L008 - Thu 13 Jun 1985 / Jeu 13 jun 1985

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. McCaffrey: Just before the dinner break, I was concluding my comments on the matter of equal pay for work of equal value. Just to summarize, I was saying I oppose both the principle and the practice of equal pay for work of equal value. It is unworkable and regressive, in my judgement, in both the public sector and the private sector and will thwart opportunities for both men and women in our society.

I would like to make a couple of comments about extra billing and some more general observations about the speech from the throne. With regard to extra billing, I would like to say at the outset that the very name itself implies that somebody is getting something to which he is not entitled. It is wise to remember that when medicare was established 18 years ago, doctors agreed to it, provided they could retain the right to opt out of the plan.

Honouring this deal, or this social contract, is very important to us. I was proud that the government did not ban extra billing in the speech from the throne to which we are speaking tonight, but I am very concerned that the likely new government next week will carry on with its determination to do just that.

I think it is wise to remember that less than five per cent of the total claims processed by the Ontario health insurance plan cover services performed on an opted-out basis. Many doctors who have opted out do not charge rates in excess of OHIP, having opted out on a point of principle. Most general practitioners in our province have not opted out, and specialists always take into account a patient's ability to pay.

The option of opting out gives the profession a way to deal with problems in the OHIP fee schedule without ever having to withdraw its services and, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) used to say, it provides a safety valve.

Opting out provides doctors who are more experienced and highly skilled with a way of having their ability recognized. The ability to opt out ensures that first-rate doctors will remain in our province. If doctors are denied the option, specialists are the most likely to leave, and they are the hardest to replace.

I think we know it is no accident that we have world-class specialists in this jurisdiction. Instead of trying to end extra billing by negotiating a complicated fee schedule high enough to satisfy everyone, it is better to establish a general fee schedule at average rates and allow the few who have problems with it to opt out.

The following steps have been taken to ensure that extra billing does not compromise accessibility to our health services. We have a province-wide telephone system, which assists the public in locating opted-in doctors when that is necessary. A joint Ontario Medical Association and Ministry of Health committee reviews patient complaints about billing. We have regulations under the Health Disciplines Act which provide that doctors who extra bill must notify their patients in advance of treatment of the amount of that extra fee.

Medicare was designed as a floor plan to ensure that everyone could afford adequate health care. As the system stands now, it accomplishes that goal. Make no mistake about it; we will be the losers as some highly skilled and impossible-to-replace specialists will leave this province.

Again, I would like to compliment the government on the speech from the throne for its very strong pollution control measures and its determination to continue to assist small and medium-sized companies through tax holidays and other measures.

I am disappointed that the government has gone as far as it has in so many areas. We have all but obliterated any differences in policies between ourselves and the other two parties. In many ways it is too much, too late. Everyone in this chamber feels as I do that we are going through a historic period in our province because of the events following May 2 and the expected change in the government next Tuesday.

Less dramatic, but in my view far more sobering, is the fact that while we have three political parties in Ontario, we appear to have only one view on too vast a range of important issues: the extension of separate school funding and the nondebate on that matter; equal pay for work of equal value; very major changes in our labour legislation; the negligible differences in our approach to rent controls in Ontario; and the most recently announced family law reform amendments.

Recent events leave many people to believe that televised debates among our party leaders will become an expected part of future election campaigns in our province. If that is so, and in the light of this speech from the throne, in future it is going to be a lot easier to get the three leaders to the same television studio at the same time than it will be to find issues for them to debate.

Ms. Caplan: Mr. Speaker, please accept my sincere congratulations on your appointment and my best wishes. I also would like to extend congratulations to the Deputy Speaker and the Chairman of committees. I believe your collective responsibilities during this time of transition will prove onerous but historic.

These are indeed historic times. On May 2 the people of Ontario, including my constituents in the riding of Oriole, clearly sent a message and a messenger to this House. The message was their desire for change, a fresh approach, and the messenger, a new member.

I would like publicly to acknowledge the contribution of John Williams, who served the people of Oriole for the past decade. My riding, located in the heart of Metropolitan Toronto, is the pulse of the city with a heart, the city of North York.

I have listened to my colleagues on both sides of this House during the past week as they described their ridings. Many of them -- in particular the new members and the members from urban centres -- have spoken of my riding of Oriole as well. What many of them suggest is unique is no longer unique to Ontario. It has become the norm, the new face of Ontario. Ontario has changed during the last 42 years. It is time for the government of Ontario to recognize that change and respond.

8:10 p.m.

I am proud to represent a riding that, like so many others, reflects the cultural richness and diversity of our mosaic. My constituents are from all walks of life, from all socio-economic backgrounds. On the streets one hears people speaking Arabic, Armenian, Bengali, Cantonese, Dawat, Dutch, Farsi, French, German, Greek, Gujarti, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Malayalam, Mandarin, Russian, Spanish, Swedish, Swahili, Tagalog, Tamil, Turkish and Vietnamese, just to name a few.

The heritage language programs flourish, as children who are proud to be Canadian, proud to be Ontarians and proud to be North Yorkers also enrich their lives and ours by learning and sustaining pride in their heritage, by strengthening their roots and ours.

In the shops, in the plazas -- in the Peanut Plaza in particular -- and in the restaurants, Caravan as we know it once a year continues year-round. Samosas, papadams, curries, patties and baklava are sold next door to egg rolls, pizza, Kentucky fried chicken and McDonald's hamburgers.

However, the riding of Oriole, like many ridings across this great province, voted clearly and decisively for change. My constituents are concerned about the future awaiting them, their parents and grandparents, and especially their children. They are concerned about education and training, job creation, health care -- especially for a growing elderly population -- our environment, fair taxation, child care, public transit, social services, tenant protection and affordable housing. The needs of the 1980s must be addressed before they become the crises of the 1990s.

Where will our children find work? Are we committed to excellence and quality in education in this province? Where will people live? How will individuals and families in crisis be helped? The throne speech calls for a $100-million quality education fund. Why? Because this government allowed the confidence in our education system, along with the standards, to decline at every level and because our education system is in jeopardy. The throne speech, which borrowed heavily from Liberal policy, is more than an apology; it is a statement of a tired government that is simply and clearly out of touch.

I realize, and my constituents know, that their goals and desires cannot be achieved immediately and that we must go forth within a framework of fiscal responsibility; but the work must begin immediately. We want a government that is committed to progress and that will not have to be carried kicking and screaming into the 1990s. We want a government that will not wait for the voters to say, as they did on May 2, "We just do not trust you any more."

My constituents have spoken. They have voted no confidence in this Conservative government, its complacency, arrogance and selfserving style of governing Ontario. What was good enough 40 years ago is out of touch today. That is the message.

The people of Ontario and the people of Oriole want a government that is committed to equal opportunity for all -- men, women, minority and majority groups, young and old -- and equal opportunity in education, jobs, housing, health care and every aspect of our life and our society. The women of Oriole and Ontario have said clearly that simple justice demands equality and economic equity now.

As members of this Legislature, this august body housed in this wonderful building in this beautiful chamber seething with tradition, we must not lose sight of the fact that our duty is to serve the people who put us here. It is our sacred trust, and I use the term "sacred trust" deliberately because I believe my constituents, and especially my senior constituents, are feeling betrayed.

They are cynical of what some politicians tell them at election time, what some politicians promise them in throne speeches and then what some try to do to them rather than do for them. We must restore their faith. Blatant, partisan, political patronage as we know it in Ontario must become a thing of the past.

Mr. Foulds: Just as it did federally with a change of government.

Ms. Caplan: I am pleased we all agree. Appointment to public office must be based on merit and representative of our population. The process of government in this province must be altered and reformed to make it more responsive. These are historic times. I look forward with a sense of anticipation to the future. The verbal sparring, especially during question period in the past few days, must have proven an inauguration for some new members. Arriving after six and a half years as an alderman on the council of North York, I feel right at home.

Allow me a prediction. I foresee a renewed interest by the population of Ontario, excited by the opportunities at hand. The days of bland are over. I am honoured to be the new member for Oriole. I will serve with vigour and integrity.

Mr. Hayes: It is an honour for me to have this opportunity to address this assembly and participate in the debate on the throne speech of this first session of the 33rd Parliament in Ontario.

I come from a riding that consists of 11 municipalities and a large number of villages and hamlets. Essex North is a mixture of urban and rural areas. A large part borders on the south shores of Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River. It is well known for its fishing. People come even from northern Ontario to fish in Lake St. Clair. Without offending any of the fellows from the north, I still enjoy going north for fishing and camping with my family and relaxing.

Essex North has farming, recreation and industry. We have vegetable growers, cash crop and dairy farmers, hog, beef and chicken producers. The riding also borders on Windsor. A lot of people are dependent on the auto and related industries in the city. When the auto industry suffers, so do the people in Essex North, along with the people of Windsor. A large number of our farmers have to supplement their incomes in order to keep their farms. For too long they have been underpaid for their labour and products.

If farmers received a fair price for their labour and products, it would help the whole economy because farmers would leave their other jobs. This would create employment for other people, and they would all be putting money into the system to strengthen our economy. A commonsense approach would be to support and help the farmer and his cause.

This Tory government has ignored the farmers because they are a small percentage of the electorate. It has only seen fit to hand out cheques to large corporations without any guarantees for jobs or any commitments that the companies purchase Canadian-produced parts.

8:20 p.m.

I am quite excited to be a new member of this Legislature. I am also excited at being part of making history. I have served in municipal and county governments and on various boards. However, I must admit this is a new and challenging experience for me, and I hope I can contribute to making this a better government for the people of Ontario.

