Hansard Transcript 1985-Jun-17 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform the members that this is the last day for them to file complaints with the Clerk respecting the redistribution report.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WORKERS' COMPENSATION LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Elgie: On December 14 last year, Bill 101, containing this government's proposed reforms of the Ontario workers' compensation system, received royal assent. Throughout the debate on the bill, my predecessor Russell Ramsay emphasized that the legislative amendments in question represented the first step in a two-stage approach to reform.

The issues to be addressed in phase 2 include the means of setting and adjusting the level of permanent disability pensions, the question of re-employment or reinstatement rights for injured workers and the issue of experience rating. Last week's speech from the throne reaffirmed the government's intention to pursue phase 2 as expeditiously as possible.

Those sections of Bill 101 dealing with benefits and related matters were proclaimed on April 1. The remaining sections of the bill, concerned in the main with procedural and administrative matters, were left to be proclaimed at a later date. My purpose in making this statement today is to report to the House on the progress made so far in regard to their implementation and to confirm October 1 as the date on which all outstanding provisions of the act will come into force.

As members will appreciate, in order to give effect to the many administrative and process improvements contained in the bill, extensive preparatory work has been required: making the necessary arrangements for funding, housing, staffing and more clearly defining the roles and procedures of the various new bodies created. To achieve this, a steering committee has been established under the chairmanship of the Deputy Minister of Labour, and I should like to provide members with a brief progress report on implementation.

Perhaps the key structural reform in Bill 101 is the creation of a new independent appeals tribunal. The steering committee recognized that the chairman required to head up the new tribunal must possess the appropriate blend of expertise and experience in adjudicative and appeal matters as well as the necessary degree of personal acceptance by the parties involved in the process.

It was realized that locating and securing the right candidate would not be an easy task. In the circumstances, I believe we have been exceptionally fortunate in obtaining the services of Mr. Ron Ellis, QC, as chairman of the new appeals tribunal commencing October 1 of this year.

Mr. Ellis has an extensive background in legal practice. In 1975 he was appointed to the faculty of Osgoode Hall Law School and during his time there he served as director of Parkdale Community Legal Services. More recently, he has been director of the bar admission course and director of education for the Law Society of Upper Canada. The experience Mr. Ellis brings to his new position, allied with his fine personal qualities, makes him an ideal choice and I feel confident the new tribunal will be in very capable hands.

The tripartite nature of the tribunal and the vital function it serves make it essential that the views of labour and management organizations be canvassed as to candidates to represent their interests on the new body. The selection process is already under way and in the weeks ahead consultation will take place with employer and worker organizations. Similar procedures will also be followed in regard to the other new bodies that must be staffed.

The steering committee has also considered the role of the medical assessors to be attached in an advisory capacity to the new independent appeals tribunal. Bill 101 makes specific provision for a consultation process to be observed in the selection of the medical practitioners appointed to a roster from which persons will be drawn to provide expert, independent advice to the appeals tribunal on medical issues that may be in dispute.

I would now like to turn to the second very important aspect of Bill 101 and its reforms, involving the offices of the worker and employer advisers. Both will report to the Minister of Labour and will provide assistance and guidance to their respective constituencies in regard both to claims and appeals issues.

The process of consultation with interested groups in both the worker and employer communities has already begun and some useful suggestions have been received. Those consultations will continue with a view to realizing and finalizing arrangements for both offices prior to October 1.

The steering committee has given considerable thought to the question of what constitutes the most appropriate operating mode for both groups, so as to ensure maximum effectiveness and responsiveness to the needs of clients. Issues that must be addressed include the expected case load, anticipated staffing needs and the best means of providing access to services across the province.

In the last regard, consideration is being given to decentralizing the location of the advisers, periodic circuit travel by the advisers to the centres of greatest demand, the provision of direct toll-free telephone access to facilitate initial contact with the central advisers' offices, and the provision of early assistance through existing government field offices.

The third aspect of Bill 101 I wish to address today concerns the Industrial Disease Standards Panel. Members will recollect that the purpose of this new body will be to investigate possible industrial diseases, to make findings as to possible connections between those diseases and industrial materials or processes, to develop criteria for evaluating industrial disease claims, and to advise the Workers' Compensation Board on eligibility rules regarding compensation of such claims.

Here again, the steering committee has been grappling with some of the key issues, which include the appropriate composition of the panel, the qualifications and qualities required of the chairman of the panel, the most suitable method of monitoring specialized research work and of commissioning original studies to pursue new issues or to compensate for gaps in existing research work, the process of priority setting and the relative balance between the initiation of studies by the panel itself and acting on issues referred to it, and the nature of the linkages with the ministry's activities in the health and safety field and with the existing Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety.

Finally, I would like to refer to the procedures being followed in the selection of directors for the WCB corporate board. I need hardly remind members of the crucial policy-making role to be played by this body. Bill 101 defines the basic configuration of the board in terms of size of membership, composition and so on. A majority of the directors are to be part-time, representative of employers, workers, professional persons and the public.

2:10 p.m.

The complexity of the corporate board's role and its centrality to the decision-making process require the selection of a body of directors of the very highest standard. Various organizations have already submitted nominations and these are being considered. The government is fully committed to pursuing a process of consultation designed to yield the best-quality candidates available to fulfil the important duties and responsibilities associated with this function.

I am pleased with the progress made to date in giving substance to the organizational design contemplated by Bill 101 and I am confident that all parties involved in and affected by the workers' compensation system will be well served by the new bodies that are being created.

On October 1, when the remaining provisions of Bill 101 come into force, I sincerely believe this province will be in the forefront of workers' compensation reform with an adjudication system second to none on this continent. Taken together, the measures contained in the bill represent a major achievement, probably the most significant improvement in the act in its 70-year history.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The public general hospitals in our province are without question the linchpin of the Ontario health care system. Since the beginning of publicly funded health care, this government's financial commitment to the hospitals has reflected the pivotal role they play in the provision of health care services to the Ontario people. The result has been that, together with the co-operation and support of the hospital sector, we have built up a health care system in Ontario that is regarded as being among the finest in the world.

Earlier this year it was announced that Ontario hospitals would receive an annual increase of 6.7 per cent in provincial grants for fiscal year 1985-86. This increase would bring total provincial spending on hospital operations for the next fiscal year to a record $4.2 billion.

Following extensive consultation with representatives of the Ontario Hospital Association, I am announcing today we have secured agreement that the funding allocation for Ontario hospitals is to be revised upwards.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The members opposite should be delighted.

The revised funding allocation reflects a general economic increase of 3.9 per cent to cover hospital costs during the fiscal year. It also includes the additional funding that will be made available to individual hospitals for new ministry-approved programs, for costs associated with the growth of life support programs such as renal dialysis and cardiovascular surgery, and for work load increases resulting from the larger number of patients being treated.

This will result in an overall increase of 7.7 per cent in hospital funding for fiscal year 1985-86. This increase reflects the government's commitment to and confidence in the hospital sector of Ontario. Details on the new funding allocation will be sent to hospitals within the next few days.

HEPATITIS VACCINE

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: In response to certain reports that several Toronto schoolchildren had been identified as carriers of hepatitis-B, I wish to inform the members of the House about the use of hepatitis-B vaccine in our province and the policies of my ministry.

First, I wish to point out that some recent media stories concluded that children who were in contact with hepatitis-B carriers were in the high-risk category. That is not true. For example, we know that as many as one per cent of the general population are carriers of hepatitis-B. The American immunization practices committee said earlier this month that persons in casual contact with carriers are at a minimal risk and vaccine is not routinely recommended for them.

Late in 1982, when hepatitis-B vaccine was thought to be in short supply, the ministry bought the entire Ontario allocation of 30,000 doses to ensure the immunization of individuals at high risk. An advisory group was also formed to identify and recommend the groups to whom the vaccine should be offered. The ministry subsequently decided to make the vaccine available to patients with blood diseases, provincial lab workers, high-risk health care workers and students, and staff and residents in homes for the developmentally handicapped.

Guidelines for the use of hepatitis-B vaccine were distributed to hospitals in January 1983. The guidelines state that inpatients must not be charged for the vaccine they receive, while outpatients and employees may be charged the cost of the vaccine at the discretion of the hospital.

Newborn babies of carrier mothers are another high-risk group. It has been the practice in Ontario hospitals that these newborn babies receive the first of the three required shots while in hospital. I am announcing today that all Ontario hospitals will now be required to identify these infants to their local public health unit. The public health unit will then take every necessary step to ensure that the second and third vaccine shots are administered without charge.

I am also announcing that part-time employees of hospitals are to be given the same options as full-time employees with regard to receiving the vaccine.

Finally, I have instructed ministry staff to review the situation among other high-risk groups in the province and to bring forward recommendations about making the vaccine available to them.

Protecting the health of the people of this province is a number one priority of the ministry. It is because of that mandate that today I am announcing these new initiatives relating to the availability and administration of hepatitis-B vaccine.

CROP DEVELOPMENT

Hon. Mr. Stevenson: I would like to bring to the attention of this House a series of initiatives in the major fruit, vegetable and livestock sectors of the agriculture industry in Ontario. These are in keeping with this government's commitment to offer broadly based support to this vital segment of our economy.

I am bringing these incentives before the honourable members at this time because they have all just cleared the necessary funding approval. While some have already been announced in principle and all of them have received the approval of the Management Board of Cabinet, each of them fills a specific need. Despite all the strengths of agriculture in Ontario, there are areas needing long-term support. Some areas require new approaches; others merely require changes.

We see in the fruit and vegetable sectors, for example, an industry in transition. There are a number of crops not now grown in the province that we feel could be produced here successfully and profitably with proper research and development. There are also some crops that are now grown in small quantities or in specific areas that we believe could be developed in other areas.

To accomplish this, I am announcing the commercial crop development program, which will now begin to help Ontario farm businesses and organizations as well as the research community to develop new or alternative crops in various areas of the province.

Up to $2 million during a three-to-four-year period will be made available for the production, processing or marketing of crops that are not usually grown here but have commercial potential. I emphasize, however, that this program is designed to involve both the private and the public sectors, thus making maximum use of available resources. I regard this program as an incentive to help all those who are willing to commit some of their own resources to move into new areas of production.

A second initiative in crop development I am announcing today is a five-year, $500,000 renewal of the clingstone peach tree-planting assistance program. We are extending the program to encourage growers and nurseries to produce more fruit and trees for processing.

There is no doubt the demand for processed peaches is there. If Ontario does not produce enough, our consumers will be forced to buy imported fruit. As well, our processors are expanding their facilities to handle increased production. Therefore, it is important to the economy of the province that the government do what it responsibly can to help reach that goal.

2:20 p.m.

In 1981 the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development approved a five-year, $1.5-million, tree-planting assistance program in tender fruit for processing, to increase production of clingstone peaches and Bartlett pears. The clingstone peach tree-planting component was extended for one year last year. Now the revised program will run to 1992 and will, I hope, increase clingstone peach production by as much as 30 per cent.

For another sector of the processing industries, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has approved a $65,800 grant in assistance to the Armstrong Produce Co. Ltd., of Leamington. The financing comes from the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, under the Ontario storage and packaging assistance program, and is being given to this Essex county grower and packer to install packaging equipment for new baby carrots and beets.

Our grant represents only 21 per cent of the total cost of the capital project. This investment offers many potential benefits, including increased employment, more trade with neighbouring states and a new market for local growers facing declining profits from onion and tobacco crops.

Baby carrots also have been identified by the ministry as a priority import replacement commodity, so this initiative should help to expand the local economy as well.

RED MEAT PLAN

Hon. Mr. Stevenson: In addition, I am announcing revisions to the red meat development program to increase participation of producers. The development program of the red meat plan was introduced last year to address the productivity problem of the livestock industry and to help to create an efficient and more cost-competitive sector.

The enhanced stocker-slaughter cattle program now provides $5 per head for weighing cattle, an increase of $2 per weight. The program was simplified to provide an annual maximum grant of $750, and now requires only two weights to qualify, one at arrival and one performance check.

In addition, stocker-slaughter cattle producers now qualify for grants up to $2,500 for livestock and feed scales. Similarly, weighing grants under the sheep flock improvement program have been increased to $3 per head, an increase of $2 per weight. This change will strengthen local sheep clubs and provide more of an incentive for supervised weighing of sheep.

While I am on the subject of livestock, I must express to the House my concern and surprise over the recent United States Commerce Department decision about Canadian pork producers being subsidized by federal and provincial governments. If we are unable to have this decision overturned by the US International Trade Commission, revised countervailing duties could be enforced, causing intolerable financial hardship for many Ontario producers.

My ministry is now preparing material to support presentations of the Canadian Meat Council and the Canadian Pork Council. These industry groups will present their positions at a public hearing of the commission on June 25. This is the body which rules on whether an American industry can be injured by Canadian imports.

It is our hope that our efforts will represent pathways of opportunities for all those people in the livestock, fruit and vegetable sectors of Ontario agriculture. I feel confident that each of our initiatives makes sound economic sense and will contribute to the overall prosperity of the agriculture and food industry.

GRAIN FINANCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Stevenson: I have another very brief statement -- in fact, two of them if the second one gets here in time. This is a statement regarding the R. B. McKinlay grain situation.

I would like to announce that the government will provide $1.4 million to cover the losses of grain and soybean growers who had basis contracts with R. B. McKinlay and Sons Ltd.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: We need the minister's kind of leadership.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The opposition should have stuck with us.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Stevenson: I would not be too anxious to take credit over there if I were the opposition.

Growers had been caught in a financial squeeze because legislation establishing the grain financial protection program does not permit the payment of claims for balances outstanding on basis contracts. In general terms, this type of contract defers part of the payment, and that amount does not quality for compensation; at least that is the present interpretation of the act.

This special assistance is necessary because there was an understanding in the farm community that producers were entitled to total coverage on basis contracts, including the balances outstanding.

The $1.4 million will be distributed to producers through the Grain Financial Protection Board. This action means that basis contract sales made to McKinlay and Sons Ltd. are now covered. In taking this action, the government has provided the board with a five-year period in which to build up its fund and make repayments.

Producer and dealer organizations in the grain industry have been holding discussions with the ministry on changes to existing legislation to clarify the extent of coverage under the grain financial protection plans.

I also wanted to make a very brief statement on special undertakings in the area of tornado relief. Unfortunately, that statement is not here yet because it was just passed by cabinet this morning. I wonder if I could get permission to revert to statements when it arrives.

Mr. Wildman: You are not supposed to run it through the shredder; you are supposed to run it through the Gestetner.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY STUDY

Hon. Mr. Cousens: I am pleased to announce that the Ministry of Correctional Services will be undertaking a feasibility study concerning the possible establishment of a correctional facility near the Bruce Energy Centre industrial park, near Kincardine in Bruce county. As honourable members are aware, based on the original initiative of municipal and business representatives in Bruce county, since 1978 the government has been supporting development of an industrial park adjacent to Ontario Hydro's Bruce nuclear power development. The Bruce Energy Centre proposed the utilization of waste heat in the form of steam and hot water for agricultural, aquacultural and industrial development.

Since its establishment the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development has played a key role in supporting this unique initiative, which is today managed by Ontario Hydro. Most recently, the government of Ontario indicated its commitment to provide the necessary funding for the steam line and the necessary infrastructure from the Bruce nuclear power development to the site of the Bruce Energy Centre industrial park. Not to prejudge the conclusions of the feasibility study, there may be a number of advantages in building a correctional services facility on or about this particular site.

First, there are current population pressures at correctional institutions throughout the province. An additional facility could alleviate, to some degree, current or future strain on the system. Second, the facility could provide a positive economic benefit to the community and the region in terms of both direct and indirect service infrastructure, job creation and job retention and increased tax revenues to the local community.

Third, if the steam byproduct can be utilized, certain projects may be undertaken at the correctional services facility which might develop or enhance the job skills of the inmates in such areas as agricultural and aquacultural management and mechanical or services projects.

