to change the face of the way this province is governed, to make sure that the great majority receives equal treatment. I am talking about the 52 per cent of women in this province. Those of us who believe in the ideal of equality cannot rest easy when 52 per cent of our population still faces discrimination that is a residue of age-old prejudices and misconceptions.

It is not too soon to change that, and we intend to do so. We will not listen to excuses or accept bureaucratic delays or half-committed leadership to slow down what I believe is a legitimate aspiration of women across this province. So too with minorities, who have a legitimate right to participate in all our institutions. We intend to change that as well.

It has always been said that Ontario did not have any particular sense of identity, that Ontarians always saw themselves as Canadians first and that we did not have the sense of regionalism that perhaps some of the other provinces in this country have. I think we saw in this campaign a sense of Ontario more than we have seen in the past, a sense that we are not prepared to sit by and see Ontario's interests sacrificed to bilateral deals made with the federal government for other provinces when our interests are not protected and not considered.

We have seen the interests of many people in this province threatened by unilateral federal moves in the last little while. Our seniors are going to lose enormously as a result of the federal budget. Obviously, there was very little consultation, if any, with this government. If there was any consultation, it was not taken seriously.

We need to stand up for Ontario's interests. We need voices in Ottawa that will be taken seriously and we are prepared to provide that leadership. We cannot sit by, Mr. Speaker, you know the things we believe in, the things we are prepared to do. You know the government's record on these matters as well; at least you know the record today. There are no guarantees that it will not be different tomorrow.

Recognizing the inevitable is going to happen, it now becomes our responsibility to summon the most thoughtful people from all parties to work together and fulfil the dreams, hopes and aspirations of the two thirds of the people in the province who voted for meaningful change.

This government has had its chance. When it went to the highest court in the land, it failed. It was judged to be guilty. People want change. I only hope the government can recognize that with some equanimity. I have some personal understanding of failure and I know it is not easy, but I hope they will not take it personally or do things that will embarrass them when history is written.

This government has lost the confidence of the people of the province. To paraphrase the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, sometimes government must sail with the wind, sometimes it must sail against the wind, but it must always sail. It must not drift or lie at anchor. This government was drifting, it was lying at anchor and it was not providing leadership on the things that mattered to the people of this province.

11:50 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Peterson moves, seconded by Mr. Nixon, that the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session be amended by the addition of the following words: "That it is our duty to respectfully submit to Your Honour that Your Honour's present government does not have the confidence of this House."

Mr. Rae: It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. It is a pleasure one feels during all throne speech debates, but this one is different and unique in many ways. I say to my friends, my adversaries in the Conservative Party and in the Liberal Party that we are indeed making history in Ontario these days and that is a good thing.

Interjection.

Mr. Rae: We will welcome the Treasurer (Miss Stephenson) on this side of the House. She will enjoy the new position. If I may borrow a phrase from her seatmate, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), the Premier of the province, "Misery loves company." She will be welcome over here. We will be quite happy to have her over here.

The Tories would have us believe that we should be carrying on with business as usual. In the past few days and the past few weeks since the realities of May 2, we have seen -- we really do need a Gibbon or a Macaulay to describe the events of the past few days. That is not Hugh or Bob or any one of them. I am referring to the 19th-century Macaulay of a somewhat different political persuasion than the Macaulays of these days. Three months ago none of us would have believed we would be in this situation today, but here we are.

It is a time for us to reflect on and think about what has happened and why it has happened, and why the changes that I am proud to say our party has been instrumental in effecting make sense and will benefit the people of this province. That is the test we had to apply after the results of May 2 came in, not what was in the short-term interests of any one party but what it was that made sense.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: I know it is hard for them to understand that. I am sure boxes of Kleenex will be provided by the Ministry of Government Services as the debate proceeds in the next two weeks.

The test that has to be applied is what makes the most sense for the people of the province. I say to the members of the Tory party opposite that when they start at 55 per cent and slide to 37, and they are still sliding, there is a message from the people of the province that it would well behoove them, once and for all, to listen to and not simply ignore. They should pay attention to the voice of the people.