I am a member of the labour movement and very proud of it. If it were not for my involvement in serving and helping people in the labour movement, I might never have involved myself in politics even at the municipal level. In the labour movement, one does not only serve the people in his or her own union; one also gets involved in helping people in need outside the work place. People in the labour movement volunteer their time for organizations such as the United Way, the heart fund, youth groups, church groups, minor sports and many other organizations. They do that because they believe in helping people.

The member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) made some comments about labour pulling the strings in the New Democratic Party. He is not only a new member but also a very naïve one if he believes that. Labour supports the New Democratic Party because it knows the New Democratic Party is a people party that puts people ahead of profits.

I was successful on May 2 because, yes, I had labour support; but I also had support from office workers, teachers, farmers, small business people, students, housewives, retirees, professional people, priests and many others who believed in me and in the New Democratic Parry.

I have a reputation for listening to people's concerns and acting on them to the best of my ability, unlike the members of the Tory party, who have not been listening to the people for a long time.

Mr. Wiseman: Who wrote this speech for you? The labour movement?

Mr. Hayes: Yes, I am with the labour movement.

The Tories heard loud and clear from the people on May 2, though. They heard the message that an arrogant, majority Tory government was no longer wanted.

After all these years, I find it hard to swallow the nerve of the Tory government saying no to so many issues that New Democrats have raised in this Legislature. Now that they are being brought down from their ivory tower they are saying, "We agree with the New Democrats."

I want to touch on a few issues I am pleased to see in the throne speech; but I wonder: why are they just showing up now? Where were they last year? Where were they five years ago, 10 years ago or even longer ago than that?

One of the issues is health and safety. Today the Tories are saying, "We will introduce right-to-know legislation." In the past they could not do it because the information, as they call it, was a trade secret. Were they afraid the workers would start their own chemical business if they knew what they were working with?

Even if the Tory government is serious about right-to-know legislation, I question its sincerity in enforcing it. Would it enforce the legislation the way it did at Valenite in Windsor? There were 29 directives in 10 years, but there was no enforcement. Would the government enforce it as it did with Bendix and issue directives without enforcing them, allowing corporations to get away with exposing workers to hazardous substances to the extent that some of the workers have become disabled and have even died from the exposure; and then refusing to put in plant closure legislation and letting companies close their doors and move to another country rather than living up to their obligations?

Let me turn to transportation. It is quite obvious Essex North is not a Tory stronghold. When one is travelling west on Highway 401 and dozing in the back seat, one knows when one is getting close to home because one gets the feeling the driver has chosen to travel down a railway track over the ties.

I am assuming the role of Transportation and Communications critic. In the short time I have had to learn more about that portfolio, I have been dismayed to find the provincial road system has deteriorated terribly. The Canadian Construction Association stated recently that almost 2,000 kilometres of provincial highways are already below provincial standards. The CCA also found that another 7,000 kilometres will need resurfacing and reconstruction in the near future. The Ontario Good Roads Association has pointed to similar serious problems with our municipal road system.

After all these years the Premier (Mr. F. S. Miller) and his Tory government have now promised to fill the potholes; but they are the people who created the mess our road system is in today. This is another good reason we are forcing the Premier and the Tories off the road.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this, my maiden speech, I want to contribute to making a better government for the people of Ontario. I am proud that when I cast my very first vote in this House next Tuesday afternoon it will be to defeat the government and make way for the agenda for reform.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues on all sides of the House in wishing you the very best of success in your new responsibilities. I want you to know, speaking on behalf of the party of which I am a very proud representative, we are delighted with your appointment and offer you our complete cooperation and support in the very interesting and challenging days ahead.

I have a few other remarks I want to make. I know there are those who might suggest I would be ahead if I stopped at this point. However, I have heard the long litany of comments made by some of those who sit opposite me in the House and I want to address some of the comments they have made and suggest the Ontario seen from their point of view is perhaps not quite the same picture as is seen from this side of the House, where we see Ontario in a much clearer and more positive way than they ever have.

I have had the opportunity to serve on the executive council of this government both as the Minister of the Environment and more recently as the Minister of Industry and Trade, the position I currently hold in a very proud fashion as I represent the government of this province.

8:30 p.m.

I listened with interest and my attention was literally glued on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) as he addressed the throne speech, a speech he had made up his mind to defeat and vote against along with the third party before ever having heard it. That in itself is unprecedented in the history of parliament. I say with all due respect -- I do not want to sound challenging when I make these remarks -- it suggests the political rhetoric from that side of the House as it relates to the throne speech is nothing more than window-dressing.

They have made up their minds. It is not a question of making minority government work. It is not a question of making programs that are progressive and in tune with the times work. It is a question of power. That is all it is about on that side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The members opposite will have their time shortly.

I want to quote what the Leader of the Opposition said. Obviously, he must have been smoking funny cigarettes that day. I took this rather personally, and I am going to quote from Hansard to be absolutely certain there is no question about the authenticity and accuracy of the remarks that were made by the Leader of the Opposition.

"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 these activities belie the fundamental changes" -- if I may interject for a moment, he said this in a rather dramatic fashion -- "that are going on in our society today, the move to high technology ....

"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?"

That is taken from pages 72 and 73 of the official report of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in his response to the throne speech.

First of all, if that is their leader's perception of the Ministry of Industry and Trade, then those people over there are a sorry lot because, speaking not only on my own behalf but also on behalf of those Ministers of Industry and Trade who have served in a most satisfactory fashion in the years preceding me, I have to say those ministers have not seen their role in this government as that of travelling around the world, I assume from the perspective of those opposite, on some kind of junket and bailing out industries that are not able to make it in the marketplace today. There is a great deal more than that to the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker -- and I want the members opposite to listen very carefully to some of the things I am about to say, because it is going to hurt a little bit -- the fact is that at the end of 1984 this government, in part through the activities of the Ministry of Industry and Trade, had reached the highest level of exports in the history of this province, namely, some $55 billion in sales, a record that is unsurpassed anywhere in the entire country.

Mr. Nixon: Was that $55 million?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I said $55 billion. If the honourable member had listened carefully he would have heard the number.

What does that mean with respect to jobs? It means that if one compared all the jobs created in the rest of Canada, in the nine other provinces from British Columbia right through to Newfoundland, with those in Ontario, one would see -- not on the basis of the political rhetoric heard on that side of the House, but on the basis of statistical facts -- that Ontario has created more jobs than the nine other provinces combined.

I know the members opposite do not want to hear these things. They want to talk about the insensitivity and arrogance of the government and those absolutely meaningless political phrases that may sell well on some sidewalks of this community. However, I have to tell them that when it gets right down to the facts, when it gets right down to where the action is really taking place, no province in this entire country has a better track record of fiscal responsibility, controlled government and job creation than Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I have no doubt that is going to be for a very short time.

Mr. Foulds: Then you are going to disappear altogether.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Unlike the members opposite, we are not lost in the wilderness. This party has a direction. This party has a leader and we know where we are going; that is something the members opposite do not know.

Mr. Breaugh: Where are you lost?

Mr. Foulds: Tell us where you are lost. This is your first leadership speech.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I can see it is feeding time over there. Obviously they are having some difficulty. They do not want to hear these things because they happen to be the truth; that is why they do not want to hear them.

When one talks to people around this great province of ours, the greatest province in all of Canada, about the kinds of activities that are going on in this House tonight, they ask, "How can you possibly carry on and debate intelligently when there are all those catcalls from across the House?" Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you what I do. I attempt with every fibre of my being simply to ignore it. I do, sir. I want you to know that. I attempt not to hear what they are saying, because it upsets me. I am here to participate in this debate and to tell those members the truth and they do not want to hear it.

I want to say a few words about the Ministry of Industry and Trade. I so wish the Leader of the Opposition were here tonight, because it is obvious in his case -- I cannot speak for all the members of the second party -- that his view of the Ministry of Industry and Trade not only is wrong but also is completely ill-headed.

Mr. Elston: What is ill-headed?

8:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: It is when one is sick in the upper half.

I have to tell the members opposite the reason I want to elaborate on some of the programs available through the Ministry of Industry and Trade is that I think they are of importance with respect to the future progress, development and expansion of Ontario. The Ministry of Industry and Trade is involved in a number of programs. One of the programs on which I receive letters on a daily basis is the export success fund. With this program, we help small manufacturing corporations in this province to export their products to various areas of the world. We do that simply because that is where jobs are created.

They are not created through government handouts or through government make-work schemes. They are created through the development of industry to the point where it is competitive, where imports are reduced and exports flowing out of the country or province are increased. That is how real jobs are created.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: We are going to get to that in just a moment.

May I digress? I see we have had a change of Speaker. I want to welcome the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) to our debate tonight. He is a fine gentleman representing a fine riding. I am so pleased to see him in the chair at this point.

I have listened to the debates very carefully. I have heard speaker after speaker on that side of the House talk about how the people of Ontario voted for change. I have heard speaker after speaker stand up to talk in a righteous fashion about how the people voted for change. When the other side has 48 seats, the third party has 25 seats and we have 52 seats, I have to say the people of this province indicated they were voting for minority government, but they were not voting to throw us out. No, not when we have the largest number of seats in this assembly.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Let me say to the new member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) please address his comments through the chair and that will keep the din down a little bit.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Let me ask the member, through the Speaker, whether he went up and down the streets of his great community and said, "If you elect me, you are going to be part of a Liberal-NDP alliance." Let me ask him whether that is the position he put forward.

The people of Ontario did not say that. The people of Ontario may well have said --

Mr. Warner: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: As I recall, the member directed a question through the chair. The response is that as I appeared at the door I asked people, "What would you like?" Unanimously, they said, "We want change."