I would like to indicate that the Ministry of Correctional Services will receive proposals from private sector management consulting firms by not later than July 15, 1985, with the recommendation of the selection of the appropriate firm that will carry out this study by August 1, 1985. It is the ministry's desire to have the feasibility study detailing options and recommendations by the appropriate firm completed on or about January 31, 1986.

The broad parameters for the feasibility study can be stated as follows: explore the possible option of using this site as a means of addressing population pressures in provincial institutions; evaluate potential and compatible utilization of existing or planned energy centre site resources and assess matters pertaining to institutional produce development where appropriate; assess aspects concerning the economic, social and environmental impact on a potential site; and examine the suitability of a site, taking into account the administrative and operations requirements of my ministry.

2:30 p.m.

I am confident this initiative will receive the widest possible degree of consultation, not only through the various ministries which, in one way or another, can bring expertise to the project, but also, most important, throughout the community surrounding the Bruce Energy Centre.

If the feasibility study determines the facility is viable, I believe it could provide for the establishment of a needed correctional facility affording appropriate levels of treatment and training for offenders as well as sending a positive signal to private industry about the attractiveness of locating in the region.

I believe that initiative reflects both the commitment this government has to the success of the Bruce Energy Centre and its leadership in providing innovative and unique opportunities to develop and enhance the skills of inmates throughout the provincial corrections system so that they may re-enter society as responsible and productive citizens.

HELP CENTRES

Hon. Mr. Gillies: I am pleased to inform the House of the extension of funding and changes to the role of the labour-sponsored help centres that will put particular emphasis on the needs of unemployed older workers.

Since 1983 Ontario has co-operated with the federal government in the funding of labour-sponsored help centres. Members may recall that a number of these centres were initiated and established by labour organizations to assist unemployed workers during the downturn in the economy by providing them with counselling, information, referral and support services. Currently, there are 17 such centres operating under the help centre program with funding provided as a special initiative in the 1984 Ontario budget.

This program was to have terminated in March 1985. However, the province agreed to extend funding to June 30, 1985, in order that an operational review could be completed. Results of the review indicate that a particular need exists for counselling and referral services among older workers.

Employment training and job search counselling services are recognized as necessary steps in the adjustment process for many unemployed persons, especially displaced long-term employees, older workers and re-entrants to the labour force who may well be unfamiliar with the skills and techniques required to gain employment in today's labour market. In addition, changing circumstances in the labour market indicate a greater need for training and retraining efforts to enable workers to integrate, more successfully into the work place.

A strong case has been made for the necessity of maintaining and improving the help centres network. A need exists for the type of counselling and referral services these centres provide, particularly where help centres are addressing the needs of more mature, older workers. Monthly activity reports from the centres indicate these clients represent the majority of those served.

Members will be aware that an entire network of services is available to provide assistance to younger workers aged 15 to 24, such as our youth employment counselling centres, training and job creation programs and so on. However, the labour market difficulties of older workers indicate a somewhat comparable network of services should be available to this group.

The current program will be extended and modified as a provincial initiative to provide services not currently available to unemployed older workers through other established operations such as the Canada employment centres.

The proposed modifications will enable the government program to focus more on the type and quality of services and will include the provision of a core group of services, including referral to training and retraining programs, establishment of governing boards comprised of members representative of the community and co-ordination with existing federal and provincial services such as the youth employment counselling centres.

The government will extend funding in the amount of $3 million to the centres over two years. Ontario will contribute up to 50 per cent of operating costs to a maximum of $75,000 a year per centre. Centres will be required to demonstrate community support by raising at least 50 per cent of operating costs themselves. This can include in-house contributions of rent or services.

Existing labour-operated centres will be encouraged to continue to operate under the new program criteria. In areas where no centre currently exists, or where the existing centre does not choose to operate under the new criteria, proposals for new centres from community groups will be sought.

I have approached my federal counterpart, the Honourable Flora MacDonald, Minister of Employment and Immigration, to encourage a continuation of matching federal support. Older workers, both in the work place and those who suffer layoff situations, have difficult retraining choices. They pose particular challenges to humane and productive governments which recognize that the ultimate test of the competitiveness of our economy is in the quality and mobility of our work force. The help centres program provides one more piece of assistance to older workers who want to participate fully in our economy.

I have also requested the Ontario Manpower Commission to look into the specific needs of older, mature workers and to bring forward recommendations that address this area of concern more completely.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Mr. Wrye: In the absence of the Minister responsible for Women's Issues (Mr. Timbrell), I have a question for the Premier.

I am sure the Premier is aware of the remarkable speech in this House during the throne speech date last week by his colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), in which the minister finally acknowledged that current affirmative actions programs need more teeth and that the purely voluntary approach adopted by this Tory government for the past 10 years has, to use his words, "simply failed."

I am sure the Premier agrees with his colleague's assessment of the existing affirmative action programs, and I just wonder how he accounts for this remarkable conversion in Tory thinking on this issue.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Our party, unlike my friend's, usually moves from one step to another as we see our success. Indeed, we started affirmative action about 1974 or 1975 and made reasonable progress with it.

In the review that started when I became leader, we decided equity employment -- that is the term we are now using -- should have more teeth in it and should be broadened to recipients of government transfers. Indeed, we said words to that effect in the throne speech; so the comments my colleague was stating in this House are quite in keeping with the thrust of this government.

Mr. Wrye: This conversion appears to have evolved rather quickly, because I am reminded of the brief from the Ontario Federation of Labour in February 1985. In response to that brief, the Minister responsible for Women's Issues and the then Minister of Labour, Mr. Ramsay, said mandatory affirmative action programs and equal pay for work of equal value legislation would not be introduced because they were, to use their words, "rigidly interventionist." Why are these programs now not too rigidly interventionist?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The honourable member is extrapolating one comment into another field. I say to him again to go back to the throne speech where we talked about the issue of equal pay for work of equal value. It is one that has been debated in this House. It is one where the House has passed a resolution supporting the principle. It is one where the principle was difficult to implement.

Also, if the member will recall, during the election campaign I said it was time the government of Ontario led by example and put its house in order with its own 80,000 civil servants in a test area, which perhaps was more subject to existing controls and evaluations in terms of job equality, before putting it on to the private sector.

In fact, we put great stress in the throne speech on describing the word "value" and saying how much difficulty the private sector could have with that word because many small employers in particular do not even have any comparison systems. We have always said, "Progress a step at a time by consensus, by making things work." That is how we intend to do it.

2:40 p.m.

Ms. Gigantes: Is the Premier aware of Alice in Wonderland's tea party? Would he think about the question, how can you have more teeth when you have not had any?

Hon. F. S. Miller: That is certainly profound. I suspect the honourable member was tumbling down the hole at the time, because I remember Alice falling down the hole or the hare falling down the hole. It was quite interesting, was it not? That is the kind of world my friends are going to see once the unholy alliance over there gets working together.

Mr. Wrye: I want to remind the Premier of something he said in the fall of 1984, specifically last November 22, in what the Premier will finally look back on as the good old days during the leadership campaign, when he rejected public sector affirmative action or employment equity programs, leaving out the private sector for a moment. He said they would be voluntary, impelled only by the power of persuasion of the Premier. I note the Premier's seatmate, the Minister of Education (Mr. Grossman), remembers that very well. The Premier now has turned full circle.

In his speech the Minister of Labour claimed the proposals he outlined were not proposals born of a frantic rush to acquire power or perhaps to hold power. In view of --

Interjection.

Mr. Wrye: It is a very interesting speech. I have saved it.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Wrye: Is it the view of the Premier and his party, in power or out, that affirmative action or employment equity programs should be brought forward on a mandatory basis in both the public and private sectors? Would that be his view in power and out?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have never had a chance to be out.

An hon. member: It will not be long now.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Is that one of the jots and tittles the leader of the New Democratic Party said he would insist upon being complied with next week? I wonder. The jots and tittles are going to titillate us on this side of the House and upset those on that side.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Bossy: I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It concerns the closing this November of the Libby McNeill and Libby plant, the processing plant in my riding of Chatham-Kent, and the layoff of more than 200 people.

In addition, the closing will have a serious ripple effect. Hundreds of seasonal jobs will be lost and hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment will be redundant. These assets will become liabilities, and the lending institutions will be bringing further pressure on these farmers, who are already strapped by the economic situation.

What action, if any, has the minister taken to investigate the closing of this plant by Libby McNeill and Libby, one of the strongholds in the processing industry in Canada?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Mr. Bossy: Would the minister tell me if he has taken any action to investigate the reasons for the closing? I am not satisfied with the reasons given.

Hon. Mr. Stevenson: It is true the plant is closing. When we got notice of it last week, we immediately talked with the company in question. They are moving the profitable part of that operation to their other plant in a nearby town, Wallaceburg. We have checked with the company. The lines they are closing down are lines that were in part-time operation only, largely during the growing season. They are moving their year-round lines to the Wallaceburg plant.

It is a very unfortunate situation, and we have certainly expressed our concerns to the company. We have alerted our local Ministry of Agriculture and Food people to be in communication with the concerned farmers to see if there are any programs in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food that will be of assistance to the growers who will be put out by the closing of the plant and partial termination of the lines in question.

Mr. Bossy: Has the minister checked to see how many imported products are on the shelves of the supermarkets in Ontario today? Can he confirm that the company has only one intention, to use its trade name on imported products on those shelves? I find that totally unacceptable.

Is the minister also aware that, according to the latest figures available, we have more than 77,000 tonnes of imported vegetables coming into this country annually?

Hon. Mr. Stevenson: Yes, we are quite aware of the situation in regard to importing fruits and vegetables into this province. Quite clearly, there has been a shift in the diet of Ontario consumers. There are more fresh fruits and vegetables and fewer canned vegetables being consumed, and it is creating problems for part of our processing industry. Libby's was caught in part of that complex of problems and felt it had to make this move.

We have another program, which will be announced soon, on the small food processors' package, which may well be of some assistance in that area.

Mr. Ramsay: Is the minister not aware that this type of closure runs smack in the face of the policy of trying to substitute produce grown and processed in Ontario for the offshore produce we are getting, especially in the areas of tomato ketchup and paste production, which are in increasing demand in this province and are being brought in from offshore?

How much of the $10 million spent in 1980 in revitalizing that plant was supplied by this government?

Hon. Mr. Stevenson: In the shifting market that exists in the province, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has put a great deal of emphasis on capturing as much as possible of the domestic market with products we can produce well and profitably in this province. That has been an ongoing program, which has recently obtained extra funding to increase that type of development, not only to help food processors but also through the Foodland Ontario program advertising some of our excellent Ontario-grown products.

As the shift in the marketplace occurs, we are most certainly trying to get a good share of the market and to make that share of the market grow. There are very definite indications that the steps we have taken have been quite successful.

This is one area of the marketplace that is reducing and causing some trouble. Through various programs, such as the one I just alluded to, we will be doing whatever we can to save that portion of the market and to capture it through various specialty programs.

Mr. Bossy: Would the minister take it upon himself to get in touch immediately with H. J. Heinz, Aylmer, Del Monte and all the other processors to sec how bad a shape they are in and to find out if they are going to close their operations on tomato juices, etc., in our province? This is a serious situation. If Libby's goes down, why not the others?

Hon. Mr. Stevenson: Our marketing group and our processing group are in constant contact with the industry. This closure has been of concern to our ministry for some time. The ministry staff will certainly be in touch with other processors in those lines.

2:50 p.m.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Rae: I see the Minister of Education in his seat. He had a picture in his hand; I am not sure whether it was a campaign photograph for the last campaign or the next one. However, since he is in his place, I would like to ask him a question about the implementation of the extension of separate school funding to grade 11 in the fall of 1985.

It has now been a few days more than a year since the announcement was made by Premier Davis with respect to the government's plans, and it is our understanding that 32 plans from the Roman Catholic separate school boards have been approved for recommendation to the minister.

Is it his intention as the minister to introduce legislation today or tomorrow? If it is not his intention to do that, will he, before leaving office, at least ensure publication of the plans of the school boards that have been approved by the Commission for Planning and Implementing Change in the Governance and Administration of Secondary Education in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Perhaps.

Mr. Rae: That may be an epitaph that the minister would like to see on his record as Minister of Education, but I do not think it is going to do him much good in the longer term.

I would like to ask the maybe, iffy minister whether he would care to answer this question quite directly. If he is not prepared to do that, why not, since it was an initiative of the government of which he was a member a year ago? Why is he not prepared, before leaving office, to make it clear precisely what plans have been authorized while those people were in government?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me first say that those plans have not been authorized by the government; they have been recommended to the government for approval. There is an important difference.

Second, I did not indicate that we would not, but only that those matters are among a number of matters that remain unresolved.

Third, I understand the honourable member's interest in getting these things done in a hurry at this stage. However, I remind the member, who, together with his colleagues in the Liberal Party, is so anxious to get this legislation introduced by tomorrow afternoon, for whatever reason, that from last fall until this assembly reconvened a short time ago, not a single question was asked by either of the opposition parties with regard to where the legislation was; not one. They decided suddenly that they needed this legislation when they were worried that their colleagues might have to introduce it.

There was not one question all last year from the two opposition parties, who are now screaming about the delay and concern in implementation by this government. What is the member's real concern? It is their concern; that is his real concern.

Mr. Nixon: It seems strange that the minister would be accusing the two opposition parties of dragging their feet in this matter, since the announcement was made more than a year ago by the former Premier as government policy. Since that time the minister, and perhaps he would like to explain why to House, has received the reports of the Newnham commission and other various important pieces of information that have not been made public for the edification of the citizens of the province or the members of the opposition parties.

Why is the minister so reticent about making all this information public so that we as members of the Legislature could have it as preparation, perhaps, for new responsibilities that we would have and so that all the citizens of the province deeply interested in this sensitive matter could use it to answer some of the questions that have been asked so forcefully?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I did not accuse the opposition parties of delaying. In fact, that would be wrong for me, since the Ontario Liberal Party has been in favour of this policy, without very many details on implementation, since 1971. Far be it from us to suggest that they have delayed.

Mr. Nixon: Tell me about it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is right. The difference is that we have taken an extensive period of time to make sure there are appropriate conditions and provisions attached, care that the member did not take in 1971 when he announced his support for that policy.

On the question of information being available, let me say quite clearly that if I am in a position to introduce this legislation tomorrow, I will provide in the compendium all the information forwarded to us by the planning and implementation commission, all the briefs submitted, all the documents available inside the government on this issue. I will undertake that it will be the most comprehensive compendium ever attached to a piece of legislation introduced in this Legislature.

Further, if I am not able to introduce that legislation tomorrow and if a successor is in place some time later this month and is in a position to introduce that legislation, I have undertaken not only to share my personal notes on the matter with that minister but also to make available my personal notes emanating out of my discussions over the past week with the various interest groups.

I shall go further and say to my successor that if he or she desires my own personal advice, information and biases on some of those, without prejudice, I will offer that information too. In other words, everything I have, including what I have learned over the past month and a half, will be made available forthwith should there be a change in government.

Mr. Rae: Last fall the Minister of Education was out hustling delegates. The former Premier was holed up in his office and would not come out. We needed a crowbar and bells ringing to get him out. The Newnham commission was holding hearings. To suggest we should be asking for answers from the Newnham commission prior to its hearings is an absolute, palpable absurdity and the minister knows it. It is an absurd argument. The minister knows that full well. I am astonished somebody of his character and experience in this House would stoop to that kind of argument.

Mr. Breaugh: Not everyone is astonished.

Mr. Rae: Not everyone is astonished, but I am still capable of being astonished by the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. Rae: How can the minister explain the failure of the government of which he is a member to respond months after the Newnham commission has submitted its recommendations with respect to several school boards? Why has this information not been made public to the people of this province? Why has the government been sitting on it for so long? It sat on it through the election, it sat on it after the election and it is going to sit on it until it leaves office. Can the minister explain that kind of behaviour?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight for the honourable member. The Newnham commission was not holding hearings all during last fall when he was failing to ask questions about delays. The Newnham commission held hearings on November 22 and 29, December 5 and 6, and then held all the other meetings in January.