I say to the members opposite that the result on May 2 was not a result -- when I saw the results coming in, of course I was thrilled and delighted with the results in my own riding and with the results in many of my colleagues' ridings. I do not mind saying I would have liked to see more seats and that I was surprised to see the number of seats won by the Liberal Party. I suspect there are some members here who were surprised to see the results, perhaps even in their own ridings. Everyone is shaking -- let us be honest for a moment.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: I enjoy the repartee. We look forward to having them at closer quarters. We will get to know each other better and share some of these views.

Mr. McClellan: We can hear all the asides.

Mr. Rae: We can hear all the asides. We lose some of them in translation. I see the real Premier or the would-be Premier or whatever --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yourself; that is you.

Mr. Rae: He should come forward and not be shy. I was looking at four people and only one of them responded.

Mr. Foulds: And it was not Frank Miller.

Mr. Rae: It is hard. I know it is hard.

Mr. McClellan: Patience, Larry, patience.

Mr. Rae: It is tough.

Mr. Breaugh: The fifth column is on the march.

Mr. Rae: I thought there were only four columns over there, but there seem to be more -- seven or five. I do not know how many there are.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: At least seven.

Mr. Rae: The key to the decision we made as a caucus and as a party in determining there had to be a change in government was simply this: that the people had spoken in an election and we had to respect that choice, and we as a party had to be instruments of change. We had to be instruments of change but not, if I may say so, in a minority parliament on a basis that simply says, "Okay, let us carry on with the kind of nonsense which we find in the throne speech." I am going to be coming to that in a moment.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Democracy is a problem for you, even an inconvenience.

Mr. Rae: Let us talk about democracy for a moment. The Minister of Education has raised the issue of democracy. As a classic, let us take the issue for which he is now responsible. Let us hear what he is saying. He is saying that a policy which was announced unilaterally, right out of the blue, with no warning whatsoever given by the leader of his party at that time, the Premier of his province --

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: -- and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, there is no backing away on this side; the backing away is happening over on that side. That is where the backing away is happening.

Let us hear that party's definition of democracy. Their definition of democracy is this, by means of how it was implemented: there was no bill in the fall, there was no session called in the spring, they were determined to go to the people and have an election before the issue was dealt with in the Legislature. Then they have the result of the election where 37 per cent of the people voted for them and 62 or 63 per cent of the people voted against them. Then they come into this House, and they do not even have a bill; 360 days after the policy is announced they do not even have a piece of draft legislation ready for this assembly.

They come into this House and say, not once but twice, "The only way this matter can be considered is if we are allowed to remain in government for ever and ever." We are not going to put up with that and neither are the people of Ontario, not for a moment. That is arrogance of the highest order. It is that kind of arrogance which has always preceded a fall. That is the kind of arrogance which is preceding their own fall and it is a fall which is richly deserved.

We entered into discussions as a party and determined that it was important that minority government be carried on in a way that would provide stability and the input of all the members of the Legislature, that would ensure that the government would not be able to trump up confidence motions or trump up individual bills and say, "These are matters of confidence," which is precisely the way that government proceeded in 1977. We were not going to allow a two per cent difference in rent review to cause the province to have an election simply because they trumped it up. We were not going to go back to those bad old days, and they resented that.

We are not going to allow what happened in 1974 in the federal House to happen here, where measures may simply be turned into matters of confidence and where they may be used. What we are saying is, "Yes, it is a change." Members of the Conservative Party are upset --

Hon. Mr. Brandt: You used the very rules you are talking about in 1979.

Mr. Rae: If the minister wants to talk about 1979, there we had a Prime Minister who was elected with a minority and who said, "I am going to govern as if I have a majority."

Mr. Foulds: That is arrogance for you.

Mr. Rae: Talk about arrogance; if that party wants to have arrogance, Joe Clark --

Interjection.

Mr. Rae: All right, the minister brought up Joe Clark. Believe me, what I did to Joe Clark was nothing compared to what the Premier, when he was Treasurer, did to Joe Clark, nothing at all. We all know that. What the Premier said about Joe Clark at that time was so good the Liberal Party was running it as part of its advertising campaign. That is how good it was.