The Deputy Speaker: I do not believe that was a proper point of order.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I do not think so either, I agree.

With respect to that, one would think the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere really got an overwhelming majority. The fact is he was able to beat a very fine member by a very narrow margin. There was no unanimity in his riding about change on this side of the House. I can tell the members that. He should not talk about people asking for change at every door he went to, because they did not. That was not the case whatsoever.

The people of Ontario may well have said they wanted perhaps a greater emphasis on certain areas of government, and our government, which has always been sensitive to the concerns of the people of this province, addressed those very issues in the speech from the throne we are talking about tonight.

As the former Minister of the Environment of this government, I can say that when the people of this province indicated they wanted a greater emphasis on environmental matters, this government addressed that in the speech from the throne in a very direct and responsive fashion.

Mr. Foulds: It is too bad it did not do it while you were the minister.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The fact of the matter is there is no jurisdiction that I am aware of with a finer environmental record than Ontario.

When we talk about the environmental programs in place now, let alone those we are going to build on and we hope add to in the days and the months ahead, there is no jurisdiction that has a better record, that is more sensitive to the environmental concerns of the people of this province, than the government on this side of the House at the present time. Those happen to be the facts.

Mr. McClellan: If it was so good, why did you lose?

Mr. Foulds: That is why the PCBs spilled up near Kenora. That is why you proclaimed the spills bill. You passed it six years ago. Why did you not proclaim it while you were the minister?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) should come to my riding at any time and he will see whether the people are proud of the record of this government. I invite him to come and speak there, and I will even take him out for a coffee in spite of his political leanings.

Mr. Foulds: Come to my riding. I will even take you out for a drink.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am proud of the record of the government of this province, which has had the honour and opportunity to be the government for 42 years. Our record of achievement is second to none in the entire country.

When people look at the kind of job creation record and the fiscal management we have had, when they take a look at the social programs and the roads and highways the honourable member criticized in his address earlier, the fact of the matter is, when he compares those anywhere there is no program, no service delivered by this province which takes second place in this entire country.

Mr. McClellan: Then why did you lose?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The people of this province may have voted for modest change, but they did not vote for a Liberal-NDP coalition nor, I might add, for an NDP-Conservative coalition or for a Conservative-Liberal coalition. What they did vote for, and I think the honourable member should hear this very clearly, was minority government, and what they suggested was --

An hon. member: That is all they are going to get.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Could I ask the member whether, in fact, the people of this province voted for official bilingualism?

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Sarnia, please keep addressing your remarks through the chair.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: l would have to suggest the people of this province did not vote for official bilingualism.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I look forward to that program with some interest. It may be brought forward on the other side. There are a great number of programs that were talked about during the course of the last election that I can say the people of this province did not vote for; they were espoused by the people on the other side of the House.

I caution them to move very carefully on those programs because as watchdogs of responsible government we will be looking on with great interest as this unholy alliance comes together in the days and weeks ahead.

8:50 p.m.

There were very large percentages of the speech from the throne that were part of our election platform and I want to tell the members opposite that no one on that side of the House had the intestinal fortitude to establish a target for job creation such as this government was prepared to do. In the throne speech, we talked about achieving the rather expansive target, the objective of creating some 200,000 jobs in 1985, which is unheard of in any province in this country. They will not be able to do it because they simply do not understand the people, the industries and the province. I feel sorry for them.

How do members opposite feel, knowing they are talking to a government that currently has the lowest level of unemployment in the entire country? They are sitting over there, making catcalls --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Get the facts straight. You do not know what you are talking about.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The facts are straight.

Hon. Mr. Gillies: When did the facts ever concern the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke)?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I say to the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Gillies) it is a delight to know that the level of unemployment among youth, women and workers generally is lower in Ontario than in any other jurisdiction in the country.

I realize the member for Windsor-Riverside gets upset when he hears this because he wants to talk about insensitivity. I want to talk about results and the effectiveness of a government that has served the people of this province well in 42 years.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I challenge the member for Windsor-Riverside, if he can prove there is a lower unemployment rate than that in this province, I will meet him at the restaurant of his choice and be pleased to pay the bill on his behalf, if I am proved wrong.

As the government we have to deal in facts, we have to deal in the realities of the day. We cannot enter into the kind of irresponsible, political rhetoric that is part of the message from that side of the House.

If the member does not know the facts, he should not be shouting information that obviously is incorrect. The reality of the situation is that this province has the lowest level of unemployment. We beat Saskatchewan, we beat Manitoba, we beat every other province in the country.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The member can look it up. He will find that he is wrong. Personally, I have no malice against the member, but once again, as on so many other matters, he happens to be wrong.

Hon. Mr. Gillies: He is not malicious; he is just living in the past.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: That is the way it is with that party.

In conclusion, I want to say that I stand proudly as a member of this government on the basis of the record we have had over the last number of years. The throne speech that we have put forward for the consideration of the House, which obviously is subject to a deal made between a couple of other parties, is the most responsive, effective and progressive speech from the throne brought forward by any government for the last number of decades. I am proud of that speech from the throne. I am proud of the performance of this government.

The days ahead are going to prove very interesting as we watch the marriage of this unholy alliance that sits opposite us. That does not concern me because the 52 members, of whom I am a proud part, are going to continue to serve, to the best of their ability and in the most effective way, the needs and interests of the nine million people who represent the constituents of Ontario.

Mr. Ward: I am honoured to have the opportunity to respond to the speech from the throne and to use this occasion to follow the tradition of telling this assembly about my riding of Wentworth North.

Prior to the by-election in December, Wentworth North was represented by Eric Cunningham, an energetic and dedicated member who worked tirelessly on behalf of his constituents. Eric Cunningham set a standard for serving his constituents that all of us would do well to try to match.

My immediate predecessor, Anne Sloat, never did have the opportunity to take her seat in this chamber. However, Anne and I served together for several years as colleagues on regional council in Hamilton-Wentworth. We were each mayors of neighbouring municipalities and over the years we enjoyed a good friendship and would often commiserate on matters of mutual interest. Anne Sloat can take pride in her outstanding achievement as mayor of Ancaster. She is well respected throughout our region and without question was a dedicated servant of the public.

As I said at the outset. I would like to say a few words about Wentworth North. It is a large and diverse riding, consisting of a part of the west mountain of the city of Hamilton, the town of Ancaster, the historic town of Dundas and Ontario's newest town, Flamborough, of which it was my distinct honour to serve as mayor for the past three years.

Wentworth North is very much a microcosm of Ontario with a combination of rural, suburban and urban areas. The concerns of Wentworth North are the concerns of Ontario. They are the concerns that all of us in this chamber share. We may differ from time to time with respect to how we choose to deal with these concerns: however, His Honour's speech from the throne clearly demonstrates that members on both sides of this House share a common purpose, even if for some members this new-found awareness of the issues in Ontario come by way of a very recent revelation.

My constituents, the people of Wentworth North, have modest and reasonable expectations. They believe their provincial government should be committed to issues such as quality health care, preservation of the environment, a universally sound educational system and reasonable opportunities for employment. Over the past several years, they have begun to question whether the government of this province attaches any priority to these basic issues.

Instead of a commitment to an enhanced quality of life in Ontario, they have watched and wondered as millions have been squandered on the needless purchase of an interest in an oil company. They have seen their property taxes soar as the costs of public education have been transferred away from the provincial Treasury on to their municipal tax bills. Surely an individual's investment in his or her home should not be the basis on which the public education system is funded.

They have lost confidence in the government's commitment to preserve and protect the fragile environment through its refusal to proclaim the spills bill. The people of Wentworth North believe every citizen in this province has a right to access to the best possible health care and yet they have witnessed a diminishing commitment to this essential service.

9 p.m.

Since 1981, we in Wentworth North have experienced the harsh realities of severe unemployment among our young people. As I said earlier, Wentworth North is a large and diverse riding. Some of the best farm land in this province is located in Flamborough and Ancaster. Without question, agriculture remains this province's most vital industry, yet it is becoming increasingly more difficult for young farmers to continue in their parents' footsteps.

Rural Ontario will no longer accept empty promises as lipservice to its needs. On May 2 rural Ontario also raised its voice to the need for change. On May 2 people from all walks of life and from all parts of Ontario, including Wentworth North, passed judgement on this government. They voted to put an end to complacency and to bring about meaningful change. As the people of Wentworth North expressed their lack of confidence in this government, so did 63 per cent of the voters in Ontario. For this reason and many others, I will be joining members on this side of the House in supporting the motion and the amendment that is before us.

Beyond these very basic issues in Ontario, there are specific matters of concern to my riding and to the region of Hamilton-Wentworth. I had the privilege of serving my community for seven years as a member of council, as deputy mayor and, more recently, as mayor. In addition, I had the honour of serving the region of Hamilton-Wentworth as a member of its council for the past five years. At times that experience caused me to wonder whether this government was even aware of our region's existence.

Nowhere has this neglect been more apparent than in the development of transportation facilities. While other parts of Ontario have benefited from government largess, as arterial roads were developed as provincial highways, my region, the industrial heartland of Ontario, has had to wait for the funds to construct long-overdue arterial roads that would enhance industrial development in this province as well as remove heavy trucks from residential neighbourhoods within the city of Hamilton.

Admittedly, from time to time we have been the beneficiary of government funding for studies of transportation facilities using unproven technology, but even in these instances our region has been left with "take it or leave it" propositions for transportation facilities that are unacceptable. As recently as Monday, this government conceded it had wasted three years of time and $20 million in public funds to examine new technology when the existing rights of way and the existing technology may be appropriate in addressing the transportation needs of our region.