Mr. Rae: There was no point in asking questions. We were not sitting in January. Were we sitting in February and March?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There were meetings in London, North Bay, Timmins, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Ottawa and Toronto. They were in January and February, not last fall when the member said they were holding hearings.

Let us go further, because it is fundamental to the answer to the question. The Newnham commission was to meet with the school boards to hold these hearings to get public input before making recommendations to us on the legislation. The Newnham commission had its last public hearing on February 28. The member will not be surprised to know it was not ready on March 1 with its recommendations on how to proceed legislatively, having finished its hearings on February 28. Therefore, it was well into March before the Newnham commission, which the member supports, was ready to provide recommendations to us on legislative alternatives.

Mr. Rae: How could we ask you anything before then?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member was so anxious to get this bill in place, why was he not standing up suggesting the Newnham commission meet earlier or meet more often?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That sounds like a very complete answer.

3 p.m.

Mr. Rae: The board plans for Brant were approved at a commission meeting on April 17 and letters of recommendation on April 18; for Bruce-Grey on May 9 of this year; for Carleton on May 2; for Cochrane-Iroquois Falls on April 24; for Dufferin-Peel on April 25; for Durham on April 18; for Elgin on April 25; for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington on May 2, and so on. We were told consistently by the Newnham commission prior to that time it was not making anything available until stuff had gone to the government. At that point, it would be up to the government whether material would be made public.

With respect, it has now been several weeks, indeed months, since recommendations were made by the Newnham commission with respect to individual counties. Surely we are entitled to have this information from the government of Ontario, which, alas, is still the government for another 24 hours, 26 to 36 hours, however long it may be.

Why has this information not been made public, shared with the Legislature, the public and the counties involved and with the people of Ontario? Why has the government been sitting on it for so long?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I remind the member that those recommendations emanate out of agreements reached between the boards of education, duly elected public officials, together with the Roman Catholic separate school boards. That information can be made available by those people, if they so wish, in their areas. There is nothing whatever to inhibit those people who have entered into agreements, who have agreed with the planning and implementation commission on the way to proceed. There is nothing whatever secret about those. If those boards want to make that information available to their own elected people and their own municipalities, that is fine. This government is not impeding them.

If the member is asking why we have not approved all of those plans, I can only tell him it could be that some of the legislative alternatives that this government might select might alter some of those plans. That may or may not be the case; I cannot say. Therefore, it would create a very awkward circumstance if plans were approved and subsequent legislation approved by this assembly -- a minority parliament -- overruled some of those plans.

Mr. Rae: It was the minister's party that chose to call an election rather than deal with this issue in the months of March and April. The Premier (Mr. F. S. Miller) was quoted widely in the press as saying the reason he did it at this time -- in fact he said it on one program on the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. -- was because there was a feeling in the caucus that it could not face this issue in September and wanted to face the public before the issue became too difficult for the Tory party to handle politically.

If we are in a difficult situation today with respect to the public not being informed and not being fully aware of what is involved, that responsibility lies with the Conservative Party of Ontario for the decisions it has taken, and the record will speak clearly to that.

It does not make much sense to publicize plans that have not been approved by the ministry. What was going on as these plans were produced by the implementation commission? Surely it would have been possible, because there is nothing to stop the Minister of Education, and we had a Minister of Education prior to his assuming office; I know he will remember that.

What was the government doing throughout this stage? Why was there no legislation ready for May 3 or as soon as the government came out of the election? Why has it taken this long for the government to produce any legislation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The planning and implementation commission provided its legislative suggestions, as it ordinarily was asked to do, by about the middle of March. The member may believe a minister of the crown ought to take those recommendations and simply put them into legislation and hand them into the House the following week.

This government has provided very good government to the people of Ontario because it has studied these things and taken those actions after careful thought, without simply rubber-stamping someone else's recommendations. In the ordinary course, election or no election, that would have meant it would have been into the month of April before a prudent -- that may be a word unknown to the honourable member -- administration would have introduced that legislation. What we are talking about is the difference between mid-April for introduction of that bill and --

Mr. Martel: Mid-June.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is right. It is due to something the member finds very foreign, which is an election. Let us be clear about that; there was an election and that caused the delay.

That having been the case, the member asks why that bill was not ready for introduction immediately after May 2. I will tell him very simply: I became minister shortly after that election and I was not prepared simply to accept the latest civil service draft of the legislation. It might be the member's advice or direction to the new Minister of Education to walk in and introduce whatever piece of legislation he finds sitting there, drafted by lawyers for introduction into this House. That may become a hallmark of the New Democratic Party-Liberal knee-jerk administration. However, it will not be the hallmark of any administration run by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.

Mr. Sweeney: The Minister of Education will be aware that teacher contract law in Ontario requires either a teacher or a board to give notice by May 31 if a contract is going to be rescinded for whatever reason. Can the minister indicate to us what directions are being given to teachers and school boards across Ontario with respect to changes that may have to take place with teachers' contracts subsequent to May 31 as a result of this new legislation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: One of the constant themes last week of my discussions, which were important, with all the supervisory officials, the trustees, the home and school representatives and the teachers' federation was that as many of these matters as possible should be left to local determination. As evidenced by the previous question, in more than 30 cases an arrangement has been struck and in those cases the teachers' federation and the boards have been part and parcel of sorting all that out. Notwithstanding the provision the member properly raised, the fact is that appropriate arrangements and appropriate directions are in place.

It would be better if the legislation had been passed by now. It would be better if there were more finality and certainty to the situation. Notwithstanding that, the reports I have received indicate that because of the co-operation, these matters have been worked out at the local level. It is worth pausing to say there has been an extraordinary amount of co-operation on this issue, as I am sure the member would agree, notwithstanding some public perceptions.

Mr. Rae: I am sure everybody in the House appreciates the offer of advice and co-operation that came from the Minister of Education in an earlier answer he made to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon).

However, I would like to ask the minister another question, and it is not meant rhetorically. How can one draw any conclusion other than that it has been the determination of the Conservative Party, in its last days of office, that it was prepared to leave the province high and dry on the issue, to leave everybody high and dry with respect to the position of the Conservative Party, and to throw it all into the lap of the new government, saying, "You deal with it in the two months that are left prior to September 1"? How can one draw any other conclusion than that they are saying, "We screwed it up; now you try and fix it in two months"?

Is that really the final message he wants to have come from the Conservative Party on this issue, which has proved to be so difficult for Ontario?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can only say to the member that last week I invited the four major groups I talked about a moment ago to meet with me. They found those sessions very important. If the member called them and asked them how important those sessions were, I think they would tell him they were very important. Two of the four asked for the opportunity to come back a couple of days later and offer some more ideas and alternatives that had not been thoroughly canvassed until then.

Further, I will tell the members quite honestly that the four groups raised some factual circumstances that could arise with the implementation which the planning and implementation commission and the ministry had not foreseen. It speaks again to the validity and importance of going to the front line of delivery to find out what some of those problems might be.

The member may feel it would be better to rush that legislation in, notwithstanding some of the concerns raised by those groups and the fact that two of those groups asked for an opportunity, and did take an opportunity, to come back in and give us further advice.

I can only tell the member I would rather be subject to the accusations to which he wants to subject us than be subject to the accusation that we brought in a bill that caused more rancour and more public division because it was rushed. That would be eminently wrong, and I will accept the political posturing the member wants to put on the circumstances rather than run the risk of encouraging rancour on this bill.

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Sargent: I would have liked to have some dialogue with the Premier (Mr. F. S. Miller), but I will try the Deputy Premier to see who is running the store over there.

My concern today, and that of a lot of people, is regarding the hundreds of patronage appointments. I wonder how far down the system they go. For example, last night the Bruce County Law Association, which is composed of many Liberal and Conservative lawyers, was shocked and dismayed at --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question, please.

An hon. member: We have one who travels the circuit. We have a circuit lawyer, one who goes around the province.

Mr. Sargent: Yes, the circuit. They were unanimously shocked and dismayed at the government's total irresponsibility in its appointments to the high offices of the court. For example, it has appointed a farmer -- and believe me, I love farmers --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member get to the question, please.

Mr. Sargent: How can I? They appointed a well-known Tory farmer with no experience in the law as registrar of the courts, and such other responsibilities as the local registrar of the courts, the clerk of the district court and the registrar of the surrogate court.

Mr. Speaker: What is your question?

Mr. Sargent: Even a farmer outstanding in his field --

Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: I want to say that our court system is screwed up so badly in so many cases that crown attorneys and judges who cannot make a living as lawyers in the business are appointed by the people over there to these high positions. I would like to know --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is your question --

Mr. Sargent: In view of the fact --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I gather your question is: Is the Deputy Premier aware? Is that it?

Mr. Sargent: No.

Mr. Speaker: Please put your question.

Mr. Sargent: I want to know in how many of the 52 counties across the province that is happening.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is my understanding that registrars, in almost all circumstances, are primarily keepers of records. It is also my understanding that the farmers of this province are excellent keepers of records.

I hasten to add that this party does not share the jaundiced view of farmers so obvious in the member for Grey-Bruce. At any rate, it is my understanding that, in this circumstance, this is the only person who has been so appointed.

Mr. Sargent: The Deputy Premier must know that the person appointed has to know the rules of evidence and the rules of the court. He also has to make the tax costs, to see that the lawyers are filing their pleadings properly and to sign default judgements.

Interjection.

Mr. Sargent: You are making your friend Mickey Rooney look like a piker.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Sargent: My point is that they are destroying our courts by doing this. How many people are getting appointments now?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would have to defer to the Attorney General (Mr. Pope) to know how many nonlawyers are in charge of such tasks within the court system. I believe there are some and I am sure that the member for BON --

Interjection.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) -- I am sure he would be delighted to know, since he is such a nonfriend of lawyers, that there are some nonlawyers appointed to such positions. I will have to ask the Attorney General how many nonlawyers are in such positions. It is my understanding there are some.

ONTARIO MOTOR VEHICLE ARBITRATION PLAN

Mr. Swart: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in regard to the auto arbitration plan he recently announced. The plan does a lot more to protect the automobile companies than it does to protect the automobile owners.

Does the minister not recognize the bias of this program when, first, the auto companies themselves determine whether a purchaser will have arbitration coverage for four years, three years, two years or one year, or no coverage at all; second, the auto owners have to forgo any legal action if they apply for arbitration; and third, the whole arbitration process is weighted in favour of the companies?

Is this kind of bias not inevitable and deliberate when the minister extensively consulted the auto companies but did not even ask for the views of the Automobile Protection Association which, of course, is the consumers' dominant advocate and protector?

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Swart: Why would the minister ignore that organization if he wanted a fair plan?

Hon. Mr. Runciman: The member is obviously under some strain. I do not know if it is tight shorts or what; I am not sure.

In any event, the statement he made is completely inaccurate. The ministry did consult with the organization he mentioned. The individual who appeared at the press conference and was allowed to make his statement and who made some inaccurate charges at that press conference was very much involved. Following that press conference, I had the opportunity to listen to a tape of a radio show done in 1984 where that individual, representing the organization the member just mentioned, was very supportive of the program we announced a week ago.

3:20 p.m.

All those charges are absolute nonsense. This program is going to assist the consumers of this province. I suggested the other day that anything with which that party over there is happy has to involve government intervention. That is the only thing. If they had their way, we would require government approval to go to the washroom.

This program is going to work to the betterment of the Ontario consumers. It is going to be fairly reviewed after two years, and if it is not working, we will then be prepared to consider legislation. We are optimistic it is going to succeed.

Mr. Swart: In spite of the minister's rhetoric, I suggest he well knows this is just a facade. I wonder whether the minister recalls that on page 6 of his statement he said the new auto arbitration program "...in essence, is the arrangement GM, Ford and, most recently, Chrysler have with the Better Business Bureau." May I remind the minister that the agreement is so biased that, although the car owner must answer all questions, the auto companies can withhold any information they consider to be confidential or proprietary.

Is it not true that the agreement was written by GM and that any similar plan will incorporate the same bias? As the minister's last act, will he not now authorize the delay of the implementation of the program and refer the whole matter to an all-party committee of the Legislature to bring in a report on real consumer protection for auto owners?

Hon. Mr. Runciman: The member is accurate concerning how the program will work, but the overall process is substantially different. It involves new organizations, new skills, greater public involvement and a more comprehensive training program for arbitrators. This program brings arbitration to 99 per cent of Ontario car buyers.

If a lemon law is needed in this province, it is a political lemon law for the crowd on that side of the room.

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio, the member for Durham East. Could he indicate to the House what steps he is taking to streamline the parliamentary process with which he has been charged by the Premier of the province (Mr. F. S. Miller)?

[Applause]

Hon. Mr. Cureatz: Thank you. No member of this House is more dedicated to the value of all members of this Legislature than I am. With that in mind, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. This chamber should direct the procedural affairs committee to start to re-examine past reports so the committee can take into consideration some of the very valued aspects that have been re-examined for too long, then make a final motion to be presented back in the chamber some time in the fall.

TRITIUM PRODUCTION

Hon. Mr. Harris: In the Legislature on June 11 in response to questions from the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) and the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), I undertook to provide information relating to the sale of tritium which Ontario Hydro plans to extract from used heavy water at a tritium removal facility under construction at Darlington.

Ontario Hydro is building this facility to reduce the level of tritium in heavy water in operating reactors. This reduction will contribute to the improvement of working conditions, the reduction of radiation dose to Ontario Hydro employees and the protection of the environment and public health in the event of spills of heavy water.

I am sure all members of the House support Ontario Hydro's initiative in constructing this facility. Indeed, the leader of the New Democratic Party voiced concern in the House on June 2, 1983, that Ontario Hydro had cancelled the second plant at Pickering and was consolidating its tritium removal at the new Darlington site.

Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen, and the end product from the tritium removal facility will be tritium gas. It will be packaged and stored in secure containers. One option for Ontario Hydro is to store the tritium for a prolonged period and allow it to decay away to harmless helium. The quantities involved are very small and storage would pose no hazard to personnel. The material would be open to international inspection and safeguards established under the nonproliferation treaty with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The second alternative, which is being explored by Ontario Hydro and federal authorities, is for Ontario Hydro to sell its tritium when it becomes available in 1988 to Canadian firms and to others for peaceful purposes. There is currently a commercial market for very small quantities of tritium for use in self-illuminating signs -- emergency-exit signs, for example, and airport runway lights. This market is growing rapidly and new applications are being sought.

Further down the road there will be a need for larger quantities of tritium as a fuel for fusion power reactors, initially in research reactors and eventually in demonstration reactors. The federal government is currently assessing whether there may be conditions under which Ontario Hydro's future tritium production could be made available to the world community in a manner consistent with Canada's international commitments to nonproliferation and world peace.

In response to the specific question by the member for Grey-Bruce I can inform the House that Ontario Hydro has no contract or commitment to supply tritium to the United States Department of Energy. Indeed, Ontario Hydro has not had any discussions with the Department of Energy on this matter.

Ontario Hydro has been discussing the supply of small amounts, gram-sized quantities, in the late 1980s for use in the fusion research machine at Princeton University. Any sale to this facility would be subject to approval by Canada's Department of External Affairs and the Atomic Energy Control Board.

Mr. Speaker: I might suggest that the standing orders do say that comprehensive answers such as that should be given during statements by the ministry.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Fulton: My question is for the Minister of Labour. During the past week I have received several phone calls from Scarborough residents concerned about rumours that the Philips Electronics manufacturing plant in the Milner Avenue-Markham Road-Highway 401 area of Scarborough is to be closed permanently and its production facilities moved offshore.

Can the minister tell us whether he has had any notification from Philips Electronics of such intent? If there has been no official notice, has he heard the rumours and has he discussed the situation with the company?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have not been in receipt of any formal notification, nor in my role as Minister of Labour have I been advised of any information with respect to this closure, but I certainly will explore it.