12 noon

Mr. McClellan: Remember the Clarke Institute?

Mr. Rae: The minister mentioned that, and there we have a classic example.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: This is fun, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: You were a threat to the stability of that government.

Mr. Rae: Turn in your keys, fellows; it is over. I know it is hard. We determined on this side, and I think it was a wise decision --

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: The member asks what will happen. Eventually the people will judge. They will judge the members opposite, they will judge whoever the new government is and they will judge us, and that is the way it should be.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: When you allow them.

Hon. Mr. Gillies: In two years.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: If you are saying you want to go back and have an election right away -- is that what you are saying?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Be careful what you say.

Mr. Rae: No. You be careful.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: I want to be very clear here. I want to have a clear understanding.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am quite sure the honourable member knows it is the tradition to speak through the chair.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Larry, tell us the truth. You want to go to convention.

Mr. Rae: No. The Minister of Education has to get it straight: convention first, then an election. Let him get the order right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: "If we want an election," what? You were going to finish the sentence.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: What I am saying is to think it through. I make no apology for insisting. It makes sense, it seems to me, to have a minority parliament. I do not mind the kibitzing, Mr. Speaker, but I would like --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Finish your sentence.

Hon. Mr. Gillies: "If the people want an election" --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You will be finished.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, this must be the first time that deer have attempted to sell hunting licences in Ontario, one of the first examples of deer asking for hunting licences. I do not understand it.

What I will say to the Minister of Education, to the once, would-be and -- who knows? -- could-be Premier of the province, is simply that it is incumbent on us in this minority parliament to insist on the same kind of stability the party opposite insisted on in 1977 after the results of the 1977 election. Surely the people of Ontario are entitled to give a new government a chance, something the members opposite are congenitally incapable of providing, because they do not think anybody else has a right to govern this province; and that is their problem, that is the problem we have here.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: we have been trying to conduct this debate in a straightforward way, and I interrupted the honourable member when he was completing a sentence that began, "If the Conservative Party wants an election." To be fair to all the members of the assembly, I want to apologize for so interrupting the member and invite him to complete the sentence that began, "If the Progressive Conservative Party wants an election."

Mr. Rae: All I was saying, and I will express the thought again, is that I am interested in hearing --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The end of your sentence.

Mr. Rae: No. I am interested in hearing, as I have heard in the very lively response --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are interested in hearing what you were going to say.

Mr. Rae: The minister is agitated, and I can understand his agitation. There are staff involved here, there are cars involved, there is a habit of power involved. These guys are going to have to figure out where the Metropass office is.

There are things at stake here, as the Tories know. They have had 42 years here, a habit of governing. They wake up in the morning and they know there is going to be a whole bureaucracy at their service, a whole way of doing things, a province at their command. Now suddenly they wake up and realize the people have said something different. We had an election. That is the election that took place. They had the election and they lost. They are getting it all in the wrong order. They should have brought out this throne speech before the election, not after the election.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: First he was a rail splitter and then he was president. Get the order right.

I have been elected more often more recently than any other member of the Legislature and probably more often than anyone else in political life in Canada at the moment. I have been elected five times in the past six years. I like elections. I like meeting the people. I have fun in elections. I have fun when there are no elections. I have fun all the time. I have no problem facing an election, but surely there is a broader question. Are the members opposite prepared to let a minority government that is not their minority government work and be stable?

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: No, not theirs.

Hon. F. S. Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I quote back to the leader of the third party what he said on April 28, that the New Democratic Party would co-operate to make a Progressive Conservative minority government work. Please show me that.

Mr. Rae: I did not say that. All I have ever said in the course of my political life --

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: I appreciate this, Mr. Speaker. If they are not acting like a party in opposition, I do not know who is. If this speech has accomplished nothing else, it has turned them into an opposition party. It is terrific. Finally, all that psychology has suddenly been shattered. Listen to all the voices. The Premier getting up, everybody getting up, all the would-be Premiers. Does anybody else want to get up? Does anybody else have a question?