Another basic concern for my riding involves the fundamental democratic rights related to municipal governments. Over the past 10 years my community has come to accept that the regional government system can work, though at times not without difficulty. However, our region has matured politically and there has been a sincere effort to work together throughout the region for the benefit of all our citizens.

Despite this maturing of the local government structure in Hamilton-Wentworth, the government of this province continues to treat our municipalities as children of the province and refuses to give our citizens the basic right to choose their regional chairman by direct ballot.

I am not suggesting this method may be the most appropriate for all regions, although I suspect it is. However, the overwhelming majority of regional councillors representing all municipalities, including the present regional chairman in Hamilton-Wentworth, has requested amending legislation to permit the municipal voters to determine the person most capable of assuming the powers and responsibilities of regional chairman.

On many other issues the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, to his credit, was quick to respond to changes in the regional act if no other provincial interests were at stake. However, on this most fundamental issue there has never been a response.

On the issue of job creation, every municipality in Wentworth North has tried to diversify its tax base and provide employment through industrial and commercial development. We have had some success, but we could do so much more. Some of the best industrial land in our region is located at Clappisons Corners in Flamborough. However, we have never been able to secure provincial support to accelerate the development of the servicing infrastructure.

As mayor of Flamborough, I personally have had some experience in trying to access Board of Industrial Leadership and Development funds for industrial development. As recently as last week, I contacted BILD to determine whether some modest funding would be available to provide increased hydro services for a firm that has expanded from two to 46 employees in the past year.

I was told by the staff person at BILD that this company would meet all the criteria for BILD funding -- whatever they happen to be -- but funding must come by way of the consent of the minister. If I thought this task could be completed in the next five days, perhaps I would pursue this course, but to me there is something inherently wrong with a government funding program that is accessible only at the whim of the sponsoring minister.

These are just a few of the concerns that are specific to my riding. Since May 2 we have seen a government that is prepared to abandon its platform in an effort to retain power. For several years we have experienced a government that has tried from time to time to buy the support of this province's voters with their own money. Within the next few days we will witness a monumental change in the direction of this province, a change that will leave behind the politics of the past.

In any new venture there are some risks and at times we may falter, as the members opposite have been doing for the past several years, but we have a rare opportunity to embark on a new direction in Ontario. I am confident our successes will be overwhelming as we bring about long-overdue progressive legislation. Without question the voters of this province have spoken in support of a change, and a change they must have.

In conclusion, it is a tremendous honour to have had the opportunity to address this House for the first time. I know it will be an onerous task to follow in the footsteps of my predecessors Eric Cunningham, Don Ewen, Ray Connell and, more recently, Mrs. Sloat, but it is a challenge I relish. I regard this opportunity to represent my riding as a distinct privilege and trust. I hope that as time passes I will be able to continue to honour that trust.

Mr. Warner: Since the benches are not filled, it is obvious word was not sent out that I would be engaging this evening in the debate on the speech from the throne. However, I am sure that what is lacking in quantity is more than made up by the quality of the members who are present this evening.

I wish to begin by congratulating the Speaker, the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer). He takes on an onerous task. He has to deal with some members who do not seem to respect the decorum of this place. It is a difficult task being Speaker. He has earned the right. He has served with distinction in this House for quite a few years.

I can say without contradiction that members from all parties have found the member for Perth to be an honourable gentleman and one with whom they could conduct business and have a sincere discussion. He is a man who has worked equally with everyone. It is with some pride that I am able to stand and call him Mr. Speaker.

One aspect of being the Speaker goes beyond this chamber. It is an aspect I saw Mr. Speaker Stokes deal with in what I thought was a grand manner. We are part of a much larger world and we want to see a time when we try to communicate with other Commonwealth countries and with other jurisdictions in an effort to understand much better what happens in other parts of the world, with an opportunity to co-operate with other places and an opportunity to learn from others. That is an important function in which this Speaker has the opportunity to lead. I am sure the Speaker will do that because he has a vision that goes beyond the province. I look forward to that.

9:10 p.m.

While I am delighted to be back here, I have one note of regret. I had looked forward to a seatmate, James Renwick. I knew Jim for a long time and I do not think one could name a member of the assembly who served any better than the way Jim, for 20 years, served not only the people of his riding but also the people of Ontario. He made his mark in legislation. He made his mark in insurance laws. This province leads the way in setting insurance laws in the world, and James Renwick was an integral part of that process. He was a man of integrity and compassion.

Quite frankly, I found James Renwick to be one of the most remarkable individuals I have ever met. He had so much to give, and we learned from him; I learned from him daily. He was a brilliant man and a hard worker who served his country well. He served, as members know, during the Second World War and was a prisoner of war. He returned to Canada and served as a brilliant lawyer, then as an equally brilliant statesman in this House.

I was really looking forward to being back in this assembly and to working beside Jim once again. Unfortunately, that is not possible, but I wish in my own small way to pay tribute to a man who I think was a very great individual.

I think the members who come into this House from all parties come here with a very large measure of sincerity and want to do a good job for their constituents. Regardless of the philosophical differences across the floor, in my experience the members have always had the interests of their supporters at heart and they do their very best to serve the people of their ridings. Quite frankly, most members try their best to serve the province of Ontario.

There will be differences of philosophy; that is natural. If there were not, I would really worry. Those differences are important. It is those differences that build progressive legislation. It is those differences of philosophy that happen to create change and reform, and without change and reform we do not grow. So those differences are important, and I welcome them.

I also know members work hard and I know they try to contribute; so do the staff. I would like to pay a small tribute here not only to my caucus mates, who always work quite diligently and are always supportive, but also to the staff in my caucus, because they work as hard as the members, and, similarly, the staff around this building.

I do not know whether the new members have noticed it yet, but whether you go to the Hansard office to find out if you can get a copy of the Instant Hansard to see if it is accurate, whether you go to the legislative library or whether you go down to the dining room, the staff here work exceedingly hard to please members. They are the people who try to make this place function and, boy, they do a great job; they really do.

After the election of May 2 a number of constituents phoned me, as I am sure people were phoning members in other ridings. They had been watching the news and learning that a new deal was in the works, something different, something unusual. And it is unusual; it is historic.

I am no authority on parliamentary history, but to my knowledge, never in the history of Canada or, for that matter, in the history of any Commonwealth country has there been a situation in which two opposition parties, without entering into a formal coalition, have drafted an agenda upon which they both agreed, then combined to defeat the government and crossed the floor to form a new government. It has not happened before. It is unique, and because it is unique, people obviously have questions about that kind of change.

So when people phoned me to ask about --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Warner: They are destroying the sense of decorum that should prevail in this assembly. When people phoned me and asked the reasons for this, obviously, as other members have grasped, first of all it was the vote. There is the argument, "We did not get the majority of seats, but we got more than the other parties." The Conservatives say: "We got 52 seats. That is more than the Liberals. They have 48. So we get to govern." It is a valid argument. I do not quarrel with that.

There is another argument that says the Liberals got a higher popular vote. More votes were cast for that party than for any other. There is a third argument that says that, combined, the parties that were seen to be in opposition collectively had at least 62 per cent of the popular vote, so the government does not enjoy the confidence of the people.

I think that is a powerful argument, but it goes beyond that, because through debates in this assembly, petitions that have been presented, public opinion polls and the campaign itself, some if not all of these issues have struck a chord with the people of Ontario.

Ban extra billing by medical doctors. Introduce programs to create employment and training opportunities for young people. Proclaim the sections of the Environmental Protection Act dealing with spills. Reform Ontario's tenant protection laws to include the establishment of a rent registry. Establish a four per cent rent review guideline. Include provisions of Bill 198 as a permanent part of the Residential Tenancies Act. Extend rent review to cover post-1976 buildings. End the $750-a-month exemption from rent review. Introduce a rent review procedure to deal with costs no longer borne by landlords. Introduce enabling legislation to permit demolition control by municipalities. Introduce legislation for equal pay for work of equal value in both the public and private sector. Include a first contract law in Ontario labour legislation.

I want to pause there. If there is one thing that triggers a response from this side to say that this government should be turfed out, it is that one. I do not know how many members of this assembly participated in the picket line at the Eaton's locations during the winter. Those men and women -- mostly women -- deserve nothing but the highest praise for surviving what was probably the most severe winter we have had in this city in 50 years against a giant that was determined to crush them, a giant that had all the corporate help anyone could possibly want, a giant so powerful as to control some of the media.

Why was it the Eaton's strike was not covered on CFTO-TV? Because the Eaton family controls Standard Broadcasting, which in turn controls CFTO. They said: "Do not cover it. We do not want coverage given to people who are out on strike. So what if the Eaton family cannot conduct its business properly?"

Where were the Tories through all this? Who cares about a bunch of women who are trying to protect their jobs or their families'? Who cares if they vote in the store to have a union and then are denied by the process set up by the government? When it comes to talking about change, that one by itself qualifies for the end of this Tory government.

Introduce reforms to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, including toxic substances designation and regulations to give workers the right to know about work place hazards. All the johnnies-come-lately say, "It is in the blue document." This was not new. People have been yelling and screaming about this problem for 10 years; then suddenly the government saw the light of day two weeks ago.

9:20 p.m.

Continue the prebudget freeze on the ad valorem gasoline tax. That was a gem; talk about automatic escalation. In other terms -- and this is something the Speaker should be involved with personally -- how it is that a government in a British parliamentary system has the right to raise taxes without coming to the Legislature?

Some members have heard my little talk on the Magna Carta, so I probably do not need to go all through it again -- I say that to the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) -- but the fact remains that from the days of Magna Carta until now, it has been a sacred part of our parliamentary heritage that taxes are set by the parliament. This government decided it could escalate taxes automatically without coming to the parliament. I submit that is wrong and it is not constitutional. However, we are going to put an end to it.