Mr. Fulton: The Philips plant currently employs 600 persons. Approximately 265 of those are directly involved in manufacturing; the rest are in sales, management and other positions. I understand the plant is up for sale. Concerned callers have told me they believe all the manufacturing will be moved abroad, with only a warehousing unit remaining in Scarborough. Therefore, most of those 600 jobs are going to be threatened.

Given the effect that such a closing would have on this area of Scarborough, will the minister undertake to have his staff meet with Philips officials to be in a position to brief the incoming government fully and allow all possible action to be taken to try to prevent such a closure?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I indicated in my first answer I would look into the situation.

3:30 p.m.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs. Can the minister explain why his government has failed to implement the promise he made in 1982 of a five-year program to provide seniors and the disabled across the north with long-term-care beds in communities where there is a need?

Why, despite the fact that more than a dozen communities applied in 1982 and five received funding approval from the ministry in 1983, do they still have to negotiate with the ministry and why do officials in Toronto continue a seemingly interminable series of reviews, studies and other questions about the applications? Why are so many communities still awaiting approval and why are those that received approval in 1983 still awaiting construction?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I want to thank the honourable member for recognizing this very important program that affects seniors in northern Ontario. It is one of the really exciting programs in the north, as he correctly recognized.

We have approved a number of projects in northern Ontario under this program. If one goes to Atikokan, construction is in full flight and is going full steam ahead. The member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce) will confess to that; he was there turning the sod three or four weeks ago.

In Dryden, construction will start in about three weeks. Also, a year from now, construction will start in Sioux Lookout. We have some sorting out to do in the town of Geraldton and in Rainy River, Chapleau and Matheson. We have already announced construction in Smooth Rock Falls. This program is being accepted right across northern Ontario. It is moving ahead at a rapid pace and we will meet our commitment.

Mr. Wildman: It is interesting the minister would consider a delay of three years a rapid development. That is along the lines of the Minister of Education (Mr. Grossman) believing it would be precipitate to publish legislation after a year.

Can the minister explain to or tell the House when the communities that are still awaiting approval, such as Chapleau, Wawa, Hornepayne and the others throughout the north that have applied, will be given final approval or denial so they will know where they stand?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We are in daily discussion with the municipality of Chapleau. There are some real problems with an overabundance of facilities in Chapleau, as the member is fully aware. We have been in discussion with the small town of Hornepayne. They have a small facility and we are looking at their needs. Wawa will come in good pace.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am sure the minister was inadvertently misleading all of us when he said there are a few things to sort out in Chapleau and that there is an overabundance of facilities in Chapleau.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: That simply is not true.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I must correct the honourable member. He does not know his own community, his own area, when he talks like that. He does not know what is going on.

Mr. Van Horne: What the member for Algoma was asking and did not receive an answer to was whether the minister would provide a recent or up-to-date timetable on the facilities the member has been asking for. The minister says he is sorting things out, but he did not tell us specifically the timetable for completion or agreement. Will he provide that final timetable?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We would be glad to. As I said earlier in my remarks, this is a very exciting program. It is a $25-million to $30-million program over a five-year period, and we will meet the needs of all the seniors in northern Ontario. I can assure the member of that.

COMMERCIAL FISHING

Hon. Mr. Harris: Further to the response to the question asked by the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) concerning the status of commercial fishing on Lake St. Clair, I indicated to the honourable member that a review of the stocks was not complete. My staff informs me that is correct and a review of all quota species is not complete, but it has reviewed the status of yellow pickerel.

Based on this review, my ministry is not allocating yellow pickerel to the commercial fishery on Lake St. Clair. As a consequence, my staff is undertaking discussions with the 10 fishermen with a view to negotiating a suitable solution, which could involve an offer for purchase on a willing-buyer, willing-seller arrangement and the consolidation of existing quotas of other commercial species among the fishermen who wish to remain in the fishery.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Minister of Skills Development. Last week we heard that the federal government slashed the budget of its job skills plan from some $95 million to $26 million from its general industrial training budget. What has the minister done in response to this tremendous slash in the training budget?

Hon. Mr. Gillies: The concerns of the province regarding this have been conveyed to the federal government on a number of occasions. I happen to have a couple of letters right here. With the indulgence of the House, I could read them into the record.

The province is very concerned about the directions being taken with both the general industrial training and the critical trade skills training programs. I conveyed those concerns to the minister in Ottawa when I met with her last week. I expect that in the near future she will have a statement which will enhance the funding of those programs for the summer months prior to the introduction in September of her labour market strategy, of which this government is most supportive.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture and Food previously requested permission to make a statement regarding the tornado relief. Would I have the agreement of the House if we reverted to statements?

Agreed to.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY (CONTINUED)

DISASTER RELIEF

Hon. Mr. Stevenson: This is a very brief statement which I am making as well on behalf of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Timbrell) and the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Brandt).

I wish to inform members that the government is offering subsidized, low-interest loans to assist the farm operations and businesses that suffered major property damage in the tornado. Under the Ontario tornado disaster aid program, farmers and businesses in the designated disaster areas can apply for special loans to cover rebuilding and the replacement of assets not covered by insurance and the regular relief fund. The program is intended to make up the difference between insurance and additional money available from the disaster relief fund and costs of rebuilding.

About 200 farms suffered damage from the tornado. Half of the people lost their homes, barns, storages or equipment, which has seriously disrupted the day-to-day operation of their farms. This program offers the intermediate credit these farmers need to help rebuild their operations to the state that existed before the disaster struck. Loans from chartered banks, trust companies and credit unions will be available at the prime lending rate, up to a maximum of $150,000. These loans will be guaranteed by the province. Borrowers will pay six per cent of the interest charges for five years, with an additional one per cent added each subsequent year until the 10-year maximum repayment period ends. The maximum repayment period for inventory losses is three years.

Farmers may obtain application forms, program details and counselling from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food county offices in Wellington, Bruce, Grey, Dufferin, south Simcoe, Victoria, Peterborough and Hastings counties and the regional municipalities of Durham and York.

Manufacturing, commercial and service businesses can apply for this assistance through the Ontario Development Corp. of the Ministry of Industry and Trade. The ministry staff of my colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade has contacted every commercial and industrial business to ascertain assistance requirements. I would like to stress that these assistance programs are designed to allow businesses to rebuild with no loss of jobs.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. O'Connor: I have the honour to present to this House two petitions raised by the citizens of Oakville. The first, containing 585 names, reads as follows:

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

"We urge the Ontario government to delay implementation of extended funding to Roman Catholic high schools until the necessary legislation has been debated, passed and tested in the courts."

3:40 p.m.

The second petition contains the names of 161 teachers from four of our high schools located in Oakville and reads as follows:

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government:

"(1) to seek a constitutional referral prior to any implementation to determine whether extension would conflict with the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and

"(2) to debate fully the issue of extension prior to any implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for the people to appear and be heard."

Mr. Lane: I have two petitions, which read as follows:

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

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

"Whereas any action to extend public funding to separate Roman Catholic secondary schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas it is uncertain whether extension would contravene the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and

"Whereas in democratic societies there is a recognized convention which respects the rule of law that before fundamental changes in public policy are implemented such matters are debated in the Legislative Assembly, with an opportunity for the public to appear and be heard before an appropriate committee of the Legislature;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government:

The first petition is signed by 59 teachers and staff of the secondary school in Kenora.

The second petition reads exactly the same and is signed by 57 teachers and staff of the Elliot Lake Secondary School.

Mr. McGuigan: I have a petition which reads as follows:

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to debate the issue of extension of public funding to separate secondary schools prior to any implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for the people to appear and be heard."

It is signed by 50 residents of my riding.

Mr. Hennessy: I have a petition which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, support full funding for the completion of the Catholic separate school system with its implementation in September 1985."

It is signed by 550 people of St. Patrick's Cathedral in Fort William.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FOREST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT

Mr. Foulds moved, seconded by Mr. Wildman, first reading of Bill 20, An Act to ensure the Regeneration and Reforestation of Forests in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Foulds: The purpose of the bill is to require the Ministry of Natural Resources to prepare a forest resource analysis and forest resource program at regular intervals to assist in ensuring the wise management of forest resources in Ontario.

The bill also makes it a duty of the minister, in legislative terms, to ensure that the forest resources of Ontario are managed on a sustained-yield basis. The inventory is to be done by October 31, 1986.

It is appropriate that such a bill be introduced on this, the second-last day of the present government. After 42 years it has failed to manage the resources of Ontario wisely --

Mr. Speaker: Is that in your notes?

Mr. Foulds: -- and I am certainly interested in this bill to ensure that the future government does so.

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. Reville, first reading of Bill 21, An Act to amend the Animals for Research Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Under the present law, the operator of a pound may not destroy a dog or cat in the pound without first satisfying any request for purchase of the dog or cat for research. The amendment would empower local municipalities to pass a bylaw authorizing an operator to destroy a dog or cat without satisfying such a request.

I hope the new government will copy this act just as the old government copied my leghold-trap act.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned 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. Foulds: As members will recall, in the three minutes I had on Friday I indicated the present government not only has lost the confidence of this House, and is certainly going to lose it by tomorrow, but demonstrated in its loss on May 2 that it has also lost the confidence of the people of Ontario. Even more important for a government, it has lost confidence in itself to govern and it therefore no longer deserves to carry on as a government.

I was in full flight talking about the speech from the throne, because that deathbed repentance is simply not sufficient. It is not sufficient after 42 years of government to promise a number of reforms. It is not sufficient, when one has the power to act, merely to speak.

Although the right of speech and the power of words are enormous in this assembly, the power of government to act is enormous. The failure of this government to act, particularly in the past 15 years, has led me to the inevitable conclusion that it can no longer act; that it has become ossified by its own success; that it has become so inward-looking that it relies solely on polls and not on people; that the government and the Tory party have lost touch with the greatest cell network it or any government in the western world has built up, and that it has lost touch with its own supporters and not merely with the people of the province.

This government has failed not merely by what it has done but by what Catholics call its sins of omission, by what it has failed to do. There are not merely sins of commission; there are not merely acts that are bad and wrong and stupid and are political follies; there are also acts they have failed to carry out.

3:50 p.m.

In my memory, this government has been consistently self-serving and has confused its own self-interest with the greater interest of the people of the province. I want to remind members that this speech from the throne says nothing to me that previous speeches from the throne have not said. I want to read just one small quotation from a speech from the throne delivered in March 1971. That speech said:

"The current unconscionable levels of unemployment which have been forced upon the Canadian people will be combated with every means at the disposal of this provincial government. The budget will be presented on April 26. Its purpose will be to restore the inherent vitality of our economy...."

What was the unemployment rate back in May 1971? The unconscionable level of unemployment that this government was going to combat with every means at its disposal was 5.4 per cent. Between May 1971 and May 1985 the number of people without jobs in this province more than doubled. We know that in the intervening years there have been even higher levels of unemployment.

Since 1971, this government has failed to come to grips with the number one problem stalking our society and our province: the problem of work and providing jobs for people. This government has not only failed in the conventional sense but also failed to meet the challenge of the 1980s and the 1990s. It has failed in tough economic times to put to rest the fear about technological development. I want to talk about that in detail in a few minutes.

Today, I want to talk about two main things. One is the way the Conservative government has failed my part of the province, the northwestern part of Ontario. Northwestern Ontario contains 58.9 per cent of the land mass of the province -- not northern Ontario; just northwestern Ontario, the five northwestern ridings -- and 3.2 per cent of the population. It has tailed when I look over the record of this government when I was first elected and when I look at it today.

We have had the devastating pollution of the English-Wabigoon river system and the devastating social and economic impact on the people and the native people along that river system. This government has not yet solved that problem. It has had a decade and a half to come to grips with that problem and it has failed to do it.

Today, I introduced a bill on reforestation. This government has failed to protect the jobs of northern Ontario by failing to protect our forest industry. It has failed to regrow, replant and regenerate the trees that are so crucial to the economy of northwestern Ontario. In my area of the province, 75 per cent of the jobs are related directly or indirectly to the forest industry. In spite of Mr. Davis's 1977 promise to plant two trees for every one, this government has failed to make those trees grow. Our industry, the little secondary manufacturing that we have in the northwest, is severely threatened by the inaction, stupidity, shortsightedness and coverup of this government.

This government has failed to protect and diversify the economies of one-industry towns in northern Ontario. Even Sudbury, a large metropolitan centre, is still largely a one-industry town subject to the whim of international markets. After 60 years, surely to goodness governments have a responsibility to protect not only their investment as governments but also the investment of the people in the area in schools and homes by diversifying the economies of those regions.

I want to talk about necessary medical transportation. During the recent election, this government announced a chintzy, second-rate, cheap program that was a blatant attempt to buy off northerners. The Premier (Mr. F. S. Miller), in a sense of generosity, flew to Fort Frances and announced they would pay for the first trip and part of the second trip. He talked about it as a "subsidy." I resent that, because the people of my part of the province deserve to have the same access to health care that, for the price of a subway token or a taxi fare, people in this part of the province have. This government has failed, and even failed in the speech from the throne, its deathbed repentance, to make a commitment for full funding for medically necessary travel.

Finally, almost a decade ago, eight years ago, this government appointed the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment. At the time we praised it; we thought it might be the last best hope for the sane development of our part of the province. However, I remember my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) warning us in caucus that he thought it was not going to develop that way. I remember vividly my then colleague the member for Lakeshore saying, "No, things will be all right; this will develop."

Very simply put, Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt failed in his mandate. He found the load too great and too onerous, and he passed on the torch. Who did the Tory government pass the torch to? A retired mining executive from Red Lake, who had not the will, the strength, the stamina or the gifts to complete the work.

We have seen the most expensive royal commission in the history of Ontario become a laughingstock of the north and of this province. When I think of the stakes and what could have happened, given the kind of commission that, let us say, Mr. Justice Thomas Berger would have conducted, my heart breaks and a great well of anger comes up in me, as a northerner, about the failure of this Conservative government to come to grips with what could have been a development of our province and an important region of the province, combined with protection of our native people and of our environment.

What we have seen is waste and discrediting stupidity, and what we will see in the future, unfortunately, is an ad hoc development that does neither the north nor the province any credit. It makes Mackenzie King look decisive and filled with action.

Finally, I want to spend five minutes simply talking about technological development, because technology is hurtling down on all of us whether we like it or not. At a time when we are facing economic uncertainty, most of the people find that unsettling and worrisome. It is my contention that we as a Legislature and as leaders of our society have a responsibility to ride this tiger, because if we do not, it will devour us.

I suggest that all levels of government and perhaps spokespeople in all parties have been cowardly on this issue. It is one we must face and cope with or we will see an unemployment rate of 20 per cent in this province in the next 10 to 15 years.

My colleagues the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) and the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), and my former colleague the member for Ottawa Centre, Mr. Cassidy, and I were on a task force of our party. Let me tell members that year of activity was one of those filled with more revelations for me about the state and the future of our society than any other task I have undertaken. Technology can transform --

An hon. member: Keep going. I am enjoying it.

Mr. Foulds: I am being encouraged by the government House leader to keep going because he is enjoying it and being discouraged by my whip from continuing. I do not know what that says, but I do want to spend just five more minutes on this topic before I wrap up my remarks.

4 p.m.

New technology can transform the lives of people. It can help the handicapped and it can eliminate the worst kinds of burdens of work for millions. The experts also tell us it could wipe out 500,000 manufacturing jobs in Canada and raise unemployment in Ontario to more than 20 per cent. We must soon learn to share the work there is on a basis that is fair and equitable or we will allow the so-called market system to condemn millions of workers to a life of economic deprivation and social insignificance.

Let me sum up a couple of things that are happening in Ontario. At present, the only growth area of our economy is the service sector. It now employs 66 per cent of the work force, compared to only 43 per cent a mere 30 years ago. However, the service-sector jobs that are replacing industrial jobs are much lower-paying. The average industrial wage is about $450 a week and the average service-sector job pays about $268 a week. Many service-sector jobs that now are being counted as jobs created are low-paying and part-time. They are the dead-end jobs at McDonald's and other fast food outlets.