All I have ever said is that we are determined to make a minority government work. I never --

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: All I have ever said --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You were misquoted, I guess.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You have selective amnesia.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: If they want to go back and compare clippings, I am happy to do that. If that is the game they want to play, we can go through a list of clippings.

The trouble the Tories are having today is that they cannot accept the results of the May 2 election. They cannot accept the fact that they got fewer votes than the Liberal Party of Ontario in the last election. They cannot accept the fact that another minority government can be formed in this parliament, and if we have anything to do with it, another minority government is going to be formed in this parliament. We are going to make it work in a new way. We will play a role as the New Democratic Party in helping to make it work.

I know it hurts. It is a real problem psychologically --

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am sure it is for you.

Mr. Rae: No. I am having no problems.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I will send you the diagnosis on paper.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member would continue and ignore the interjections.

12:10 p.m.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer has promised me a diagnosis. All I can say is that I hope it is covered under the Ontario health insurance plan. I hope there is no extra billing involved, and that is a subject to which I want to turn in a moment.

I want to turn in a moment to what is in the speech from the throne and what is not. If I am allowed by members of the future opposition, I also want to discuss the nature of the accord I have signed on behalf of the New Democratic Party, setting out an agenda for reform for what we hope will be a minority government following the vote of no confidence on June 18.

It has been said, and I have said it on many occasions, that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. There are many things in the speech from the throne that we have been saying for a long time. It causes one a sense of rueful amusement and, I do not mind saying, a sense of achievement that things for which our party has been fighting for a long time have found their way on to the political agenda of other parties. That is an achievement of which we as New Democrats can be proud. It also speaks, perhaps more than anything else, to the desperation that exists on the other side of the House.

I want to say a word about some of the things that have been proposed. Having done as much as we have done in the strikes that have taken place in Ontario, it does my heart good to say that finally we have a consensus in this Legislature that workers who have chosen to join a trade union and to bargain in good faith with an employer who uses every trick, ruse and technique in the book to deny a contract will have the right to arbitration to a first contract so they will be able to have a collective agreement.

All I will say to the Tory party is to talk to the workers at Irwin Toy, Radio Shack and the 1,500 workers at Eaton's, and then turn around and say, "How swell we have been." The government has taken too damned long to recognize some rights that are fundamental in this province. That is the problem: it comes too late.

The government could have done something months ago to shorten the Eaton's strike and put those men and women back to work. If it is prepared to do it now, why was it not prepared to do it in December or January? Why cause all that unnecessary hardship? I know why. They needed the results of the election to say suddenly, "Oh, we have converted."

I do not see any mention of how a first contract would be a form of regulation that might drive employers out of the province, yet that is what I have heard from the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller). I have heard him say that publicly on many occasions. That is the attitude they have taken time and again. Suddenly we are expected to believe that somewhere on the road to Damascus -- not on the road to Damascus; on the road to Queen's Park -- there has been some sort of mass conversion.

They should not expect gratitude, because they have taken too long. It has been too hard a road for too many people who have been outside the system and who do not have a lot of power. There were trucks driving through those picket lines and people going through those lines. There were men and women who were 18 and 20, and some in their 50s or 60s, who were standing out in the cold for five months. Now they are supposed to get down on their knees and say to the Tory party, "Thank you for finally recognizing first-contract rights." The Tory party should not expect that kind of gratitude, because the government does not deserve it; it is as simple as that. It has come too late.

Then we have the newborn, reborn environmentalists. We had a spill take place in Ontario. I cannot think of a year that has gone by after 1979 when we did not raise a question about the spills bill, as to why they were moving so slowly. We had promises. I want to congratulate the Minister of the Environment (Ms. Fish), the 10th Minister of the Environment since the ministry was created. We have had minister after minister say how he was going to do this and that, but it did not happen.

We had speeches from the ministers. I recall so clearly the now Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Brandt) saying more than a year and a half ago: "We are going to change the fines structure. We are going to make it harder for people to pollute. We are going to make it more expensive." Nothing happened. Instead, we had a policy of suppression of information. We could not get information on what was happening. Reports that have been prepared for years are collecting dust.