Establish an inquiry into gas price differentials between northern and southern Ontario. Earlier, my colleague asked a question of the minister about that and the minister did not even know what he was talking about. It happens to be a fact that people in northern Ontario get ripped off on gasoline prices. This government has allowed that to continue.

Provide full coverage of medically necessary travel under the Ontario health insurance plan for residents of northern Ontario. I think one member, the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), can take credit for having pushed that one through.

Mr. Wiseman: Oh, oh.

Mr. Warner: It happens to be true.

Mr. Foulds: You mean you guys voted for it? You guys voted for it last May and your minister wouldn't even implement it.

Interjections.

Mr. Foulds: You even priced it. You priced it for your leadership campaign.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Port Arthur.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If I had four years off I would have learned something. Listen to this guy.

Mr. Warner: It is nice to have hecklers in front of me, even if they are on my side. Affirmative action and employment equity for women, minorities, the handicapped and expansion of the role and budget of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to deal with work place and housing discrimination. If some members of the government party do not happen to believe discrimination exists in housing and jobs, they are sadly mistaken. A report by the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto indicated very clearly that job and housing discrimination exists on the basis of colour and sex. This government has pretended it does not exist. It pretends something does not exist and maybe it will go away.

Establishment of an Ontario Housing program to fund immediately 10,000 co-op and nonprofit housing units in addition to those provided for under federal funding arrangements. We have had a government here that does not believe in public housing; that has been obvious. Just ask the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett), the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. He did not believe in it to the extent that the government stopped construction of public housing units in 1976. The government is not interested in housing. I suppose all the government members have nice homes themselves, so why worry if someone does not have a home?

New enforceable mechanisms for the control of pollution to enable Ontario to deal effectively with acid rain and to establish the principle that the polluter pays. The government has been doing the opposite: reward the polluter. The meagre fines that have been levied are nothing but a licence to pollute. So what if half the fish in Ontario glow in the dark? The government does not seem to care about it. That has been obvious.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Vince, this is your friend. This is who put you in office.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Warner: If the Minister of Education (Mr. Grossman) wishes to heckle, the least he could do is take his seat.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am trying to, but you are emptying the chamber.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: You have no respect for 700 years of parliamentary tradition. That is your problem.

Interjections.

Mr. Warner: I do not want to keep the member back from his leadership campaign.

Mr. McClellan: There is no need to move to the back benches yet, Larry.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We certainly missed you, David. We will miss you the next four years too.

Mr. McClellan: You won't be in the back row until Wednesday. You can sit in the front until Tuesday night.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to continue my remarks. Perhaps the Minister of Education can continue his discussion with his campaign manager privately.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I tell you what: I'll stop if you'll stop.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Warner: I am glad to see those folks are going out with a sense of humour anyway.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know there are a lot of interjections, including some from members who are out of their seats. I will ask the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere to continue and, I hope, to disregard the interjections.

Mr. Warner: Some of these members have no sense of propriety whatsoever.

What is interesting about the acid rain problem is that throughout the election what I heard coming from the Tory camp was, "The major source of the problem is south of the border." To a certain extent, that is true. Then one asked, "What about the part that is home-grown?" When we look at the home-grown problem, we see it is really from two major sources, Inco and Ontario Hydro.

Inco has always been able to do as it pleased and so it continues. When the minister stands up and announces there will be control orders, they have been written by Inco. It is nothing new and it is nowhere near the control that needs to be placed on Inco.

As for Ontario Hydro, I guess we all hope it will become a crown corporation some day and then perhaps the people will have some measure of control over it. I look forward to the select committee being re-established so we can have a look at the books, so we can bring Ontario Hydro under control and so we can handle, among other things, the acid rain being created by Ontario Hydro.

Reform of services for the elderly to provide alternatives to institutional care and reform the present nursing home licensing and inspection system. That is a gem. If one wants to know where the Tories are at in understanding the province, all one has to do is take a look at care of the elderly. Nowhere is there a better example of lack of information and lack of understanding.

The answer to our nursing homes and homes for the aged being overcrowded, according to the Tories, is to throw some money at them and issue some more licences. I think it was 2,400 more beds. That is not the answer to the problem. If the Tories had any sense, they would look at it and realize that at one end of the scale there are elderly people in nursing homes who require chronic care; they should be in the chronic care wing of a hospital. A nursing home is not equipped to handle that kind of difficulty, but we do not have the chronic care beds.

At the other end of the scale we have seniors who could survive on their own in their own homes if they had some home care programs available, if they had some home care service, if they had someone to come in and do a few repairs from time to time, to prepare a meal or just to visit. Those folks could stay in their homes, but those programs are not universally available throughout Ontario.

At both ends of the scale we have people in nursing homes who should not be there. The answer is not to add more nursing home beds. That is silly. The answer is to look at home care programs in the community and at chronic care wings in hospitals. The Tories are not prepared to do either of those things.

9:30 p.m.

Reform of job security legislation, including notice and justification of layoffs and plant shutdowns, and improve severance legislation. What a legacy of failure that one is. Those folks were here at the time SKF Canada Ltd. decided it was going to close up shop and move along. It is a little painful. Earlier, one member talked about painful news the other side did not want to hear. I have some painful news for the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies). When SKF closed its doors, someone said to the company: "You have plants in other jurisdictions around the world. Why are you closing your plant in Scarborough?" Do the members remember what the answer was? "Because it is only here that we can do this and get away with it. We cannot get away with it in any other jurisdiction."

The painful truth is that there are no rules about plant shutdowns and closures. Multinational companies can close their doors whenever they feel like it; they can move away for whatever flimsy reason, and nothing is done.

In my riding is an outfit called Dominion Cutout Ltd. It has been in business for 55 years, 30 of those years in Scarborough. It is a multinational company based in France and is in seven jurisdictions. It decided, for reasons other than financial, to close the Scarborough operation and move to Montreal. It has moved, just like that, and nothing is done. The employees who are left there do not even get a penny of severance pay. Why?

Mr. Pierce: What was their union?

Mr. Warner: I am glad the honourable member brought that up. They happened to have the benefit of a collective agreement, and the union said: "We are frustrated. We cannot do anything because the law of Ontario says there have to be at least 50 employees." At Dominion Cutout there are 43 employees.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Who else has a better law? Name one place.

Mr. Warner: If the member for Sarnia has an hour and a half, I will give him a list. Let us start with Sweden, West Germany and France; there are three jurisdictions. Britain and Ireland are two more. I would not hesitate to say the Falkland Islands probably has a better law.

These guys fold their tents and steal off in the night and the workers are left high and dry. The member should go and tell a 55-year-old man who has spent 30 years of his life working for this company where he is supposed to get a job now. No retraining responsibility is applied to these companies; there is no severance responsibility and there are no pensions. Where does a worker of that age go? It is a legacy of failure.

Regarding workers' compensation, we will attempt to reform the Workers' Compensation Board, I gather in close harmony with the Liberal Party; but I want to go on record as saying the only meaningful reform for that board is to abolish it and bring in a universal insurance scheme. Ultimately, that is the only answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) in favour of it?

Mr. Warner: The member for Niagara Falls has been introduced to progressive ideas. The world is turning as it should.

Interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: There is criticism coming even from the government back benches tonight.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere has the floor.

Mr. Warner: Perhaps the Minister of Education can get back to his speechwriting.

If any reasonable individual were to examine the Agenda for Reform Proposals for Minority Parliament, May 1985, read it carefully and think back over the past 40 years, and more particularly the past 10 years, one would come to the conclusion that what is about to happen on Tuesday does not have that much to do with the 62 per cent of the people who voted against the Tories or with the highest number of votes of any party having been gained by the Liberals. It has more to do with an agenda for reform, which is absolutely essential for the people of Ontario; reform that is needed, reform that flies in the face of the Tory do-nothing attitude.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Warner: Is there an on-off switch for that guy?

Mr. McClellan: Yes; on Tuesday it gets turned off.

Mr. Warner: I have been given the privilege of being my party's critic for skills development and youth, and I look forward to the challenge of that portfolio. I read with interest the statement made on June 11 by the member for Brantford on the establishment of the Ministry of Skills Development.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: An excellent speech.

Mr. Warner: Actually, it was a very good speech. I know it was a good speech because I heard this speech 10 years ago and I thought it was a nice speech then. It does not come to grips with the real problems, but it is still a kind of interesting speech.

It really is an end run around the apprenticeship training program, because the Tories have failed to provide a meaningful apprenticeship program in Ontario. Once again, industry has no obligation either to participate in the program or to participate financially. I read it carefully: "It is time now for companies and unions to become active partners in providing funds, expertise, facilities and work experience to improve the training process dramatically." It does not say, "Thou shalt."

Until we get the three partners of government, labour and business all contributing to a fund for apprenticeship, we are not going to have an apprenticeship program that works.

It is the same tired old stuff; it is just another nail in the coffin. This speech is just as I said. I was out of this place for four years; I came back and found that nothing has changed.

[Applause]

Mr. Warner: I thank the members opposite for welcoming me back. I always appreciate their support.

Some comments were made that because of this historic arrangement that is about to unfold, our party or the Liberal Party might lose its political identity through this process.

When I look back over the history of this party and its several forerunners -- the history of the party goes back approximately 100 years -- and when I look at what this party has achieved in terms of establishing medicare, old age pensions and unemployment insurance, I am very proud of this party's accomplishments. I know this party has become part of the political fabric of this province. We are not going to wither up and die. We are not going to roll over and play dead. This party has a heritage of which it can be most proud.