The other thing that is happening, which is a worrying sign for our economy, is that because workers are working for less they therefore have less disposable income with which to stimulate the economy. For example, these new jobs do not allow people to buy homes because their income level is such they cannot afford either the down payment or the mortgage. The blue-collar working class is not being replaced by a new white-collar middle class but by a white-collar, working-poor class.

Low-paying service jobs are replacing highly paid industrial and resource jobs. Technology is replacing labour in every sector of our economy. That is the fundamental difference between this and previous industrial revolutions. Previous industrial revolutions affected only one part of the economy at a time. This one is affecting every sector of our economy: resource, manufacturing and service. Jobs are being shifted offshore and new jobs are not being created fast enough. Unemployment remains intolerably high.

For all the razzle-dazzle of the last provincial budget of the then Treasurer, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), he admitted in that budget that unemployment was going to remain at 9.1 per cent on average throughout the year. He announced 10 new programs but no new jobs.

Let me briefly conclude by saying what I believe needs to happen to combat the problems of unemployment and technology that are closing in on our society like a pincer.

First, we have to establish portable pensions from year one of a person's work so that person can carry his pension from job to job and, therefore, retire in dignity with a full income voluntarily at age 50 or 55 after 30 or 35 years' work.

Second, we must look seriously at shorter work time. I do not care whether one calls it a shorter work week, a shorter working lifespan, longer paid vacations or a combination of those things. Unless we learn to share work and reduce Ontario's work week, we will not have the necessary job places for our young people at the end of the scale.

Third, at this time we must offer bridging pensions and new programs so that workers can voluntarily retire at age 55 if they wish so we can open up jobs immediately for young people in the work force. I say to the present government and the government in waiting that there is no use creating youth training programs if there is no real job for a young person to go to at the end.

Fourth, we must make training a part of every person's working life. Training and retraining are things we see as being on the job, a portion of the job, so that when faced with a new career, with a plant shutdown or with the termination of employment, a person has the skills to adapt and to take another job if it is available. We damned well have to make sure it is going to be available.

Finally, we must create real jobs, particularly in the area of what economists call import replacement. Just to give a small example, we import more than 92 per cent of medical appliances and medical technology used in this province. Surely to goodness we are capable of manufacturing our own medical supplies for this country. That is an example in the so-called service sector.

A second example is in the resource sector. We are the third-largest mining country in the world, even with the present recession, and we are the largest importers of mining machinery. We could create 20,000 jobs in this province over the next 15 years simply by manufacturing in this province the machinery we use in the mining industry as it is worn out and needs to be replaced.

Those are the kinds of real jobs in the real economy -- import replacements -- we must start to do and do fast.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much and I want to thank the members of the Legislature for listening to me. I will wind up by saying I believe that after tomorrow the new parliament will be a workable and working parliament. I believe it will be a productive parliament and a parliament that historians will look upon not merely with interest but with some degree of awe.

I say to my new-found Liberal friends, as I said to my Tory friends for the last 15 years: "We will be judging you, we will be dogging you and we will be insisting not merely on the implementation of those things on which we have agreed but also on fairness and on right. We will be disagreeing with you."

I found it instructive, for example, that in the area of labour relations the Liberal Party was willing to agree to bring in first-contract legislation but was not willing to bring in anti-scab legislation. This party believes the second is just as important as the first because the two go hand in hand. We knew we could not get the second out of the present Liberal Party, but we will be doing everything we can in the parliament that is coming up to ensure that it does come forward.

It is interesting and instructive that although our capable negotiators were able to get out of the Liberals a commitment to northern health transportation, a commitment to a forest audit and a commitment to regeneration programs, we were not able to get out of them a commitment to a northern Ontario heritage fund that would diversify the economies of the single-industry towns of northern Ontario.

So there are differences, fundamental differences, and we will be emphasizing them when necessary. We will not, contrary to what the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick think, be letting the Liberals off the hook in any single way. When it is necessary, we will fight them every step of the way just as we have fought the Tories every step of the way.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

Mr. McClellan: He had to look it up. Who is that man?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Thirty years and he still has to look it up. It is depressing. Ten years is the best I can do.

I was not going to participate in this debate until just a moment ago when I was wandering through the halls thinking about my options for presentation of the schools bill. While deep in thought, I happened to hear the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) --

Mr. Foulds: He had to look it up.

4:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, that is right. I want the member to know that.

I heard him cautioning his friends in the Liberal Party that the New Democrats intended to hold them to account and not to let them off the hook. I quickly reached into my pocket to pull out --

Mr. McClellan: That is a computer printout.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is a computer printout of Robert Nixon from Dateline Ontario a week ago. There were some things in it that I would like to caution our friends in the New Democratic Party about before they believe they are going to have much influence over here, or that the Liberals really intend to govern for two years as opposed to pulling the plug when it is convenient.

I want to warn them so I can rise in this House, back on this side, and say to the two or three who may still be left --

Mr. McClellan: As Premier Grossman.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- so I can say to Ross, the member for Fort York, and the one or two other colleagues he will then have, "I told you so."

Mr. Kerrio: We know what you are up to.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We know what they are up to. I want to read some selected excerpts from Robert Nixon, putative Treasurer, "It is not legally binding. He is correct in that regard." We know what he is talking about. Let us go on. He also said in the next paragraph, and admitted under pressure, "The Liberals would suffer less from a quick election than the other two parties." That is something I would be worried about if I had been a signatory to the arrangement, which I never would have been.

Mr. Philip: Just about to sign it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member is going to get more nervous. Mr. Nixon goes on to say --

The Deputy Speaker: Would the member address his comments to the chair? Perhaps then there will be fewer interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I would want you to tell the good burghers of Oxford that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), when asked further why David Peterson would not state unequivocally this week that there will not be an election for two years -- indeed, why would he not? -- -answered, "I suppose you could imagine a circumstance where the agreement would not be binding."

They go on to ask him for some examples and he says things like a strike. "It could be anything where the welfare of the community is very much endangered and the government of the day might think something has to be done for the community." That is not too wide to drive a truck through, is it? No, not the Liberals they have trusted for so many years on these kinds of issues.

Mr. McClellan: Just who is it who is afraid of an election?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are not afraid of an election. Let me say clearly, as proof of that, we indicated in some conversations with the New Democratic Party, which I would not want to refer to at length, that we were quite content with the circumstance whereby if we lost the confidence of the House, if we lost on a major vote, there would be an electoral test. We believe in that principle and on that count it might be useful to refer to Edward Blake, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) likes to do.

I was really interested that in the throne speech debate the Leader of the Opposition quoted Edward Blake, "who led my party more than a century ago." Imagine the leader of the Liberal Party quoting Edward Blake as one of his heros saying, "The privileges of parliament are the privileges of the people and the rights of parliament are the rights of the people."

Can my colleagues imagine the leader of the Liberal Party quoting Edward Blake, who is no doubt revolving in his grave at this moment, and using Edward Blake, one of his esteemed predecessors, as an explanation of how he is going to defend the rights of parliament and that they are the rights of the people.

This is from one of the very people who have said: "Forget the rights of parliament. Forget the rights of the people. What is important is not 700 years of parliamentary tradition, which gives the people the right, through their parliament, to have an election if confidence is lost." He says: "Forget it, Blake. Forget it, Forsey. We are coming into the House. We are going to take power at any cost." He should not refer to Blake. The words of Blake lie ill in the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition.

Speaking of the Leader of the Opposition, I also read his comments --

Mr. Foulds: Has the minister read the agreement?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no agreement. The member knows that. It is a gentleman's agreement. I could read further what the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk thinks about it, and I might.

In any event, let us talk for a moment about some of the things the Leader of the Opposition had to say in his participation in this debate on June 7 last. This sentence is consistent with the hypocrisy contained in his referring to Mr. Blake. He said, and I want to get it perfectly right, "I have never seen such philosophical harlotry."

When the Leader of the Opposition talked about philosophical harlotry, I thought he might be talking about his party's sudden conversion on the subject of pornography. They suddenly changed a position they had held at least as long as I have been here, two or three years ago, and suddenly became zealous advocates of some restrictions on pornography.

When the Leader of the Opposition said, "I have never seen such philosophical harlotry," I thought he might be talking about his sudden reversal on extra billing. I was sure he was talking about that. In case he has forgotten, let me remind him about extra billing. Let me remind him of his position and, to pick a member of the Liberal Party at random, the position of the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway). Let us see what he has had to say about extra billing. He says he refuses to doctor-bash. No, not the Liberals; not until it is convenient.

The member believes "the Liberals should allow some measure of opting out of the Ontario health insurance plan." That is a direct quote from the member for Renfrew North. He goes on, "Whereas I accept the doctors' argument that they must have the choice to practise in or out of the government plan, I absolutely insist the patient has the corresponding right to quality health care service at the government rate."

Let us read now the Leader of the Opposition in the Globe and Mail: "I would negotiate a way out of extra billing. We believe it creates two-price medicine. We are also facing a penalty," etc. This is from the Leader of the Opposition, who complains about philosophical harlotry.

At first I thought perhaps he was talking about extra billing or pornography, both examples of -- to use his words, not mine -- "philosophical harlotry" practised by the Liberal Party of Ontario. I have very little time on my hands these days but I wanted to see what else the Leader of the Opposition had to say. I was interested in a quote from the Leader of the Opposition in the throne speech debate on June 7.

He said: "We have to stop telling people to expect less. It is this kind of talk that blunts ambition and saps the spirit, because it is a desire for a better life that motivates people in a free society. We have no reason to curb our expectations." So Keith Davey wrote for him.

4:20 p.m.

Let us go back. I remembered the Liberal Party and the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) saying some things that did not exactly sit comfortably with this caution about doom and gloom, about lowering expectations.

Listen to this contribution of the member for London Centre to the budget debate in December 1981. This is from a man who says we have to stop telling people to expect less, that we have got to stop talking about blunting ambition and sapping the spirit. Here is the member: "There is a tremendous feeling we have lost our potential, that the fact we are a have-not province has impressed itself on people. A sense of depression has invaded everywhere." How about that?

Let us go on. The man who said, "Stop telling people to expect less; stop blunting ambition," says, "Ontario's industrial plant has become creaky and dusty. We have fallen behind." How can he lecture others on philosophical harlotry when he commits those sins?

I was interested further when he went on. He caught my attention the other day when he said in the throne debate, "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."

I have a bit of a memory. I know my friends opposite do not and some of the new ones, I know, will want to make notes of what I am saying this afternoon for use in their caucus. I know their leader, having complained that this government bailed out and tried to prop up failing industries --

Mr. Sweeney: Just be glad your dad is not here. You have had your chance.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I want the member for Kitchener-Wilmot to listen to this. Here is the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, October 6, 1980, on the subject of Massey-Ferguson Industries Ltd. He was not complaining then that we were walking around propping up industries. The Leader of the Opposition was not up complaining about it then, perhaps because it affected his colleague's riding. My colleague the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) never tried to go both ways on the issue.

Mr. McClellan: Where is he now?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He was elected easily.

Mr. McClellan: Why is he boycotting your speech?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I told him what I was going to say previously.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Good speech. Right on. I wrote it for him and he is reading it well.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Minister of Labour will not believe what the member for London Centre said after complaining about propping up failing industries.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: He could say anything on any side of the issue, no surprises.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let us look at the record. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk said: "It may well be that the federal and provincial governments will be in a position to at least guarantee the financial package up to a level of between $500 million and $600 million. We are told by the experts this is a minimum." Of course, it ended up at $75 million; but not to put too fine a point on it, what is $500 million between Liberals and New Democrats? In any event, when it came to Massey-Ferguson there he was insisting on that bailout.

Let me also say that Eric Cunningham, who is no doubt kicking himself roundly these days wherever he might be found, said, "I am anxious to support Bill 48, An Act respecting Massey-Ferguson Ltd." The Liberal Party, over the objections of the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), was quite on side in propping up those industries, which the member for London Centre says we have got to stop doing.

What about White Farm Manufacturing Canada Ltd.? Was the Liberal Party opposed, to use the member for London Centre's words, to "bailing out failing industries"? Were they opposed to it? Let us quote the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk on April 1, 1982: "As a matter of high policy, it is essential," that we help out White Farm. "Anything less will in my view be inadequate in the service of the workers in this community and in the service of the industry and economy of Canada."

Let us go on to some other issues, such as getting rid of Ontario health insurance plan premiums. The member for London Centre said on April 27, 1985, "We would ease out of OHIP premiums over five years and shift the cost on to different forms of taxation." That was in 1985. Philosophical harlotry? The member for Renfrew North stated in 1983, "The OHIP increase in the 1983 budget was not out of line," and "If we want a top-notch health care system, we will have to pay for it." Imagine that.

Let us leave out a lot here. I want to talk about the civil service because the Leader of the Opposition said this last week. Listen to these high-minded words that Keith and Michael wrote for him: "Our civil servants must not become part of the political battleground; neither should they be among the casualties when there is a change." That is very high-minded. I applaud Keith for writing that.

What did he say in 1983? Of course, that was two years ago. I understand that it may not count to the Liberals; it was two years ago. What did that same Leader of the Opposition say in 1983?

Mr. Laughren: There is a statute of limitations on Liberal statements.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: For him the statute of limitations is two weeks.

The Leader of the Opposition said: "The first day on the job" as Premier, "I would ask for the resignation of every deputy minister in the government." Imagine that. These are the people who, he says on June 7, "must not become part of the political battleground; neither should they be among the casualties when there is a change."

Mr. McClellan: What does the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) think?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It does not matter. It matters only what those guys over there think. Let us face it.

Finally, I just want to quote what the Leader of the Opposition said about the Minister of Industry and Trade, that he has done nothing except walk around on trade missions while a whole world of high technology came upon us. I want to quote this directly; I would not want to misquote him: "Both of those activities belie the fundamental changes that are going on in our society today, the move to high technology, the move to freer trade around the world and international competition."

The Leader of the Opposition wants to put out the premise that this government has simply been trying to bail out failing industries every time we bailed out an industry. Every time, without exception, he supported it, but he suggests in the speech that was written for him that this is all we have done and that we have missed the world of high technology.

Let me just refresh his memory. When it comes to moving our society towards an era of high technology, this government has an unimpeachable record. Educational microcomputers: that is a Canadian industry. The members of the New Democratic Party support that; they applauded that initiative. It is now going into our schools. It is exactly what they have been asking for for many years.

Instead of importing educational microcomputers, when the ministry got the funding to put them into the schools, the then Minister of Industry -- I happen to know him very well -- got together with the Minister of Education of the day and said, "Let us have them made in Canada." Over the objections of IBM and other major international companies we arranged for those educational microcomputers, that high technology, to be made in Canada. They are being made in Canada in the great riding of Leeds, thanks only to the steps taken by this government, the government the Leader of the Opposition thinks has only been bailing out industries -- he supported them all -- instead of dealing with high technology.

What about the microelectronics centre in Ottawa? I was in this House when his members were standing up and begging that it go to their riding. What about the automotive parts technology centre, that high-tech centre?

Mr. Laughren: The government has more seats than anybody else.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The colleagues of the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) were begging for it to go to Windsor, and he knows it; so were the members of the Liberal Party.

Mr. McClellan: Everybody is grateful to the Tories.

4:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would say that only about 37 per cent of the public is grateful.

The resource machinery centre --

Mr. Sweeney: All six of them went to Tory ridings.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Gee, not any more. My friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot suggested they all went to Tory ridings, but let us just have a look at it.

The automotive parts centre is essentially in St. Catharines riding.

Mr. Sweeney: It is in the Honourable Robert Welch's part of the riding.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, excuse me that we have a member in the area. I apologize for that problem, but I have to tell him that when these centres were handed out the majority of seats were held by Tories. Imagine that.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Kitchener-Wilmot has carried on enough.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What about the resource machinery centre in Sudbury. Excuse me, we have one of the seats there. I understand the problem. We have one seat. I am sorry, it is in part of the riding of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon).