I say to my friends in the Liberal Party, I expect and know, because of the commitment to freedom of information that is contained in our accord, that information and those reports are going to see the sunshine and sunlight. We are going to get those reports out in the open and they are not going to be covered up any longer.

The trouble with the Tories is that even when they convert it is more like a rental program than anything else; because we have the speech from the throne one day saying, "Yes, we have converted; now we have to have all these stronger laws." What do we get today on Inco? Do we get a statement saying the government of Ontario, independently and after a thorough examination of what is technically and financially feasible, has determined that we are going to enforce a reduction of 86 per cent over the next five years? Do we have that? No. What do we have? We have a statement from the Minister of the Environment -- and this is incredible when one thinks about it -- saying the company has already announced a policy at its annual general meeting where it is going to reduce acid gas emissions by 50 per cent by 1994 and the government of Ontario is going to put its little stamp on the bottom of that decision by the company.

That is unbelievable when one thinks about it. What a statement for the Minister of the Environment to make in the Legislature, that it is not the will of the people but the will of the shareholders of Inco that is going to determine how much acid gas is going to be belching out of that smokestack over the next 10 years.

I respect where the Premier comes from and his concern, but it is not good enough. What kind of target is 1,000 tons a day by 1994? That is not a target of which we as Ontarians can be proud when we know the technology is there to get it down much further than that by 1990.

When one looks at what is and what is not in the throne speech, there is justification enough for saying: "It is time to go. It is time to move on. It is time to effect that change. It is time to make the change happen." That is why we determined we were going to make a change happen. We were going to make it as a third party. In a minority parliament we were going to be hard bargainers.

Yes, we were going to bargain. I make no apology. In fact, I am proud of the fact that we determined and said: "Let us play our politics straight up. Let us get it out in the open. Let us get a document out there we can be proud of, that we can say we as a party negotiated and helped to effect. Let us say to the Liberal Party, which wants to form a government and which did win 48 seats and more votes than any other party in the province, `Yes, we want to effect a change that will allow you to form a government, but we want to be involved in determining some of how that change takes place.'"

We are not subrogating or abrogating to ourselves some other role. We are simply saying we are not going to play it on the fringes in this province any more. One out of four people in this province voted for the New Democratic Party, and we are determined to have our say and our place at the table. We are determined to play our part in responsible government in the province. That is what this accord is all about. That is why I am proud of the role we have played in negotiating.

I want to set out what is in the accord because I think it is important to get it on the record and because I am proud of what we have said.

First of all, we are not going to play the confidence game in the Legislature for the next two years. I think that is important. There is going to be an opportunity for members of the Conservative, Liberal and New Democratic parties to play a constructive role in passing legislation.

It is a historic precedent not only for this Legislature but also for other Legislatures in the British Commonwealth to have this kind of a document in place that says the concept of confidence will not be abused by a government in power. We are going to allow back-bench members of all parties to participate in effecting change, changing laws and having amendments go through that reflect not the tyranny of the party whip alone but a genuine consensus of the Legislature.

For the Premier to say there is something undemocratic about that boggles the imagination. This is the most democratic document that one could possibly imagine in terms of the way the Legislature of this province could work while at the same time guaranteeing stable government. We have done that, and I think that is an enormous, precedent-setting achievement, not only for this province but also for other common law parliamentary bodies. That is the cornerstone.

12:20 p.m.

We have moved to an agenda for reform; first of all beginning the implementation on separate school funding, getting the draft legislation out and having the Legislature consider the matter as quickly as possible in letting the public come to it in as broad a way and to have as full a debate and as full a consideration as possible.

It troubles me deeply that, having put the province in this kind of a mess, the Tory party says, "Play by our rules or you are not going to play at all." That, to me, is an affront; it is a disgrace that 360 days after their leader at that time started this process, they would turn around and say, "We are not ready; we are going to do it only on our terms," after the election of May 2. They are going to be judged incredibly harshly for that, and they should be, because they have played partisan politics with something on which we, on our part -- and they know it perfectly well -- have not done so. We have held back --

Interjection.