9:40 p.m.

We have an agenda for reform. A portion of it has been seen. We have many more issues which we will fight hard for on behalf of the people who support us and on behalf of the hundreds of thousands more to whom we wish to appeal. This party will move forward. On Tuesday next, some dark days are about to disappear, a new dawn is about to occur, but Ontario's day in the sun will be when there is a New Democratic Party government in the province.

Mr. Guindon: It is with a sense of optimism that I rise to speak today about the plans this government has so thoughtfully presented for consideration by the Legislature. At the same time, I am indeed honoured to participate in this debate in my capacity as a new member from the dynamic and distinguished riding of Cornwall.

Before I begin my comments on the initiatives presented to this assembly by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, I would like to take a few moments to acknowledge the well-deserved success of my predecessor, a man whose political vision appears to be on the brink of being realized.

For more than 11 years, George Samis capably and conscientiously served the constituents of the riding of Cornwall. On a wider basis, it is largely because of Mr. Samis's support that we are able today to enjoy beer in some of our larger stadiums. On behalf of not only the hundreds of thousands of fans who enjoy beer at the ball park but also of my colleague the Treasurer (Miss Stephenson), I would like to recognize and applaud the contributions of the former member in this regard.

I have referred to the political vision of my predecessor. Some might regard him as the founding father of the alliance, soon to be quickly forgotten, between the second and third parties.

Allow me to explain. After the electoral success of this government in 1981, George Samis proposed the idea of a coalition between the two parties that have occupied the west side of this assembly for quite some time. I understand that Mr. Samis's suggestion at that time was quickly attacked by members of his own caucus, and I dare say the memory remains relatively fresh in the minds of many members of the third party in the House this evening.

I also understand that the attack on the proposed alliance was spearheaded by the member for York South (Mr. Rae), who, in response to a suggested alliance, was quoted as saying a mere 60 days ago: "Absolutely not. On so many issues, the Liberals are well to the right of the Conservatives." I can only infer that for the time being, any ideology the third party may have espoused has taken a back seat to the ill-conceived goal of temporarily unseating this government.

I firmly believe the third party is about to demonstrate to this House, and indeed to the entire province, a textbook illustration of the concept of short-term gain for long-term pain.

Excuse me for digressing. My intent is to remind this assembly of the dedication and insight of my predecessor from the riding of Cornwall. In so doing, however, I could not avoid pointing out the nature of the change that the former member's party has undergone in two short months.

I now turn my attention to the matter that has been the subject of debate for the last few days. In particular, I would like to address certain initiatives announced in the throne speech related to various areas of interest to my constituents, and consequently to me.

J'estime que le plan présenté mardi dernier à cette Assemblée en vue d'élargir les services en français atteste clairement du degré d'engagement du présent gouvernement à l'égard des quelque 500,000 Ontariens dont la langue maternelle est le français.

Je représente au sein de cette Assemblée une circonscription où le tiers de la population affirme que sa langue maternelle est le français. Et c'est sans aucune hésitation que j'appuie les efforts que fait le gouvernement progressiste-conservateur pour répondre aux besoins des francophones de l'Ontario. C'est tout simplement que les initiatives mises de l'avant dans le discours du trône poursuivent avec bonheur la politique menée par le premier ministre John Robarts, une politique qui a été fermement suivie par les deux gouvernements progressistes-conservateurs qui lui ont succédé.

Je me suis toujours prononcé en faveur d'une approche sensible aux services en français, c'est-à-dire une approche qui vise à fournir des services concrets en réponse à des besoins réels et observés, et j'entends maintenir cette position. J'affirme devant cette Assemblée que le présent gouvernement continuera à répondre aux besoins de la population francophone de l'Ontario.

Pour comprendre pleinement le sens des mesures que Son Honneur le lieutenant-gouverneur annonçait mardi dernier, il a lieu de les considérer dans le contexte des réalisations antérieures en ce qui a trait à la prestation de services en français. Le gouvernement progressiste-conservateur de l'Ontario a été l'un des premiers gouvernements provinciaux à revendiquer que le droit à l'éducation en langue minoritaire dans tout le Canada soit garanti par la Constitution.

En décembre dernier, le gouvernement a illustré une fois de plus son engagement en amendant la Loi sur l'éducation de façon que tout enfant francophone en Ontario ait droit désormais à une éducation en français. En vertu de cet amendement, les écoles publiques sont tenues de fournir, sur demande, un enseignement en français à tous les élèves admissibles, ou encore, de prendre les dispositions nécessaires à cette fin avec d'autres conseils scolaires.

D'autres mesures législatives, également proposées en décembre dernier, stipulaient que la question des classes et écoles de langue française est confiée à des conseillers francophones élus. En vertu de ces mesures, les conseils scolaires qui comptent au moins 500 élèves francophones, ou ceux dont 10 pour cent de l'effectif est constitué de francophones, pourraient compter d'office au moins quatre conseillers scolaires francophones.

Tel qu'indiqué dans le discours du trône, le présent gouvernement déposera de nouveau ces amendements clés à la Loi sur l'éducation et déploiera les efforts pour que ces derniers soient adoptés avec diligence.

Le gouvernement progressiste-conservateur s'engage également élargir les programmes en français dans le domaine des services de santé. Le coordonnateur des services en matière du ministère de la Santé a travaillé activement à la détermination des besoins des francophones en Ontario, et en réponse aux recommandations présentées par son bureau, les services de santé en français seront élargis.

Depuis plus de 11 ans maintenant, le Conseil des affaires franco-ontariennes poursuit sa tâche, maintenant des liens étroits avec les francophones de l'Ontario et se tenant au courant de leurs besoins et de leurs attentes en ce qui a trait aux services dispensés en français par le gouvernement. Afin d'être à même de tirer pleinement parti des propositions émanant des 15 membres du Conseil, le gouvernement a également promis dans le discours du trône de prendre des mesures pour que le Conseil soit intégré davantage au bureau du Conseil des ministres.

Je me réjouis de ce pas très important dans la centralisation de l'élaboration des politiques qui touchent la prestation des services en français. Je suis parfaitement conscient de l'approche plus radicale, et moins précise, que proposent les deuxième et troisième partis pour répondre aux besoins des francophones de la province. Cependant, étant moi-même francophone et connaissant bien la population francophone de l'Ontario, j'en suis venu à la conclusion que l'approche actuelle fonctionne bien. Tant que des mécanismes fiables seront en place pour suivre l'évolution des besoins des francophones de notre province, tant que ces mécanismes joueront un rôle primordial dans la prise de décisions et tant que la prestation des services en français nécessaires demeurera un trait distinctif du gouvernement progressiste-conservateur, les mesures préconisées par les deuxième et troisième partis continueront d'être redondantes.

Le présent discours du trône garantit dans une large mesure que la position superflue des partis d'opposition sur la question des droits des francophones survivra fort longtemps à l'alliance qui est projetée.

9:50 p.m.

I would now like to turn to a topic that touches all of us in countless ways. The fate of this province is inextricably linked to its economic performance. Recently we have been observing signs of the results of sound economic management. I believe the orientation of this throne speech will ensure an even longer period of prosperity and growth. I also believe the economic policies outlined last Tuesday will provide significant benefits to my constituency.

A dominant theme of the approach this government has adopted involves building from within. Instead of direct intervention, the Progressive Conservative Party continues to facilitate growth from within the various sectors, and in particular the small business sector. Cornwall, I believe, typifies a community that must decrease reliance on outside investors and look for innovative solutions within.

Cognizant of the impact of a healthy small business sector on job creation, I wholly support the reduced tax burden on growing small enterprises. Clearly, however, we must encourage industry to complement the job-creating function of small businesses by protecting our industrial work force. The enterprise technology fund represents an innovative and I believe realistic approach to employment development in the industrial sphere.

The history of this province is replete with countless examples of industries and corporations that failed to consider the impact of improved technology on manpower levels until after the decision to modernize had been made. It is time to make training and retraining plans an integral component of the business plan rather than an afterthought.

The enterprise technology fund will also provide government with an opportunity to better understand the relationship between technology and employment. It is the clear aim of this government to return to a position where human needs are better balanced with technological efficiency.

Understanding and facilitating the everchanging demands that are placed on young people entering the job market, as well as those whose employment situations have changed, is a mandate of the recently created Ministry of Skills Development. The increasingly successful Ontario skills fund and Ontario Youth Opportunities have now been consolidated in the new ministry. I am confident the positive effects of this ministry on employment prospects for young people in particular will be observed shortly.

The throne speech also provided for an additional $100-million employment and training supplement that will serve to increase the impact of the Ministry of Skills Development. One initiative in this regard that I am particularly interested in involves stronger links between the private sector and our secondary schools. A more complete mutual understanding of the functions and requirements of our economic and educational institutions is, I believe, a prerequisite to a more advantageous fit between the supply of young qualified employees and the specific demands of the potential employer.

Of particular interest to my riding, and I am sure to others as well, were the extensive initiatives contained in the throne speech that related to the province's tourism industry. Tourism represents a potentially unlimited resource in this province and there is every reason to believe we are just beginning to reap the benefits it brings.

The creation of the tourism development board signifies this government's commitment to begin a more aggressive and widespread tourism campaign. In particular, Quebec and the United States have been identified as targets. This is good news indeed for tourist operators in the riding of Cornwall and in eastern Ontario in general. I have often regarded tourism as an industry where the long-term benefits accrued can, under the right conditions, significantly outweigh any short-term costs involved. The emphasis on tourism that is evident in the throne speech indicates the diverse yet comprehensive approach this government has taken in the economic sphere.