Let the record show the member for Kitchener-Wilmot would have preferred that the centre not go to Sudbury because there is no Liberal in the area; or is it part of the arrangement that the New Democratic Party gets one centre for every centre the Liberals give out? Is that the new arrangement? Tell us which way it goes.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know the honourable member would want to be reminded of the recent computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing centre for the automotive industry, which was put in the great city of Windsor. The member has to go to caucus. It was in all the newspapers.

Mr. Sweeney: CAD/CAM is in Cambridge, a Tory riding.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would say to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot if he sets up his new ministry properly, he can get a clipping service and he can know what is happening outside of Kitchener. I would remind the member there is a vote tomorrow at 5:45 p.m. It was in all the papers. Show up.

Let us go on to all the other initiatives we have taken in the high-tech area: the robot rental program -- which is something those guys should understand, given the deal they just made with the NDP -- the 4,000 computers to be placed in low-income neighbourhoods across Ontario for young people; the innovation centres at 22 colleges and universities; the enterprise centres; and the automotive parts investment fund.

There simply is no jurisdiction that has done more for high technology in the past five years than the government of Ontario, this government and the Progressive Conservative Party. That is a fact.

If the Leader of the Opposition wants to make other allegations with regard to the performance of this government in terms of the industrial future of this province, let him stand up and detail it. Let him not give these speeches that were written by Keith Davey and friends, suggesting there are suddenly some high-flown ideals which only he shares, which he has no details about and no specifics in terms of policy. Of course, they were not raised or dictated by the NDP, so how could he?

Let him not stand up and suggest we have not got a record. If he wants to suggest that he would have done differently, that the record might be better if he were there, let him do so. With respect, it is wrong and out of character with the kind of new image they are trying to build for him for him to suggest that nothing has been done, that we have only gone around "propping up failing industries," to use his words.

I want to add that I really, seriously have watched closely the words of all of the parties over the past couple of weeks. None of us knows what the future holds in this assembly.

Some hon. members: Oh, yes, we do.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: And some members will not be here for too much of that future.

Let me remind members that when we look carefully at the words of both parties to the now famous agreement, it is quite clear that it is not meant to be anything truly enforceable. The leader of the third party can say all he wishes about holding the Liberal Party of Ontario to account to live up to the promises made in the famous piece of paper, but it is also quite clear that he acknowledges he has no remedy and no relief against that. There is no action he can take if they do not live up to it.

Juxtapose that to the admitted words of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. Let me read it. This is a panelist, who comments, "There may not be weasel words. What we are trying to get at is the fact that there is a loophole, that there are loopholes sprinkled through the accord." He then says, "Robert, in your hands are all sorts of loopholes. You can cut and run."

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk responds, "It is interesting that you picked out the phrase `in a framework of fiscal responsibility'" -- that is part of the agreement -- "because the right of the New Democratic -- "

Mr. McClellan: Does the minister object to fiscal responsibility? Let him stand there and say he is opposed to fiscal responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The new alliance is the double-A alliance. I guarantee it. It will not be a triple-A alliance; it will be a double-A alliance.

Mr. Mancini: The government lost it last year.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Really? Call New York. I will give the member the phone number. He can have his new driver drive him to New York. I can tell him where to get baseball tickets.

Listen to what the new Treasurer, double-A Nixon, said with regard to the agreement. "It is interesting that you picked out the phrase `in a framework of fiscal responsibility.'"

I say to the members of the House, I predict it is that phrase the Liberal Party of Ontario will use this fall to call an election and say the deal is off because they could not live up to the demands of the New Democratic Party "in a framework of fiscal responsibility."

Mr. McClellan: Wait and see.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just listen to what he says. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk continues, "Because the right of the New Democratic Party to vote against the budget bills, in our mind..." Imagine this, I say to Edward Blake and his ghost, wherever it is, imagine the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk acknowledging the right of the NDP to vote against budget bills.

He says: "The right of the NDP to vote against budget bills" -- it is kind of him to give them that right -- "in our mind left the new government somewhat high and dry. Therefore, we balance that with the `framework of fiscal responsibility' phrase, which simply meant that in the unlikely event our NDP supporters for this limited period of time are not prepared to go along with what we considered fiscally necessary, we would be able to say, `Well, then we cannot proceed with the areas of the programs that this was designed to pay for.'"

P.S.: Goodnight, Robert. Goodnight, Bob Rae and friends.

Mr. McClellan: It means one has to pay for what one does. Is that such a big surprise to Mr. Deficit Financing over there?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Get that on the record. The next member for Fort York says one has to pay for what one wants to do. It is interesting he should introduce that concept from the NDP in a discussion about philosophical harlotry. It fits perfectly.

Mr. Sweeney: Pay as you go.

Mr. McClellan: Yes, that is pretty strange for a Conservative, is it not? One has to pay for what one does. It is going to be a nice experiment.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will just compare the double-A budget of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk to the budget this government introduced last May, which reduced the deficit.

Mr. McClellan: What is the deficit this year?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I understand the member will not be concerned about it because the leader of the NDP has already said, as has the Leader of the Opposition, that he has no particular hangup over deficits. I understand that. I also understand the leader of the NDP, when asked about the cost of the famous accord, said, "Oh, shucks, we do not know. No one totalled it up."

Mr. McClellan: What about the minister's $2-billion throne speech?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We heard what the member said.

I want to remind my colleagues in the NDP, so many of whom I am fond of, personally if not politically -- at least two -- that when the fall comes and they are wondering what they are going to do now --

Mr. McClellan: I think I will run in St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member is welcome to come in. I accept the challenge. In fact, given the deal they have made, and if they continue to make those deals, we can have the best two out of three.

4:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: Back to the speech from the throne.

Mr. McClellan: If we have an election this fall, I will run in St. Andrew-St. Patrick. How is that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I say to the member for Bellwoods, they know him too well. It is a good association, and I think the member can get the nomination from the NDP; they are very selective. However, given the candidates that have run against me, perhaps I should say they are not all that selective.

Those words will live for ever in the NDP caucus. One day they will be engraved over the portals in the same way as, "When the going gets tough, the tough get going." This one will read, "In a framework of fiscal responsibility, we died." That is what is going to happen.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, there will be the day when with much regret, with words written by everyone from Michael Kirby to the member for Renfrew North, the leader of the then government may rise in this House and say, "I beg to inform the House that I have had to visit the Lieutenant Governor here in October 1985 and with much regret and sadness say, `So long, red friends.'" He is going to say, "So long, Ross," "So long, Mike" and "So long, Bob."

He is going to say, "We wanted to keep the deal, but given what happened" -- and I will use the words of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, members will like this quote. "Suppose they refuse to vote for any rational budgetary program made up of specific bills." It is up to the Liberals. They are going to tell the NDP that they have refused to vote for what they consider to be a "rational budgetary program." Those are not my words. They are the words of the person who thinks he is going to be the Treasurer of this province.

I predict that, with golden words laced with crocodile tears, with much regret, the member for London Centre will stand up and say, "Last evening the NDP refused to vote for some very rational budgetary items on specific bills." I remind the member for Bellwoods that is not what the agreement said. It said it will only fall on the general budget resolution.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It did not say that. I have read the agreement.

Mr. McClellan: Read it again.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If I am right, does the member promise to run in St. Andrew-St. Patrick?

Mr. Kerrio: Talk about it, Larry, but do not bet on it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: My friend should bet on it.

One day this fall, just after this House has been dissolved, just after the NDP has been dissolved and just after the short-term Liberal government has been dissolved, I will have the opportunity of walking out into the hall and saying to the media:

"I told them on June 17 that this minor matter of a rational budgetary program was not supported by the NDP and therefore `in a framework of fiscal responsibility' the Liberal Party of Ontario, having been in office for three and a half months or four months out of 42 years, finds it necessary to take the advice of Keith Davey and Martin Goldfarb, to go to the people and to say to Bob Rae: `Thanks for everything. We'll see you later.'"

Mr. Poirier: I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the Deputy Speaker, who currently occupies the chair, upon his election to his prime position. I hope he will transmit my good wishes to the Speaker and salute the Deputy Chairman of the committees.

I want to congratulate my fellow members, the other 124, whether they have been here a long time or whether they are recent additions to this House, as I am. I also want to salute the staff, who work very hard to follow the debates of all 125 members.

I wish to take this opportunity to salute the previous member for Prescott-Russell, Don Boudria. After the three short years during which Don was here, I saw in the last by-election and in the last general election that people appreciated the work Don had done as the member for Prescott-Russell. When I look at the results he obtained in the last federal election, the largest Liberal majority across Canada, I think it is testimony to the fact that the people appreciated his work when he was a member of the Legislature for three years at Queen's Park.

I would like to thank the electors of Prescott-Russell and to assure them I will serve them quite well, even though it is a hard duty to represent Prescott-Russell at Queen's Park, 500 kilometres away, believe me.

I am proud to represent Prescott-Russell for many reasons. The riding of Prescott-Russell has been the historical gateway to Ontario via the Ottawa River. In 1610, 375 years ago, Étienne Brûlé was the first European to come to Ontario via the Ottawa River. He was followed by Samuel de Champlain, and my ancestors developed the seigneurie de Longueuil in my riding.

I am a fourth-generation resident of Prescott-Russell, and I am proud to be in a riding where the English-speaking and French-speaking populations get along very well. They have an excellent relationship. The riding is 68 per cent francophone, and the member for Prescott-Russell has the responsibility of making sure that the rights of the francophone minority in Ontario get equal and fair treatment along with those of the anglophone population of Ontario. I am also quite proud to represent a riding that has such an excellent rural and urban mix of population.

Je suis fier d'être un des huit membres franco-ontariens élus au 33e Parlement. Je suis fier d'avoir été élu en cette année du 375e anniversaire du passage d'Étienne Brûlé en Ontario, en ce 75e anniversaire de l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, en ce 10e anniversaire du dévoilement du drapeau franco-ontarien et en 102 ans depuis l'élection du premier franco-ontarien à l'Assemblée législative. Je suis fier de suivre dans les pas de Honoré Robillard, ce premier, élu ici en 1883, dans les pas d'Eugène Alfred Evanturel. Je suis très heureux.

I sincerely hope that my 124 colleagues and I can have some constructive debates that will lead to action and not just words, that we will have maximum co-operation among members of all parties, that we will concentrate on what we have in common to serve better the people of Ontario and that these debates in the House will be conducted in a respectful environment so that when they come and sit in the visitors' galleries these people, who are our employers, will be proud to see us as their employees debate matters of importance to Ontario.

Concerning the speech from the throne, I feel as if I have been a witness to déjà vu. We have had 42 years of a gulf between words and actions, especially concerning eastern Ontario and Prescott-Russell in particular.

The economy, particularly in eastern Ontario, has fallen victim to a laissez-faire attitude. There have been no real policies for effective regional and economic development. We have been unable to comprehend the different regional needs when they are far removed from Toronto. Believe me, we know; the statistics are there to show it. There have been no fair policies to share investment, to reinvest locally the taxes collected from the hardworking workers of Prescott-Russell. I am sure my colleagues from northern Ontario have suffered the same fate.

4:50 p.m.

Let us take a look at agriculture. Prescott-Russell was once the Ontario capital for cheddar cheese. We have gone from more than 100 cheese factories to a point where we now have only one left. Thanks to the government's policies, Plan Laitier Co-op St. Albert threatens not to be there in the near future. I know what I am talking about. I did my university thesis on the late Lefaivre cheese factory. I have had a chance to study this very well.

The agricultural sector is in a state of grave urgency thanks to the government policies of the past 42 years or, more precisely, the lack of government policies.

I do not need to discuss much the levels of bankruptcies, especially in Prescott-Russell. There are no long-term loan policies. There are nice words but I am talking about action now.

The agricultural sector is going through nothing less than a revolution. What did the government do in the past? Of all provincial budgets, it has invested one of the lowest percentages in agriculture; it is around one per cent. It is some $335 million when $603 million has been collected from tobacco taxes. It has allowed the agricultural sector to lose its traditional importance in cabinet. One can tell that by where the name of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stevenson) is on the list of ministers.

In eastern Ontario, and in Prescott-Russell in particular, we have the lowest rate of drainable agricultural land that has been drained. What did this government do to allow us to catch up? It allowed the percentage rate of applicable loans to be reduced. Our hog producers, broiler chicken producers, beef producers and others are now facing bankruptcy.

In regard to the environment, I am very proud to have obtained a degree in environmental studies from the University of Waterloo in 1972. I worked with the Department of the Environment as a federal and provincial project coordinator with the inland waters and lands directorates. I have been observing the Progressive Conservative government's performance over the years. There is only one word that comes to mind, dismal, in relation to environmental issues. It has allowed continued pollution well above respectable standards. It has failed to take action against Inco and Ontario Hydro. It has a deplorable record when it comes to the control of waste dump sites, polychlorinated biphenyls and water quality. These are non-negotiable items. We are talking about natural resources.

I look at the Ontario car licence plate. It says, "Keep it beautiful." Thanks to the Progressive Conservative government's legacy, we perhaps plan to change that to say, "Let us clean it up."

Talking about roads, I come from Alfred, on Highway 17, which because of the past 42 years has been permitted to have the nickname "killer strip." I have stopped counting, but I have known more than 15 people, friends, relatives, neighbours and acquaintances, who have been killed because the PC government has refused to take action to give eastern Ontario some decent roads so that people can live. All the time it has delayed, more and more people have been killed on the killer strip, Canada's most dangerous highway, thanks to the lack of policies for decent roads.

It has allowed dangerous situations to exist. I look at the Queensway. It took seven years to repair the Queensway. What is happening? Is the government trying to get into the Guinness Book of World Records for the longest time required to repair roads? Being from eastern Ontario, I know this situation would never have been allowed elsewhere. The state of the roads is degraded and has been no boon to our tourism industry.

To turn to social and community services, I have to say that, judging by the people who have come to see me in my office, there are some very serious cases and no real care and respect by this government for the needs of the ordinary citizens of Ontario.

Health: can any government weigh dollars against the beds necessary so that people who need life-saving surgery can go in and have access to it? I believe that yes, we have to cut the deficit and have sound government, but not at the expense of lives. Let us go see the people who have lost dear ones because they could not get access to a decent bed. Northern Ontario friends are going through a similar experience.

When I look at this government's policies for giving services in both official languages in Ontario, I think it is a shame. When people come in and speak in French when there is an emergency, it is not the time to plead that there is no way to offer bilingual services in health institutions.

Tourism: I helped to create the Prescott and Russell Tourism Association, and at that time we were telling the government it should place an emphasis on attracting tourists from Quebec and New York. Was I not surprised when I saw in its speech from the throne that it was planning to attract tourists from Quebec and New York? Why? This is one of the reasons I said it was déjà vu. It has neglected eastern Ontario and Prescott-Russell in particular. I look at the tax on hotel accommodations and on low-cost meals; I look at a time when we have a profitable advantage in our dollar for people from the United States, and there are no global policies to go and get that market.

Housing: How many dossiers have I seen on people in deplorable housing conditions in Prescott and Russell? There is no reason that, in 1985, Ontarians should have to have the kind of housing I have seen so far.

Education: This government has allowed the quality of education to go down the drain in Ontario. It is threatening valuable programs, such as adult education, with its cuts. Thousands and thousands of people in Prescott and Russell were taking adult education programs, and the government has cut the funds for them. Congratulations.

Young people are not qualified for today's needs, thanks to this government's legacy. I co-presided some of the school and work task force's public hearings across Ontario last term, and I know for a fact from the testimony given, that young people cannot cope with the needs of young people today. Last year more than 30,000 specialized jobs went without takers in Ontario, which spends all that money on education. I find that an incredible shame and an incredible waste.

I have personally hired many young people during the past 15 years, and I know that even when I tried to hire the best, they had some very definite weaknesses in their education. A lot of people in the education dossier have also said the reputation of Ontario graduates has diminished over the years because of government cutbacks. Young people are our next generation's leaders. We cannot waste that generation. We need to have them follow in our footsteps.

