Hansard Transcript 1986-Feb-12 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) has a statement, but he will not be here for a few moments. With your permission, sir, and with the permission of the House, we would like to stand it down for a few minutes until the minister arrives. I know he is coming and he has indicated to me that he wants to make a statement.

Mr. Speaker: Is the House agreeable?

Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, we are all trying to be very co-operative on what may be the last day of the session, but this is not the first time this has happened in this session. I know how embarrassed the government House leader has been and is today. Those are not rosy cheeks; they are embarrassed cheeks.

One of our first questions would have been to the minister in question. I suggest that we simply recess for five minutes until the minister gets here and we can --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Let us recess until tomorrow.

Mr. Timbrell: Okay; fine.

MEMBER'S NEWSLETTER

Mr. McCague: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: What I understand is your publication, Allowances and Services: A Guide for Members of the Ontario Legislature, states on page 28 regarding mailings:

"It is implicit that the content of these mailings be nonpartisan in nature and restricted to outlining legislative developments in the House and committees and the role played by the member in this legislative process."

I have a copy of a newsletter put out by the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan) which I feel is a blatant abuse of that clause in the rules by which we are supposed to abide. I ask you, Mr. Speaker -- and I will pass this to you -- to take a look at this and advise the House now that I have raised this point.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for drawing this to my attention. I understand those are guidelines. I do not know whether I really have the authority to rule on that. However, I do appreciate your sending it to me, and I will certainly review the matter.

If there are no ministerial statements --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I asked for your indulgence and the indulgence of the House. The Minister of Natural Resources has indicated he has a statement that he is anxious to put before the House on the off-chance that this may be the last day. I am advised by one of the other members he will be here in a few moments.

If you would not mind starting the question period, we would be delighted to respond. If the leaders would like to stand down opening questions, that is fine. Perhaps some of their back-benchers have matters they want to lay before the ministry in the House. That is not unreasonable, surely.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to proceed with some other questions. It might be appropriate if, for the next session, you would bring it to the attention of the government that this is far from the first time it has happened. In fairness to everyone, a better effort should be made next time.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: There are probably lots of people who would say the conduct of the business has been something less than perfect. There have been occasions when some members of the ministry have not been able to be here immediately following prayers, but they have been here within five minutes to answer questions. There have been many occasions when the seats in the official opposition, even in the third party, if I may be so bold --

Some hon. members: Oh, no.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Oh, yes. We have had a good, long and productive session, and with any luck it will continue for another couple of weeks.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for York South, no comment?

Mr. Rae: Yes, if you want --

Mr. Speaker: You had risen on that same

point of order.

Mr. Rae: Just to say we are ready to go.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: My question is to the Premier in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston). Yesterday in his windup speech on Bill 94, while trying to demonstrate his commitment to accessibility in the health care system, the minister asked the following question: "Are we going to prescribe for the people of this province the necessity of carrying their bank book, their bank balance, with them every time they go to see a physician or any other health care professional?"

If the Premier supports the minister in expressing his concern about taking a bank book to visit any "other health care professional," will he give an undertaking today that he intends to opt in all chiropractors in the Ontario health insurance plan? Alternatively, does he believe they are not health care professionals?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have no plans beyond what has been discussed in this House.

Mr. Grossman: In that case, I take it the Premier dissociates himself from the remarks made by his own minister when he referred to other health care professionals. I remind the Premier that chiropractors do bill OHIP, they do provide insured services, and there are thousands of seniors who use their services and pay, not five or 10 per cent extra, but sometimes 100 per cent extra over the OHIP schedule

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Grossman: Is it therefore the Premier's position that he dissociates himself from the position taken by the Minister of Health? Or does he believe chiropractors are not health care professionals?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think the honourable member put the proposition properly, and if he has some particular views on this subject I am sure the committee reviewing the subject will be very interested in hearing them.