Mr. Rae: No. Stand up and say it. Let the member come out and say it if he thinks it is not true. There have been times when we have bit our tongues. I can tell the House that I have told my colleagues, "Do not play politics with this issue." If I may say so, neither has the leader of the Liberal Party. Of course, we have expressed some disagreements about implementation; but when one thinks of what could have been said when this issue was vulnerable, it was not said by us. It may have been said by an archbishop or two, but it was not said by us. When the archbishop made his remarks, who was the first one to say he should withdraw and he should apologize? I make no apology for it; I was there and asked him to withdraw them, because I thought it was a shameful thing for someone to compare the former Premier of this province to Adolf Hitler.

We have not played politics but now they are doing so. They are going to be judged harshly for that and deserve to be judged harshly for that. For failing to consult, they are going to be judged harshly.

We have said we are going to be introducing programs to create employment and opportunities for young people. We have said doctors in Ontario are going to have to learn that it makes sense for us to have a one-price health care system. If we can have one price in Ontario for beer -- and I am hoping we still can in the future -- we ought to be able to have one price for medical care and one price for doctors who practise in Ontario. A deal is a deal.

Again, I say the silence in the throne speech on that issue is ominous because it means that the Tory party is again saying it intends -- and I do not think there is any other way of interpreting the silence -- in a period of opposition to be the defender of special privilege. That is something of which we should all be aware.

We have said not to amend, not to delay and not to put off, but to proclaim the sections of the Environmental Protection Act, the spills bill. The government could have done that yesterday, it could have done it last week, it could have done it today and I believe it would have saved the province a lot of money. I also think it would have saved the province a lot of hardship.

We have said: "Let us move on tenant protection. Let us move on the areas of a rent registry and the four per cent review; and let us also extend rent review so it covers people living in buildings built after 1976." My colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and I attended a meeting well before the election where we wanted to talk about rent review. Much to our amazement, 500 people came to the meeting. They came because they were living in buildings that were built after 1976 and were facing rental increases of from 15 to 35 per cent with no justification required. I do not think there is a logical reason, given the realities of tenant protection and tenant security in the province today, why those people should be less protected than others. It was with some regret that I noticed the section of the throne speech dealing with this issue did not touch on it.

We have said we have to have legislation for equal pay for work of equal value, not only in the public sector, not only if one works for a crown corporation, but also in the private sector. It is not going to be easy; it is going to require a period of working things through and working them out, but it is something that has to be done.

I have mentioned the first-contract legislation. We have insisted on reforms to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, including the designation and regulation of toxic substances to give workers the right to know about work-place hazards.

We have insisted on an inquiry into why northerners are paying so much more in many communities for their gasoline. We have many northern members in the party. We are proud of the numbers that have been elected from northern Ontario. We have insisted on a commission that will determine why those differentials are there and will try to find ways of making sure that fair prices are being charged and fair prices are being paid.

We have said -- and it is hardly a revolutionary request after its existence for 622 years -- at the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment should complete its work and publish its report. These reports are of great interest and importance, but it is nice to have them over with, get them out and get them discussed.

Finally -- and I am glad my colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) is here, since he is the author of the resolution passed by this House and approved by literally hundreds of municipalities across northern Ontario -- we want to have full coverage of medically necessary travel under the Ontario health insurance plan for the residents of northern Ontario. It is not acceptable for people in the north to have to travel hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles and to have to pay that expense out of their own pockets in order to receive the kind of care people in southern Ontario and in large metropolitan centres are able to get without having to pay a user fee.

That is the agenda for reform in the first session. It is an agenda we negotiated and it is an agenda we are proud of. It is an agenda for people. It is an agenda that will provide reforms. It is an agenda that will make a difference.

We also have a longer-term program over the next two years dealing with affirmative action; a housing program for 10,000 units; better controls on pollution; reform of services for the elderly, including a change in the disgraceful way nursing homes are regulated in this province; a reform of job security legislation; farm financing reform; workers' compensation reform; private pension reform; day care policy, and a real change in the way we audit and deal with the situation in our forests.