En ce qui a trait aux francophones, le record du gouvernement conservateur en matière d'éducation, là c'est un des plus vibrants exemples du gouffre entre la parole et le geste. Pourquoi a-t-il permis que nous soyons obligés de passer à travers les inoubliables, regrettables et nombreuses luttes scolaires pour obtenir ce dont on a besoin? C'est une preuve de leur manque de leadership dans ce dossier.

Ils ne sont pas des leaders, ils sont des suiveurs. Ils ont toujours donné deux messages différents: un message aux anglophones, un message aux francophones. Trop de peur de présenter le même discours, le même message aux deux groupes linguistiques. On regarde les statistiques et l'assimilation galopante en dépit des belles paroles. Ce ne sont pas ce que les francophones veulent, ce dont nous avons besoin.

Je n'ai pas peur de faire la comparaison avec nos collègues anglo-québécois. En 1980, quand eux ont fait la comparaison de la situation des Anglo-Québécois et des Franco-Ontariens, ce sont eux qui ont décidé de venir nous donner un appui parce qu'ils se sont rendus compte que les Franco-Ontariens avaient beaucoup moins que les Anglo-Québécois, en dépit du mythe qu'on entend des fois dans la communauté.

5 p.m.

I hope that one day soon we will have electronic Hansard so that when my colleagues and I give our speeches, and even when francophile anglophones give their speeches in one of Canada's official languages, the other group can understand and appreciate fully what is being said. I hope and I know this coming government will offer much better translation services so that we can serve our constituents a lot better.

Ontario needs a real policy of respect and equality between anglophones and francophones, one message for all Ontarians no matter who they are, where they are or what they represent. We also need equality between men and women, and I hope that in the near future, with 125 members in here, the women of Ontario will have much better representation in the House, which they deserve.

In 1969 the federal government presented the Official Languages Act. We are talking now 16 years later. How many more years would we have had to wait with that government across the aisle? Franco-Ontarian rights must, with the shortest possible delay, be enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This essential step will thus give these rights an official status, and only then will we have a firm guarantee for the future. These rights and freedoms are not disposable principles; they must be written down and secured.

En résumé, je répète, ces droits doivent être encadrés dans la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, car une telle mesure non seulement leur conférerait un statut officiel mais leur accorderait une garantie pour l'avenir.

Je représente fièrement Prescott-Russell et c'est pour ça que je me suis présenté en politique. À ce moment-ci, je dis en ce qui a trait au discours du trône que je suis totalement d'accord avec mon chef et mon parti de faire un vote de non-confiance parce qu'il y a trop eu un grand gouffre entre la parole et le geste durant les 42 dernières années.

Mr. Lupusella: I am really pleased to rise and participate in this historic debate in relation to feelings that members of this Legislature have about the speech from the throne. For me it is a great opportunity at least to review more or less the political activities of a government that is in the process of falling.

I would like to compare the performance of the Conservative political regime in its 42 years in Ontario with that of the Roman Empire. If we can take a few minutes to go through the course of history, when the Romans were in the splendour of their economic and social development, when they were so sure of winning wars across Europe and in different nations and they were able to accumulate goods as a result of winning wars, they became inactive and their empire was shaking a little bit.

If members know the history, the Romans were able to regain their empire. It is appropriate at this time to say to the Conservative members that tomorrow, when they fall as a result of this vote of no confidence, which will be supported by the Liberals and the New Democratic Party, I hope they will never again in the history of Ontario be able to regain political power.

There are concrete and open reasons why the voters in Ontario have lost faith in a Conservative government that has been in power so long it has lost the reality of the people's needs and problems. They were unable to respond to the particular economic and social changes across Ontario. At least on May 2 they were able to study the political results and they came to the same conclusion as well.

In that respect, the speech from the throne has been more or less a hypocritical approach used by the Conservatives to tell the voters of this province that they are extremely concerned about their problems and that they are able and willing to make political changes in relation to immediate problems affecting the people across Ontario.

Based on the past performance of the Tory government, we know the speech from the throne was a white paper that was based on the principles of tokenism and political inaction. The wise position taken by the New Democratic Party, which has been joined by the Liberals, to oppose this type of political inactivity coming from the Conservatives is appropriate and will be appropriate tomorrow when the Tories will be defeated completely.

I followed with great interest the ministerial statement delivered today by the Minister of Labour in relation to workers' compensation reform, which is more or less the implementation of Bill 101. We had an opportunity today on this side of the House, through questions raised by my leader, to understand the terrible delay that has taken place in relation to the implementation of the principle of the extension of funds to the separate schools. The same delay has taken place in the implementation of Bill 101, which is workers' compensation reform.

I do not understand why the Tory approach has always been the same; namely, to delay the implementation of a particular policy affecting people across Ontario. If I can relate the same analogy, of the extension of funds to the separate schools, to the issue of workers' compensation reform, the procedure has been the same.

In 1981 the Tory government was able to listen at least to the concerns of injured workers across Ontario. They came out with a specific position that reform was appropriate. The act per se was supposed to be reformed because it had not taken into consideration the immediate needs of injured workers across Ontario.

They initiated a long study. They appointed Professor Weiler to take a look at the wide-ranging ramifications of the problem for the Workers' Compensation Board. Then the government formed its own study, the white paper on workers' compensation. Then a committee of the Legislature was formed to review the ramifications of Professor Weiler's report and the white paper.

There followed a one-year study, recommendations and dissenting minority reports drafted by the Liberals and the New Democratic Party. Again, the Tory government was unable to respond to the problems that had been incorporated into the dissenting reports of the Liberals and the New Democratic Party. They came out with a law that has been described by injured workers across the province as inadequate -- Bill 101.

5:10 p.m.

After the last provincial election I thought for a moment, based on the assurance we got from the previous Minister of Labour, that implementation of Bill 101 would take place immediately, around April, and the core of Bill 101, which was implementation of the appeals tribunal system, the independent corporate board and the independent medical review board that was supposed to be appointed, would take place some time around July 1985. Today, however, I heard from the Minister of Labour that the second phase of implementation of Bill 101 would take place some time around October 1985.

When we passed Bill 101, I was under the impression that implementation of this administrative procedure, which would be implementation of an independent appeal tribunal, an independent corporate board and an independent medical review panel, would be the cornerstone of the bill. Without the implementation of these three items, I do not think we can talk about WCB reform.

The present Minister of Labour, if I may send him a message, is confusing two separate issues: implementation of Bill 101, which is the workers' compensation reform per se and which incorporates those three specific and important items, and implementation of the second phase of the reform of the Workers' Compensation Board, which is the process of restructuring injured workers' pensions in relation to the principle of the clinical rating system and other items that have been emphasized in this ministerial statement. The second phase is completely different and should be viewed in a completely different way from implementation of Bill 101 per se.

In that respect, the minister is confusing the work that has been done very effectively by the Liberals and the New Democratic Party as well as the government's position in relation to the whole principle of restructuring the board. He should go back and read the position taken by previous ministers and the ministerial statements delivered before the last provincial election was called.

I do not understand why the government is so persistent in using an approach that does not work on behalf of the people. They are so persistent that they were unable to get the message of May 2, 1985.

The government has accused the NDP of posturing in the political process of this province by forming a different type of political alliance with another party. I do not understand why the NDP was not supposed to choose another party or why the NDP was supposed to continue an old line of support with the Conservative Party. I do not understand these criteria.

Minority governments in Europe are working very effectively. I cite the example of Italy, which has been governed by minority governments for the past 25 years. No party has lost its political identity over there, and they have been able to pursue a government agenda in a very effective way using written documents similar to the one signed by the NDP and the Liberals.

Today we have ample opportunity to accuse the Tories for their political inaction of the past, but the Liberals will have an opportunity to run the store of this province, at least for two years, unless they sit down and renegotiate another political agenda that should be signed by the two parties again. That is what minority governments are. It is premature to advance political hypotheses of what might happen in two years' time.

The speech from the throne was silent on an item affecting thousands of citizens across the province. My mind goes to a principle of reform which was supposed to be enunciated in the speech from the throne, that is, property tax reform. During the last provincial election, I had an opportunity to go around my riding talking to people who were complaining about this problem affecting their livelihood. I talked to senior citizens who are paying too much money on taxes. The government is unable to respond except with the principle of the property tax grant. The amount of $500 per year is inadequate. We should tackle this problem from a different tangent so this problem will be settled once and for all.

Property tax is an important item because it is connected with the funding of education. A lot of people, especially in Metropolitan Toronto, have been penalized as a result of this process. The principle of reform is overdue. I hope the Liberal government will take these notes into consideration because they will be part of my political attack in the months to come.

In the last few months we have heard about the unfairness and inequality of education in the province, underfunding, the extension of funds, and about a lot of people being pro and con on the implementation issue. The theme of that approach should rely on the principle of property tax reform. I would like to give a specific example. Half of the money people are paying in property tax goes to fund educational costs. Members are very well aware that people who are working are supposed to pay taxes at the end of the year through income tax. A portion of that money is allocated by Ontario to fund education costs.

We are faced with the worst scenario: if the parents choose a Catholic school for their children, they are supposed to pay an extra fee, which has been set in the area of $800 a year. How much in taxes are they supposed to pay? Many people have been paying taxes in a very unfair and unjust way.

Another issue to be tackled is that where, if people have modernized their homes, their assessments have been going up as well. For many years, the Tory government has been committing an injustice to people in the province. On this side of the House, we view housing as a basic right. It is not a luxury. The government of the day, since the Tories formed the government 42 years ago, have been stealing money from people who should have this basic right, to live in a decent house.

5:20 p.m.

When people modernized their houses, added a new veranda or expanded because their families grew, their assessments went up. I am accusing the Tories today, but I hope the Liberals are getting the message because it will be part of my future political platform to make sure some sense of fairness on that item will take place in the near future.

I know the Tories have been stubborn on that issue. I spoke many times in this Legislature and brought to the attention of the Minister of Revenue of the time that something should be done in relation to the problem, but no positive response came from the opposite side of the House.

I hope property tax reform will be on the minds of members of the new Liberal government. This problem is deeply felt by people and the voters across Ontario. We need a new restructuring process across the province.

Another thing I would mention is that in 1981, when the Tories gained a majority government in Ontario, the then Minister of Revenue sent out assessors, especially in Metropolitan Toronto, to review the assessment value of people's property. In different ridings such as mine, the assessment went up by 20 and 30 per cent in most instances and also reached 50 per cent.

We had an assurance from the Conservative government that market value assessment was not supposed to be implemented in Metropolitan Toronto. I really do not understand why the Minister of Revenue in 1981 and subsequent years sent out assessors in Metropolitan Toronto to implement the policy of increasing the assessment value, basing it on market value assessment, a policy which has been rejected by the Conservative ministers in the past.

The new government should put an end to the particular injustice committed by the Tories and review the assessment of the people, instead of saying: "That is your assessment. If you are not happy about it, you have an opportunity to appeal."

This pattern has been a common Tory political line. Even the Workers' Compensation Board is telling workers: "You have a 10 per cent disability award," which is very minimal. "If you are not happy, you can go through the appeal procedure and appeal the percentage of your disability."

The same approach has been used for people who have been overtaxed on their properties and the same political message has been sent to those people: "If you are not happy about it, we have an appeal tribunal. Go there and appeal." Most of the time there is no way one is able to win an appeal like that.

The Conservative government betrayed its own general statement in 1981, which was a government policy that the market value assessment would not be implemented in Metropolitan Toronto. But they did it through the back door, not from the front door, and people are paying the price for that. I think the other components I emphasized just a few minutes ago should be taken into consideration. The Liberals should put an end to this practice which has been in effect in Ontario for 42 years.

I am delighted about tomorrow, not to have to listen to criticism coming from the opposite side of the House that our deal with the Liberals was unfair. Why was it unfair? Why are we supposed to support the Conservatives of this province when they are unable to commit themselves to practical and concrete reforms on behalf of our people? Let us give the credit to another party, in our particular case, the Liberal Party. If they are unable to deliver, then we will see what is going to happen.

The benefit of doubt has been misused by officials of the Workers' Compensation Board in analysing claims on behalf of people. In political terms the benefit of the doubt should be given to the Liberal Party, to find out what kind of political performance and political leverage they are going to have, to take into consideration the needs of the people across Ontario.

With these remarks I will end my short speech. I hope I will have future opportunities to stand up and judge the political attitude coming from the Liberals. I am very happy to participate in this historic defeat of the Tories in Ontario. Tomorrow will be a great day for voters across the province because they can sense reforms for many years to come. I hope the Liberals will not forget May 2 when the message came from the voters across Ontario that they really need changes. I hope these changes will take place as soon as possible.

Mr. Davis: I am pleased to be given the opportunity to join my colleagues in debating the speech from the throne.

As the recently elected member for Scarborough Centre, I would be remiss if I failed to express my appreciation for the work undertaken by my predecessor and friend Frank Drea. Through 14 years of service, his concern for and commitment to the constituents of Scarborough Centre was never-ending. I know his efforts will make the task before me that much easier. In addition, I am sure his unique and positive contributions to political life in Ontario will be missed by all members.

I would also like to express my appreciation to the people of Scarborough Centre for placing their confidence in me and in the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. I am honoured to be given the chance to act as their representative at Queen's Park.

Scarborough Centre, in my opinion, is one of the best ridings in the province. People with diverse interests, backgrounds and cultures live within its boundaries. I believe they clearly reflect the concerns and hopes of the people of Ontario. I would like the people of Scarborough Centre to know I will do my best as their representative to listen to their concerns and assist them in finding and developing solutions.

I would like to bring to the attention of all members an important event that will be occurring in my riding in the very near future. It is the Up with People show being presented by the Scarborough International Youth Year task force. It is being held at the Scarborough Civic Centre on Sunday, June 23, at two o'clock and will feature an international touring group of young entertainers. I am sure it will be a most enjoyable and enlightening afternoon. I would like to extend my personal invitation to all members to come out and join us in this celebration of youth.

There is a lot of concern in my riding for the future of our young people. In particular, there is a concern regarding their employment prospects. Consequently, I was pleased by the announcement made in the throne speech. In my mind, one of the problems that has prevented many young people from taking advantage of the opportunities available has been the lack of a co-ordinated program delivery system. In turn, this has created confusion and a lack of awareness.

By restating its commitment to a Ministry of Skills Development, the government has taken a major step in resolving this outstanding problem. This new ministry will be able to co-ordinate and promote all programs for youth to ensure that our young people are getting the best assistance possible. In addition to this initiative, the announcement of another $100 million for employment and training programs, many of which are directed towards youth, will greatly improve employment prospects.

5:30 p.m.

This government has demonstrated that it places a high priority on assisting the young people of Ontario. I am proud of the accomplishments made to date and I am confident the government's continuing commitment will enable us to meet the challenges still to come.

Another concern within my riding which reflects its diverse nature is the care and the assistance for our senior citizens. As the size of our senior citizen population grows, it only follows that government assistance must also expand. The throne speech clearly indicates that this government has every intention of fulfilling its duties in that regard. The appointment of a minister for the elderly will, as in the case of youth services, permit the government to administer programs for our senior citizens in a co-ordinated manner. This will contribute significantly to the development and implementation of a comprehensive and integrated plan for a wide variety of community based services.

It is my opinion that our senior citizens can make an important and valuable contribution to our community. As such, I am very supportive of the programs outlined in the throne speech which will permit seniors to remain within the community and assist them to participate fully in community activities.

I know my constituents will also welcome the initiatives that this government will undertake to assist tenants and would-be home owners. There is a large number of tenants in Scarborough Centre. The commitment to hold rent increases to four per cent, as well as the creation of $400-million rental supply fund, will provide these residents with adequate, affordable accommodation. I am very pleased to see the reintroduction of a first-time home owner's assistance program. In conjunction with many young families in my riding, I will be looking forward to the release of the details regarding this initiative.