On a regional basis, we in eastern Ontario can also look forward to increased economic development resulting from a new $40-million program that begins in September 1985 and supersedes the very successful eastern Ontario subsidiary agreement. The five-year program in the speech from the throne will be entered into on a cost-shared basis with the federal government and will provide assistance for agricultural development, small business, tourism and forestry.

The Progressive Conservative government has also given its assurance that the very successful community economic transformation agreement program will be carried forward in the forthcoming budget. This program has been judiciously applied to communities with the most severe and persistent economic problems. The need for a flexible and adaptable program that assists community development has been clearly demonstrated in a relatively short period of time, particularly in the northern and eastern regions of this province.

I join the debate this evening in my role as provincial member of parliament for the riding of Cornwall. The responsibilities of that role include an examination of the throne speech from the perspective of the vast array of constituents I represent. I am confident the throne speech presented to this assembly is a thoughtful and progressive document from many points of view.

From the Franco-Ontarian's point of view, I see an advancement in the Progressive Conservative policy that involves more extensive services to the community in the areas of education, health and general government administration. From the small businessman's perspective, I see the prospect of more available earnings that he can put to work for the company. For those out of work, I see serious initiatives that focus on training and retraining both in industry and in the schools.

For those concerned about the management-labour relationship, I see several initiatives that will increase the protection and rights afforded to employees. For those with environmental interests, we have heard of a number of very extensive, yet targeted plans that signify the importance this government places on our most precious of natural resources.

For those with general concerns related to the economic future of their community and province, there are numerous measures that will serve to reinforce the mood of confidence we are currently experiencing. For the elderly or the disabled, there are initiatives that will serve to improve the conditions in which they live.

I firmly believe the document before this House represents a determined and successful attempt to lead this province through a very demanding period. The framework combines social, economic and cultural programs that demonstrate the desire to progress to more secure and equitable positions for all Ontarians.

10 p.m.

Ms. E. J. Smith: It is an honour to come to this esteemed House as the representative of the riding of London South. London, lying in the heart of southwestern Ontario, is blessed both by nature and history. Although intended by Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe to be the capital of this province, it did lose out in that area, as the members may have noticed.

It remains, however, a centre of industries such as Labatt Brewing Co. Ltd., General Motors' diesel division and Northern Telecom, and of insurance companies such as London Life, as well as being the centre of commerce for the surrounding area. It is especially a centre of education and health. We house, among other things, the facilities of Fanshawe College and the University of Western Ontario. As well, our leadership in medical research and practice is recognized by the fact that we were chosen to have the most recent major research facility in the province, the John P. Robarts Memorial Research Institute.

My riding is made up of old residential areas and new thriving suburbia, interspaced with small and large businesses and factories. As such it is typical of many such ridings in Ontario. In speaking for these people, therefore, I think I speak for many other such communities as well. When I declared my candidacy, I made it clear to the electorate that I represented a major difference in philosophy from my opponent, just as I believe our Liberal leader represents a major philosophical difference from the present Premier (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the party he heads.

What is this difference and how does it translate into government? Liberals have always supported the right of each person to develop his potential talents and skills to the fullest. Democracy demands this. Liberals see this as a right and not as a gift to be meted out here and there as a few members of society see fit.

How does this translate then into government social programs? It means, for example, that prostheses and wheelchairs should be available to everyone who needs them. It means a woman who is abused can take her children and leave her abusing husband with support assured from society, and when she does so, she will have the opportunity to provide for them in a setting that engenders pride and growth in those children. This in turn means job training, decent housing, day care and, yes, even equitable rates of pay.

How does this Liberal philosophy translate into business and job creation? The Conservatives, especially federally but also provincially, base their thinking and spending on the premise that government should start to put more money into the hands of the wealthy and then these few will act wisely in a way that will benefit the majority of citizens. Hence Prime Minister Mulroney can comment that the problem in Canada is there are not enough rich people and present to his nation a budget that creates more rich people and impoverishes more seniors.

During the election the provincial Conservatives demonstrated similar naivety in their proposal to create more jobs by giving tax rebates to those who are already doing well. Unlike the Liberals, who propose to assist all small businesses directly as they create jobs, the Conservatives propose giving away our money with no strings attached. That tax relief money could be invested in the United States or used for a holiday or for anything the businessman wished. One thing is certain, it would not likely be spent for the day-to-day necessities of life; so this businessman would not be troubled excessively by new and various sales taxes.

The Conservatives presented this plan, knowing full well its almost identical twin, the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program of 1981, had been proclaimed a failure by all.

The present education system also represents a celebration of the past rather than an entrance into the future. How does the Liberal philosophy translate into better education? Liberals believe we must provide every citizen with the tools to fend for himself in the job market and to keep learning and adjusting always.

I remember the excitement and challenge of Expo `67, with its vision of machines replacing men and all of us living and benefiting by the advantages of health and technology. What have the Conservatives done in our education system in the last 18 years to actualize this dream? They have cut back their share of money flowing into boards of education budgets from 61 per cent to around 48 per cent. They have utterly failed to provide apprenticeship programs, so that in a province of high unemployment there is a shortage of skilled craftsmen.

They have cut back on budgets in community colleges, so that the machinery being used is too old to train students for the jobs they are expected to fill and the teachers are left with no time to keep their own skills in tune with the changing marketplace.

The universities, choking from financial neglect, are required to spend their time addressing another commission, the Bovey Commission. The terms of reference require that all recommendations must be within the present budget structure. This is so, despite the fact that Ontario spends less per student than any other province. The Liberals would put education as a top priority again, even as John Robarts did many years ago.

Hon. Mr. Gillies: He was not a Liberal.

Ms. E. J. Smith: I believe in what he did. Unfortunately, his footsteps are not being followed.

How does the Liberal philosophy translate into changes in the health system? It is in this field that the difference becomes even more evident. In sickness it translates into access to all levels of medical service regardless of ability to pay. That means no extra billing. It also means society would assist each person to maintain as much independence as possible at every stage of his life.

The people in my riding displayed a special interest in this area. They are aware that our present health system is a series of tacked-on programs evolved and stuck together with no real long-term planning. There is no recognition of the problems of the future that are already so close at hand.

By the turn of this century this province will have 1.4 million senior citizens. At present there are 900,000. They will increase in number as the population bulge moves through, but also because new techniques and drugs save and prolong life. We cannot fulfil our obligation to our seniors and still face the bills attached to this prolonged old age unless we make a meaningful effort now to keep people at home, independent and in good health, for as long as possible.

There is a progression, a pyramid. At the bottom are those needing support to stay at home, alone or with their family. This often requires some degree of support, day care, holiday care and most especially home care, including housekeeping assistance for those living alone. If an elderly citizen falls from a ladder and breaks her hip in an effort to change a light bulb or has a stroke doing heavy labour and therein remains permanently in care, is this good economic sense? We must move to greatly broaden support programs aimed at maintaining independence.

In the health care pyramid it is too easy to turn the care package upside down. An active hospital bed is occupied by someone who needs chronic care while a desperately ill patient lies in the hallway. A person goes to a rest home or a nursing home for lack of adequate outreach services at home.

Ontario has an 8.9 per cent hospitalizing rate for its seniors, higher than almost any other province. I do not believe this is because family or neighbours are less willing to help. It reflects a political history of insufficient determination to maintain pride and independence. It costs us financially and it costs the seniors emotionally.

10:10 p.m.

In the area of the mentally ill, the Conservative government has benefited from the use of new drugs and has been able to return thousands of people back to the community. Yet little has been done to prepare the community or provide the needed backup programs. What programs do exist are often forced on the purse of the municipality or the local United Way. Since these services are often so inadequate, we see the scandal of steady readmission, the swinging door syndrome of our mental hospitals.

The province was more than willing to save money on those closed beds. Would that it had learned at the same time how to help these people back into real independence. Would that it had learned already, while we have fewer than a million seniors, how to build a network of supports to keep them at home. Would that we had already developed our health and social work services and personnel, such as public health nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, homemakers and assistants, to support health directly rather than waiting to deal primarily with doctors and treat illness.

Forty-plus years of Tory rule, of Tory time to act, have left us with a scattering of pilot projects that demonstrated how much can and must be done, but these same Tories were too tired to learn even from their own good examples. They prefer to hire consultants endlessly to present reports instead of learning from their own good experiences and really doing something worth while on a big scale. They advertise well-researched ideas, but they will not put up the money to keep programs running. So some abused women get help, some students get jobs, but lots of advertisers and consultants get fat.

For 20 years we have been aware that our world was changing. We speak complacently of living through a second industrial revolution as if these words might make it all right that there is an unemployment rate hovering around 10 per cent. We have accepted the fact that the highest rate of unemployment is among our youth, failing to address the fact that their thwarted aspirations and energy can only turn outwardly to crime or violence or inwardly to drugs, suicide or mental illness. The statistics bear this out.

We have seemed content to drift and expect them to accept that since they were born during this new industrial revolution, they will have to wait to find fulfilment, to marry, to afford homes and children. We do not ask whether this new world we saw at Expo `67 was not intended to bring its blessings evenly to all rather than create a province where more and more of the wealth is controlled by fewer and fewer of the people and where new capital is often used simply to gobble up existing companies, to deplete them and close them rather than bring a shared wealth to all.

Yet in the recent election we saw no new proposals or fresh ideas. We were faced with four more years of drift. The people voted against this. They voted for change. A belated throne speech from the Premier that steals all its thinking from Liberal election platforms is flattering indeed and we thank him for this. Yet why would we choose to appoint a Conservative government to engineer these changes when it has proved itself incapable of proposing or applying them over these many years?

Hon. Mr. Gillies: Since we had the most seats maybe.