I think that is a progressive agenda, and perhaps I could conclude my discussion of this agenda for reform by touching briefly on the kinds of changes we propose for this House and for government itself. I do not mind saying that one of the motivating factors in my sense of why a change was necessary -- I was convinced the change was necessary and I am proud of the way in which we have accomplished it -- is the sense of a need for political reform in this province. Forty-two years is too long for any one party to be in power.

Given the way the three-party system worked through the 1970s, when I was not here, perhaps the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) can tell us whether there was ever a moment when he thought it was time to effect a change. I do not know; I was not here then. But I am here now, and we are determined to effect that change today and make 1985 the year in which Tory rule in this province is brought to an end because of the need for political reform.

We have to let in the air. We have to let in some sunshine. We need the equivalent of Vatican II in this province. We do, quite sincerely. We need that sense of reform, of movement and of openness, and I do not believe a party that is still clinging on, still believing it has a divine right to govern, is capable of bringing in those kinds of reforms.

Why did a snicker go throughout the House -- indeed, I think on both sides of the House -- when the select committee on Ontario Hydro was announced? I will tell members why. It is because of the way the government took that committee and slammed it down in 1981 when it had a majority. How do we know it would not do so again in three or four years? That is the whole attitude this government has. When it has to do it, it does it but when it does not have to do it, it will not do it.

That is the attitude that causes such resentment not simply among private members but among the public itself. That is why we have said we are going to have some new select committees. We are going to have a new standing committee on energy and it is not going to be taken away at the stroke of a pen. We are going to reform the way in which people are appointed, and I am delighted to hear the leader of the Liberal Party say we are going to see an end to cronyism in Ontario. We have to see an end to cronyism in this province. That is something we take very seriously.

We need election financing reform so we can ensure that there are sensible spending limits and rebates at both the central and local campaign levels. It is ridiculous for parties to be spending thousands and thousands of dollars simply because that is the way the name of the game has increased.

When we go to the United States and see that the only people who get elected to the Senate these days are millionaires, we realize it is important for us to take the next step in reform in this province. The Camp commission took us part of the way, and the implementation of those reforms took us part of the way. Now we have to complete that process in Ontario and provide some reasonable limits so that anybody who wants to run can run, and whether or not one gets elected depends not on how much money one has but on one's ability to speak to the people and get the message across and for the people to express themselves.

12:30 p.m.

I believe we need to have a broadening of the rights of public service workers to participate in political activity. We have suggested other reforms that, because they have been mentioned in the throne speech, I can only assume will now have the support of the Conservative Party. I suspect that as the Conservative Party makes its slow drift across the chamber floor into opposition, its members will suddenly understand why opposition members are as preoccupied as they are with the rights of this assembly, the rights of private members of this assembly, the rights of committees and the importance of the ways in which committees work.

I do not mind saying that I trust 42 years will also have tempered members of the Liberal Party as they take on some of the responsibilities of government, so they will remember where they came from for the last 42 years, and remember what it is like to be a private member and the importance of our protecting the rights of each individual member in this place and ensuring that the minority parliament becomes a genuinely democratic assembly, in which the views of all are taken seriously and all are encouraged not simply to participate but to have their views heard and taken seriously.

I have no doubt there will be some bitterness on the other side. I have some experience in these matters. I speak as one, as has been mentioned, who has played a role in the defeat of another government which resulted in a change. I say to the members of the Conservative Party I genuinely believe it is not simply in the interest of one party or another, but also in the interest of the political process of this province, broadly defined, that there be a political change.

When I come right down to it, I suppose one of the things that has motivated me since I came into this place is that it is simply not healthy for the political process to have one party in power for 42 years without interruption and without change. I recall a columnist in the gallery who said on many occasions that that is what the people have voted for. That is true in a sense, but we have a three-party system.