I believe the residents of Scarborough Centre signalled on May 2 that they still have confidence in the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. It is clear they realize that this province has been well served by a Progressive Conservative government. It has provided the people of Ontario with the lowest unemployment rates in Canada, the fastest-growing job market in Canada, the lowest per capita debt in Canada, the fastest-growing and strongest economy in Canada and a triple-A credit rating.

I am almost convinced that a prerequisite for membership in the Liberal Party is the inability to add and subtract. This is further demonstrated by its recent enunciations against the present government of Ontario. By its calculation two thirds of the people in Ontario did not vote for the Progressive Conservatives on May 2, implying that two thirds voted for the Liberals. However, by my calculations an equal two thirds of Ontario's electorate indicated on May 2 they would have no confidence whatsoever in a Liberal government and signalled their continuing support of the government by electing more members from the Progressive Conservative Party than from any other.

However, we continue to hear the hue and cry from the opposition, as well as the press, that the people of Ontario voted for change on May 2. In my view, this is nothing but political rhetoric. If we were to expand on their rather peculiar brand of logic, one can only conclude that when the Ontario electorate returned the Conservatives to majority government in 1981, they had in reality voted against the Conservatives, they had voted for change.

I know this is difficult to follow for many members except those who are card-carrying Liberals and their counterparts on the other side, but there is a method in their madness. The reason the Liberals would believe the people of Ontario voted for change is that almost 56 per cent of the electorate voted for another party. Therefore, according to the Liberal way of thinking, the people of Ontario did not intend us to have a majority at all. In fact, they did not even intend for us to form the government.

I believe it is time that someone should enlighten the opposition about how our system of government operates. Contrary to the beliefs of those who have attended the Peterson school of logic and higher mathematics, it has always been my understanding that it is irrelevant what percentage of popular vote a party can capture. What counts is the total number of seats won by each party.

The reality is that the Ontario electorate returned the Progressive Conservatives with the largest number of seats and placed its confidence in us to lead a minority government. In fact, that is the principle the opposition parties agreed to in the minority governments of 1975 and 1977. There was no hue and cry then that the voters had voted for change. Indeed, the members of the opposition parties agreed to the basic principles of our parliamentary system that they have now abandoned.

It appears the New Democratic Party also believes in mathematical wizardry.

The member for York South (Mr. Rae) can stay. I have not finished.

Mr. Rae: I am not leaving.

Mr. Davis: That is evident by their stated intention and determination to inflict their will, their philosophy and their ideas upon the people of Ontario. I am talking about a party that won 20 per cent of the seats in this Legislature and yet somehow has translated this into a mandate to govern. However enthusiastic the members of the third party may be and no matter how hard they try to rationalize their motives, I believe the Ontario electorate has made it clear it is not interested in, nor does it want the New Democratic Party as the next government of Ontario. Nevertheless, the third party has chosen to ignore this fact and has set itself up to govern with some assistance from its Liberal comrades.

The members of the official opposition may protest and claim it is they who will form the next government of Ontario, but in truth, should events transpire to give the opportunity, they will be a government in name only. It is already down on paper for all to see who will really be calling the shots.

The historical alliance between the third party and the official opposition is unique. Each of the parties has entered this deal to further its own political fortunes with little regard for the concerns and desires of the people of Ontario. As it has become increasingly apparent to all of us, the Liberals are desperate to seize power. It is not only the Liberal Party of Ontario that is so desperate. It may be an unpleasant thought for members of the opposition, but the truth is there is not one Liberal government left in any province at this moment. Consequently, they have in my opinion sold out their principles to the third party for the one chance to form a government.

In my opinion, the motive that has compelled the New Democrats to enter this agreement is basically the same as the Liberals, namely, self-preservation. Their insistence that the deal include fundamental changes to the nature of this Legislature, so that the government can no longer be held accountable to the people of Ontario, demonstrates who they are prepared to put first, and it is not the people of this province. Which party will derive the greatest benefit or the greatest loss from this unique deal remains to be seen, but it is apparent the real losers could well be the people of Ontario in this Charlie McCarthy-Edgar Bergen alliance.

5:40 p.m.

I have mentioned that the people of Ontario voted on May 2 for a minority government led by the Progressive Conservative Party, and we have responded in good faith. The proposals and initiatives announced in the throne speech clearly reflect the concerns and interests of Ontario residents from all sides of the political spectrum. It is a document that deserves serious consideration. One can say only that if the Liberal leopard can change its spots on extra billing, so can the Conservative lion make necessary changes to respond to the needs of Ontarians.

I point out it is no disgrace to acknowledge when we are wrong and to make the necessary changes in response to a changing social climate.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The member sounds like Bill Davis.

Mr. Davis: If I am here as long as he was, I will be happy. What is unfortunate for the people of Ontario is that the minds of the opposition members were closed even before the speech was presented.

It is a foregone conclusion in the ranks of the opposition that the Liberal Party will defeat this government at the conclusion of these debates. I cannot argue with its right to do so. However, I believe the people of Ontario will be rendered a grave disservice should the Liberals and the New Democratic Party be given a chance to implement the terms of their alliance, which I would entitle The NDP Geppetto and Liberal Pinocchio show.

If the Liberals are so confident they have been given a clear mandate to govern by the Ontario electorate then they should be prepared to let their government stand or fall on the strength of proposals and initiatives they will introduce to this House. Anything less will demonstrate to me a clear lack of leadership, conviction and political will and, most important, a total disregard for the rights of the people of Ontario.

I support the initiatives of the throne speech for its response to the concerns of the people of the province. As well, I do not mind stealing from the opposition people, just as they steal from us. However, the implementation of such policies are imperative for the wellbeing of the people of this province. I hope that before the final vote on the throne speech, all members of this Legislature will seriously consider and evaluate their responsibilities to the residents of Ontario.

It is incumbent upon the members to ensure that these directions and initiatives are implemented and carried out during the life of this parliament.

Mr. Cordiano: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to address the House and my fellow honourable members. The electors and citizens of the constituency of Downsview, which I am most pleased to serve and represent, also will delight in this opportunity to give public expression through me of their views on the thoughts, projects and direction of this government's throne speech. Their initial reaction is one of relief, not because the throne speech represents to them a departure from an anticipated oppressive program, but rather because the citizens of Downsview, and I dare say of the province as a whole, no longer have to look forward with frustration and wallow in anger at the puny programs of this government.

For far too long this government has neglected the principles that draw people together. Its indifference towards the needs of its people and the ties that bind has endured too long at the expense of justice and equity. On those rare occasions when convenience compelled it to view circumstances with equity and to act with a regard to justice, it failed to temper the latter with mercy. Its haughtiness and condescension, the characteristics of ossification, both literally and figuratively, bred an indifference that bordered on scorn for those people whose individual abilities did not immediately measure up to certain standards, standards which for them are artificial and unattainable because of their built-in bias against colour, sex, cultural origin or disability and disadvantage.

We have seen a government that has erected barriers rather than build bridges. My constituents in Downsview have witnessed a dynasty of expediency when they would have preferred a reign of vision. Where the electorate has matured in its scope and perceptions, its government has acted with obdurate reaction. Where society has cried for a leadership that would act with compassion, with a respect for individual dignity, with a regard for the potential of the individual and his progressive social unit, the government has responded with pragmatic inactivity.

For those reasons, Downsview and so many other constituencies greeted the outcome of May 2 with relief and, I am too cautious to say, with jubilation. A jolt of reality by the democratic forces too long dormant with patience has finally struck down the insensitive attitude of a Conservative directorate.

A tyranny of lethargy has come to an end. The government itself has been illuminated by this hard fact of political life. It has begun to parrot the language of progressivism. Unfortunately, it rings hollow. The lexicon of change and reform in the speech from the throne is a thin veneer for the tough scowl that is the record of this government. Its creed will not veil its deeds. The clenched fist of the past will not be hidden by the deceptive smile of today's speech from the throne.

It is little wonder that the ears of the disabled, the disadvantaged, women, the minorities and the unemployed have turned deaf to the promises of this speech from the throne. They recognize it for what it is: a wolf's confession.

How can injured workers believe the government's intent of review and reform of the Workers' Compensation Board? These proud men and women who so willingly applied themselves to their labour, who gave of their youthful energy and strength as a contribution to this province's wealth and growth, find themselves as undignified beggars before an insensitive bureaucracy.

How many more reviews would this government have commissioned before it would admit that two sources of friction emanate from the facts that: (1) the board was initially set up to protect the position of employers, not employees and (2) the board is administered by an established middle class that has to deal with an underprivileged minority working class?

How can anyone expect harmony and responsiveness from a bureaucracy based on an adversarial rather than co-operative approach? Men and women who have plied their trade have endured their labour with the dignity that comes from the realization that one makes a contribution, be it ever so humble, cannot be expected to suffer the indifference and the platitudes of government when their world crashes about them as a result of a disabling injury. Their mind, their will and their expertise are still intact, their needs extant, but they can no longer fend for themselves, yet they can play a valuable role in society. They cannot be discarded.

This government cannot be insensitive to their willingness and desire to continue to be full contributors to the social dynamic. This government either rejects the worth and dignity of the individual or it does not accept that value to society can be realized through the potential impact that resides with the seemingly less fortunate.

5:50 p.m.

I used the word cautiously in society. Instead of providing leadership and drawing this vast reservoir of talent into the mainstream, this government offers sops to keep it at bay. It seems reluctant to recognize ability which a free, democratic and competitive society fosters. That ability is everywhere evident. We need not shudder with fear or discomfort because it might manifest itself in a handicapped individual or as a member of the opposite sex, through members of ethnocultural groups other than English or through those who are of a different colour or religion.

This government has lacked the courage and political will to acknowledge the truth whereof I speak. For this reason we see halting steps, halfway, half-hearted measures, towards rectifying the absurdity of hiding talents under bushels in this throne speech. How else can one characterize the government's reluctance to make universal the concept of equal pay for work of equal value?

For how much longer can the citizens of this fair province suffer the protection of the powerful at the expense of the weak? For how much longer must they brook the insanity of platitudes when reality cries out for justice? For how much longer will they be forced to live the lie as bias and discrimination slither their destructive attitudes through a society anxious to step into tomorrow with a sense of vision and purpose? Not long, I trust.

I share my constituents' sense of relief at hearing this throne speech, for it represents the death of an era. If the old Tory dynasty has attempted a metamorphosis, it has at least acknowledged its regrettable sins of omission. Now that the democratic world stands over the moribund corpse of a decaying system, we can look forward with a vigour the old tyrant so long repressed.

Mr. Ferraro: It is with a tremendous amount of pride that I stand here today as the 17th representative in this Legislature of the great riding of Wellington South. Wellington South comprises Guelph, the Royal City, and the townships of Guelph and Puslinch.

It would be wrong of me if I did not mention in my maiden speech the man I replace. I speak of Mr. Harry Worton. On June 9 Harry would have celebrated 30 consecutive years as a member of this Legislature. During that period he acquired the admiration and respect not only of his constituents but also of members on both sides of this House.

James Oliver once said that the world is blessed most by men who do things and not by those who merely talk about them. For the past 30 years Wellington South has indeed been blessed by Harry Worton. Unlike me, Harry Worton was not a man who talked a lot. Instead, he let his actions and his honest concern for the people he represented speak for him. I am proud and honoured to follow such a man and to call him my friend.

I am fortunate, not only to be one of 125 individuals elected to this great assembly but also to serve a riding such as Wellington South. It is a mix of city and rural, industry and agriculture, people and cultures as diverse as one can imagine. It is typically Ontarian and Canadian. While such diversity may appear complicated and breed many different points of view, the reality of this cosmopolitan community is quite clear and simple.

The people of Wellington South, not unlike the people of the ridings of all my colleagues, want and deserve fairness, justice and action, not only from me as their representative but also from the Legislature as a whole. My mandate is to try my hardest to address the needs of my riding. In that regard I will be looking for solutions to the hospital and health care problem in Wellington South, to unemployment and social service and educational concerns, to name a few. The needs of young and old, men and women who pay my salary, are now my only job description.

My background has been that of mortgage manager and appraiser for a large trust company. In many respects my job has not changed. As a lender, I used to say I made people happy by putting them in debt. But I also helped people to fulfil their dreams by assisting them in buying homes. by helping them in their businesses and with investment opportunities. In doing so, for the most part, I helped people to get what they worked for and expected: a better life. As a politician, similarly, I am serving the people in much the same way. I will be dealing with their lives, albeit to a greater degree, as I deal with their housing needs and their business and social environment, and I hope the people will get the same result: a better life.

I do not intend to use this opportunity to criticize or condemn any government or any party or any particular piece of legislation; God willing, there will be time enough for that. Having been an alderman for four and a half years, I have learned that politics demands patience, it demands understanding and respect and it demands courage and faith. I believe in these virtues and I will endeavour to foster these beliefs in the days ahead.

Let me conclude by saying that today I feel a little like Christopher Columbus. In fact, may I be so bold as to say that all politicians here today have a common identity, to some degree, with Christopher Columbus. When Columbus started out, he did not know where he was going. When he got back, he did not know where he had been. And he did it all on other people's money.

I look forward to the future with confidence and optimism. I look forward to working with my colleagues not only in the Liberal Party but on all sides of this House. I look forward to serving the people of Wellington South and I will do so to the best of my ability. When I am no longer a member of this Legislature, for whatever reason, my hope is that the people I have served and my family and friends will be proud of my service and that Wellington South and Ontario will be a better place in which to live and grow.

Mr. Grandmaître: I will not take more than four minutes, but I would have loved to take more.

Mon élection à Queen's Park, à ma deuxième tentative, est pour moi un sommet et j'ai accepté ce défi avec confiance et détermination. Ma tâche ne sera pas facile. Je remplace M. Albert Roy, qui pendant 12 années a respecté et déployé tous ses efforts pour servir Ottawa Est.

J'ai choisi le Parti libéral pour la simple raison que je crois fermement que nous sommes la vraie alternative. Ottawa Est est composée de la deuxième plus grande majorité francophone de toute cette province et notre désir demeure toujours le même: l'égalité, qualité avec nos confrères anglophones. Je n'ai pas l'intention de bousculer qui que ce soit ou de me faire bousculer par qui que ce soit.

Mes 13 années d'expérience dans l'arène municipale vont trés bien me servir. Je dois avouer que le forum provincial est très différent mais très intéressant. La journée historique du 18 juin, de demain, approche et j'aurai besoin plus que jamais de la bonne compréhension et de l'appui de tous les gens d'Ottawa Est.

J'ai confiance qu'un gouvernement libéral, avec sa nouvelle approche de gouvernement ouvert, répondra aux besoins de tous les citoyens de cette province.

I may represent the second largest francophone constituency in Ontario, but I can assure all the members of this House that I have no axe to grind and that I do not have a francophone chip on my shoulder. I want equality for all our people. I have gained the reputation of being a fighter for francophone rights and I intend to live up to that reputation. I intend to serve my party and my province with the same enthusiasm I displayed at the municipal level. I firmly believe Ontario is a province with great potential and opportunity, and I intend to make it even greater. We can do that if we all put aside our partisan ideals and serve one master, Ontario's people, regardless of creed, colour or religion.

The Deputy Speaker: I draw the member's attention to the clock. He might like to move adjournment of the debate and be the first speaker tomorrow.

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

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

June 17, 1985

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS REDISTRIBUTION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WORKERS' COMPENSATION LEGISLATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HEPATITIS VACCINE

CROP DEVELOPMENT

RED MEAT PLAN

GRAIN FINANCIAL PROTECTION PROGRAM

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY STUDY

HELP CENTRES

ORAL QUESTIONS

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS

ONTARIO MOTOR VEHICLE ARBITRATION PLAN

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

TRITIUM PRODUCTION

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

HOSPITAL BEDS

COMMERCIAL FISHING

SKILLS TRAINING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY (CONTINUED)

DISASTER RELIEF

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FOREST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)