I am not an authority on this. I have never been to a chiropractor. I may need one some day; one never knows. I understand there is a cap on the amount of charges they can make to OHIP. It is a somewhat different relationship.

As I have said, the answer is that we have no plans to change the system beyond what has been discussed in this House. The member is very well aware of it. If he does have some ideas, he should bring them to committee. I am sure the minister would be delighted to have a discussion with him.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: In view of the fact that we have been dealing with the extra billing legislation, a very important aspect of the health care system, does the Premier not agree that the proper direction to go is a massive expansion of the community health centre program so we are no longer looking at fee for service for each individual professional in the health care system but at a multiprofessional team approach to health care in the province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member alludes to the grand problem. The pressures on the health care system with respect to our capacity to pay have to be looked at, and there are a number of imaginative alternatives. As he knows, we have taken a number of initiatives with respect to the noninstitutional care of seniors. I think we have to look at all the alternatives.

It is my very sincere hope that once this difference of opinion in the province that exists between the government and some members of the medical profession subsides, we can sit down together and sort through the alternatives calmly and rationally.

The issues at stake are beyond partisanship; they are extremely important in the long term. We have a profound commitment to guarantee quality health care in the long term, but pressures developing now will make it difficult for any society to handle all of them. We need some thoughtful leadership, and we are prepared to provide it.

Mr. Grossman: Just so the record is straight, these are not my suggestions. This party does not believe, and has not believed, that chiropractors should be opted in. We are taking the words of the Minister of Health in a carefully drawn address he made yesterday, a very important speech on a most important issue. I presume that they were not casual and that he carefully prepared those words.

The Premier and the minister have indicated their great concern about people paying extra for health care professionals. Is the Premier comfortable with the fact that thousands of women are paying an extra $50 or $60 to take prenatal classes in hospitals? In fact, it is not extra; that is the charge. Is the Premier prepared to give a commitment today to eliminate that extra charge totally for all those women who are forced to pay to get prenatal classes in hospitals?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am aware of that situation. As of this moment, the answer is no, I am not prepared to make that commitment. We are looking at it. We have taken some major initiatives in this regard.

If the member is recommending that, he should come to the committee and suggest it as we review the entire payment scheme for health care in the province. The member knows where we stand on the issue. We are proceeding in that regard, and we will discuss the other matters in the future.

Mr. Grossman: We have ascertained that the Premier wants to ban extra billing, not to achieve full accessibility for all people to all parts of the health care system.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton), who also seems to have been unable to join us today. Perhaps in his absence, I will ask the question of his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Yesterday, we heard that 150 people would lose their jobs because of the closure of the Great Lakes Forest Products waferboard plant. Today, we hear there might be a 10 per cent layoff of Eastman Kodak workers. Before we appeal one last time to the government to do something to save the jobs and technology at the Urban Transportation Development Corp., I ask the minister, given the other pressures that are being faced, will he recommend to his leader that UTDC not be sold to either of the two bidders unless job guarantees are in place for far more than half the workers? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I believe that question was answered yesterday. I think the Leader of the Opposition should wait while the Minister of Transportation and Communications comes in.

Mr. Grossman: Perhaps we can ask the minister to redirect it to his colleague, who has visited us.

Mr. Speaker: I will have to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Do you want it redirected?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Yes, please.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the Minister of Transportation and Communications is aware of the question.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will repeat the question. I heard only part of it.

Mr. Grossman: Simply put, is the minister prepared to give a commitment to this House that none of the UTDC bids that have been received will be accepted unless they contain job guarantees for far more than half the workers?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am not sure that is the same question I partially heard on the way in. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition forgot what his question was.

The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly asked this question, and the answer from those on the government side of the House has been consistent. Jobs and job retention in Thunder Bay and Kingston relevant to UTDC are paramount in the mind of this government before we make any decisions on the disposal or otherwise of UTDC.