I am sure members of the Liberal Party will know that members on all sides have said: "It is a three-party system in transition. One of the other parties is going down somewhere and eventually, one day, there will be a two-party system and then there will be a change." I know there are those who will draw their own conclusions from this election and from the prospects of future elections. I enjoy reading all the prognostications that say: "You will be damned if you do this and you will be damned if you do that. If you do, this is going to happen or that is going to happen."

My very strong feeling is that the three-party system in Ontario is here to stay. As leader of the New Democratic Party, I was determined that the three-party system would not be used simply as a prop for one-party rule. If that is allowed to continue too long, I believe a social democratic party such as ours would lose its credibility as an instrument of change and reform.

I believe we made a historic decision. We said: "There is going to be a change and we are going to play a role in effecting that change. We are going to make a deliberate choice. We are not choosing one party because we want to join that party. We are allowing the party that won the most votes in the last election to form a government and we are determined to play our critical role to ensure that the changes we were elected to effect take place in the period of the agreement we have signed. That is what the process is all about."

I can understand the bitterness and the confusion on the other side. I can understand them saying there is a constitutional issue here. The only constitutional issue that is bothering the Tory party is the divine right of kings. That is the one issue that troubles them. That is the only one there is.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is idiotic. The member is antediluvian.

Mr. Rae: If the Treasurer thinks she knows more about the Constitution than Eugene Forsey, her arrogance knows no bounds.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I did not say that.

Mr. Rae: All I am saying is we have effected a change and we expect things to change around here. We have been an instrument of reform and we have seen that the Constitution is not some dead thing that has a coat of armour on it and just lies on us like some great beast from 700 years ago, but is a living tree that reforms because people want it to reform, want it to change and want to make it work.

I am enormously proud, and I say this given the realities of May 2, which were as much a reality for me personally as for the leader of the Conservative Party and the leader of the Liberal Party, that out of that election we as a party were able to effect a change and able to say to our own people, the people who have supported us -- if I may be partisan for a moment -- if this is what we were able to achieve with 25 seats, think what we could achieve with 35, 45 or 55 seats. That is the message we will be taking to the people and continue to take to the people.

I say to the Tory party, the old order changes and that too must pass and that too must come. This is something that has to be accepted and seen as part of the democratic process, the democratic will of the people. When 63 per cent of the people have spoken, it is a very vain and shortsighted party indeed that says, "There is something undemocratic about what is going on around here." There is nothing undemocratic about it at all; it is an expression of the will of the people. That is what this reform and this process of change have been all about.

In closing, I would like to congratulate the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) and the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) for having moved the acceptance of the speech from the throne. I am sorry we do not agree, but there will be other occasions, I am sure, when we will get a chance to reflect on that. I want to welcome them both into the House.

The member for Oakville is not here at the moment, but we were walking together in the tornado relief brigade yesterday morning and he recalled that he and I are both former members of the House of Commons, along with the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) and the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy). I welcome him to the House and welcome the member for Mississauga South. She succeeds, as I am sure we all recognize, a member for whom we all have enormous affection, Mr. Kennedy, and we wish her and the member for Oakville well in their political careers. We wish them well on this side of the House, and I am sure they will enjoy it just as much as they are enjoying it over there.

I would like to move an amendment in the light of what I have said and in the light of what happened on and since May 2, 1985.

12:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rae moves, seconded by Mr. McClellan, that Mr. Peterson's amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session be further amended by adding the following words between the words "But" and "it" in the amendment:

"since the Miller Conservative government, even while borrowing frantically from the policies of other parties, has failed to provide progressive leadership for Ontario, and failed to deal with the major challenges facing the province; and since it is the responsibility of this Legislature to reflect the democratic will of the people as expressed in the election of May 2, 1985."

On motion by Hon. Miss Stephenson, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 12:41 p.m.

June 7, 1985

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

OXFORD REGIONAL CENTRE

ACID RAIN

VISITORS

GRAIN FINANCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAM

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

ORGANIZED CRIME

ACID RAIN

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

OAKLANDS REGIONAL CENTRE

PCB SPILLS

GRAIN FINANCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAM

ENTERPRISE CENTRES

LEAD LEVELS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

ACID RAIN

GASOLINE PRICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)