Ms. E. J. Smith: The government had so many seats it did not need to bother. That is exactly the point.

Hon. Mr. Gillies: We still have the most after the election.

Ms. E. J. Smith: I have confidence that those who presented new ideas during the election now have the right and the opportunity to enact those changes. I have no confidence that a government which could not even visualize such changes would have the vigour or imagination to enact them. In a word, I have no confidence in the present government's ability to act on its borrowed or stolen throne speech and, therefore, I support the motion of no confidence in this government.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Hamilton West.

[Applause]

Mr. Allen: I am very pleased to see the members welcoming me as though I were a new member. Indeed, I must say, as I have listened to their speeches, the quality has impressed me greatly and I am happy to be counted as one of them.

I came into this Legislature, as members know, as a solitary new member three years ago and I did not have the advantage of all those orientation sessions. I stumbled my way through this and that. When I came to my first question period and somebody said, "Yes, you are the third on the question list," I counted three people asking questions and stood up. Then I stood up again. Then I stood up several more times and quickly lost count as to where I was.

None of the new members will have to engage in those trial and error exercises, being well tutored. It is obvious their speeches are well prepared.

I offer my compliments to our new Speaker. I trust his reign in this House will be a distinguished one. I am sure he will enjoy our banter and our repartee, but I hope he will also keep us under a measure of control so our debates will be a little dignified and we will make some progress in this House in the years ahead.

I say "years ahead" because I think this is a parliament that can last. I think it is a parliament that can last because, as I noted at the end of the campaign, there was a grudging recognition on the part of the government that there was a new consensus in Ontario.

The new consensus obviously was not the consensus the leader of that party identified a few months before when he was running his campaign and when his convention chose him as the leader of that party. Obviously at that time he believed the centre of politics in Ontario had moved right, and he decided he was now at the centre because the centre had moved right and he was in the right place at the right time.

How time passes and how the judgement of a few months makes its impact. The impact was that as one went through that election and one saw what the electors were responding to, it was not the centre that had moved right; it was the centre that had moved left. The centre that had moved left was now identified by a certain program of items towards which he began to move grudgingly at the end of that campaign and which we have seen come in full flower in this speech from the throne.

I am sorry the member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey) is not with us at the moment, because I thought his speech, at least in the latter remarks I heard, were both interesting and thoughtful and ones that bear some reflection upon. When he observes the problem that this province now faces with three parties all having the same agenda, I must say there is a certain flattery in what has happened on that side as far as we are concerned on this side and in particular in this party.

What he identifies is a very serious problem. It is not a problem, I must say, that any of us on this side has created; it is the problem of the growing vacuum of politics on the right which that party has represented.

It is a strange phenomenon that a throne speech which is so full of so many worthwhile proposals is, at its very core, a very empty and hollow document. I say it is a hollow and empty document because it is born of a maximum of flexibility and expediency and a minimum of conviction.

The program that has been put before us is not something that came out of long, thought-out Tory conventions during which resolutions were debated over periods of time, wrestled with in constituency associations, brought back and refined, and adopted as a considered policy by the great Tory party of Ontario.

One may ask, where did it come from? It appeared to come out of the air in the last days of an election campaign and then it got solidified in the few weeks of the latter part of May when it appeared the Conservative Party was not going to be able to win the contest that was taking place in the negotiations between the parties for a new posture and perhaps a new government.

Mr. Shymko: We learned our lessons; that is all it is.

10:20 p.m.

Mr. Allen: The fact of the matter is that we learned our lesson before the Tories learned theirs. We realized that, in the words of the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Brandt), there is in the course of politics a time of growing realism. When he speaks from the seat of a ministry, I know it is true that he undoubtedly has become more realistic in his politics. I am sure that on this side, as the members of the Liberal Party move over there, a certain refinement will come with the growing realism of having to grapple with power. In the new experience and relationships we will have in this new parliament, we all will find it a growing experience in political realism. I hope we all will learn from it.

Let us be quite clear that the realism we as a New Democratic Party learned in the experience of minority government, both in Ottawa and at Queen's Park, was one that convinced us it could not be done in the same old way and yield the maximum benefit possible for the people of Ontario. We had to try a new thing. Try it we did and it was unorthodox. There were people who criticized it. There were people on the other side -- the leader of that party -- who got up with great unction and fanfare. The Premier (Mr. F. S. Miller) talked about 700 years of parliamentary government being traduced, displayed and despoiled about us.

What a magnificent observation it was but, like the throne speech itself, how hollow it proved to be in the core as the constitutional experts looked at it and tossed it to one side as a serious observation about parliamentary process.

One would have hoped that 42 years of leading the parliament of Ontario would have schooled them somewhat in parliamentary tradition and enabled them to have found something a little more substantial with which to attack the compact that has come to exist between these two parties as a working arrangement for the government of Ontario.

I think the observations from the other side about the problem of our political traditions and what happens when three parties agree really give us a lesson of where we are at. The lesson is that party has to go into the wilderness and find itself again. It may at some point find a new posture, a new form of conservatism that fits Ontario, but for the moment the electorate of this province is looking in another direction, has found other foundations and is looking for a new day of political change in Ontario.

Mr. Charlton: How does Baffin Island sound?

Mr. Allen: Baffin Island? That is one wilderness. Obviously, "the retreat to the wilderness" is an old figure of speech. It means many things and it can mean many different kinds of geographies. Yes, there are many places in Canada where they could go to hold their long conferences and think their way through to new political solutions.

Mr. Kerrio: Deerhurst.

Mr. Foulds: Minaki Lodge is the wilderness.

Mr. Allen: Minaki Lodge is perhaps too good for them.

I want to spend a few moments remarking on three or four paragraphs in the throne speech that address themselves to the issues of education that are swirling around us. I note three major points that are made. The first is that separate school funding will be implemented as planned in September, that there will be as full hearings as we can possibly have and that we will look forward to all of that progressing as planned.

Second, there is an observation about the need to improve the posture of this government -- whatever government succeeds, but that government opposite is the one promising it -- with respect to the public education system of this province and adequate funding.

Third, a point with respect to quality education in the universities and the need for $100 million to top up university expenditures.

The first point on the extension of separate school funding and the issue we confront -- warm and controversial as it is -- is that much of the controversy that is happening right now, especially as it emanates from the education profession, is not one that essentially is grounded in the old argument about Catholic education in Ontario. The reason there is so much heat and feeling in the public school teaching community, elementary, secondary and even at the university level and among the trustees and those whose children are going to the public school system, is that for years now, for more than a decade, this province has slipped away from its commitment to provide adequately for the educational needs of the young people of this province.

One does not have to go far in looking at funding statistics across this country to see how far the government has fallen short of its commitments. If we look at every single panel of education, whether it be the elementary and secondary, the post-secondary or the vocational and occupational area, or whether we take all those statistics together in a total package, we discover that from 1970-71 to 1980-81, the last year for which total national comprehensive comparative statistics have been put together, there has been a constant decline in the proportion of the gross provincial product of this province committed to education.

We find that over that decade it dropped in real terms, as a percentage of the provincial product of this province, by 25 per cent, and that for every year from 1970-71 to 1980-81 the Ontario figures lie below the national average expenditure in terms of the proportion of the provincial product expended on education for all the other provinces of Canada.

That is true regardless of what sector or what panel in the education system we look at. If we tally it up by 1984-85 in terms of the provincial shortfall, we discover that in the elementary and secondary panel $423 less is spent on Ontario school children than the average of the other provinces, and that at the post-secondary level the shortfall per student is $1,257.

If we take the total amount per year in terms of the shortfall, we discover that in Ontario we spend $761 million less on the young people of this province than we would if we were spending the national average of the other provinces. That is for the elementary and secondary panel. If we look at the university panel, we discover that the expenditure shortfall is $264 million a year.

Nobody in his right mind would embark on a program to recoup all that in the course of one year's leap forward. The losses have been too great and the shortfall and the cutbacks have been too immense for us to make them up in a quick year or two. Obviously, it is going to be a long-term process to get this province back to where it should be.

I recite all that simply to make the point that those who are responsible for education in the public school system in this province, as distinct from the separate public system that is part of the larger structure of public education, are distressed and they are projecting the distress they feel on the expenditure of effort and money on the separate public system.

While that is shortsighted, I think we all have to recognize where the root of so much anger lies.

It does not lie just in the shortfall in money. For example, it lies in the fact that in the 1960s when the Hall-Dennis reforms were being implemented there was no debate on that question in this Legislature. When the turnaround of the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions reforms of a year ago were implemented, there was no debate in this Legislature on that major shift of educational philosophy and direction.

All of that is a reflection of what happened last June when the then Premier stood up and announced, out of the blue -- it took his own Ministry of Education and his Minister of Education by surprise -- that separate school funding would be extended. Once more, those responsible for education in this province realized they were being put through a kind of arbitrary process of announcement that did not grow out of a process of realistic and extensive consultation, as it should have.

That is what has caused an immense amount of dismay. That is what has led to the projection of all that anger and dismay with respect to the extension and completion of the Catholic system.

One could go through a lot of documentation to add a whole lot of other incidents that had to do with colleges and teachers or testing mechanisms, for example, or with the fact that librarians in the school system realized that Ontario spends less than any other province on school books for children in the system, half the amount of the next largest expenditure upward.

There is item after item where the frustration and inadequacy that have confronted that community of education is being poured out before us today in the response to the funding proposal for separate schools.

The Deputy Speaker: I would draw the member's attention to the clock.

Mr. Allen: I recognize the clock, I recognize you and I recognize our tiredness, my own included, at the end of a long day.

On motion by Mr. Allen, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.