Mr. Grossman: I know the minister is not surprised that this issue is being raised in the House today. I read in the Globe and Mail -- our only source of information since this government will hand out no information on UTDC -- that two offers came in on or before the deadline. It is fair for the opposition parties to ask the minister, not to tell us all the details of long complicated offers but to provide for us today before we adjourn the answer to two simple questions: how many jobs are guaranteed in the Lavalin and Bombardier offers, and what is the total purchase price contained in each of those two offers?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Judging from the comments made by the leader in Kingston some time ago and in his interviews with certain newspapers last week, I can understand that he is not getting his facts straight.

The Leader of the Opposition will know the bids closed last night at five o'clock in Toronto and Montreal and we have not had an opportunity to view those. They are with Wood Gundy and will be analysed over the next several days by its staff.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister explain why a private investment firm such as Wood Gundy will have the privilege of making recommendations to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the minister which they will listen to, while the democratically elected members of this Legislature will not have the same privilege of reviewing the bids through a committee and making recommendations to the government before it makes a final decision?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: It is good business for leaders in the field of business to have an opportunity to advise this government or any other body involved in a transaction of this nature.

Mr. Grossman: Given the government's commitment to no walls and barriers, open government and freedom of information, I wonder whether the minister will give us one simple commitment. Before this House adjourns today or tomorrow, whenever it is -- let us talk about today --

Mr. Speaker: Let us ask a question today.

Mr. Grossman: Before the House adjourns either for the day or for several months at six o'clock, will the minister be kind enough to call his agents at Wood Gundy, ask them what the job guarantees and the purchase prices are in those two offers and either provide that information to the House or just send a note over to the leaders of the two opposition parties?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: There was an interesting comment made from the back benches.

It is important to know that, unlike the honourable member's colleagues in Ottawa, we are not contemplating the sale of UTDC to the United States or any other country. At 2:20 p.m., it is impossible to guarantee that the information the leader is requesting could be made available in the next two or three hours.

I will accommodate him with that phone call, but I will not stand here and guarantee to the House that this information will be available.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I have received a note from the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio). He has a statement. Would you like to revert to statements?

Agreed to.

Mr. McClellan: Do we have a copy of the statement?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am sorry. I thought the copies were distributed. They are coming. Shall I read the statement or would the Speaker like me to wait until members have received their copies?

I am sure the copies have been delivered, and if I may --

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

SPRAY PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: As the House knows, I am extremely concerned about the infestation of spruce and jack pine budworm and gypsy moth throughout Ontario. I am also aware that there is a great deal of public support for our proposal to combat those infestations with a combination of accelerated cutting and an aerial spray program involving chemical and biological insecticides.

However, I recognize that there is a great deal of opposition to the use of chemical insecticides. Therefore, I will be recommending to the cabinet that we use only baccillus thuringiensis in our 1986 spray program. I believe this is the only way we can ensure support for our program in this House.

I am sure members realize the value and importance of our forests and the need to protect them. I would ask for the support of the House as we proceed with our 1986 aerial spraying program.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I was under the impression that statements and the provision of time for statements were to announce something new for the government or for a ministry. There is no change here from the former policy. There is a change from what was planned, but there is no change in government policy.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would honourable members take their seats. It is not a point of order.

ORAL QUESTIONS (CONTINUED)

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations concerning the withdrawal of funds by Dominion Stores from its pension plan.

Is the minister aware of the fact that the trustees for the Dominion Stores plan passed an amendment to the plan dated January 14, 1986, which was to take effect on January 1, 1986, and which for the first time added conditions to the plan that allowed them to withdraw money from the plan?

Can the minister explain why the Pension Commission of Ontario gave approval in December 1985 to these same trustees to withdraw that money when the trustees had not given themselves the power to do that until 30 days later? Can he explain that incredible discrepancy?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: As members know, legal representatives of the employees of Dominion Stores have launched a legal action in this matter. I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any way.

Mr. Rae: The minister is not going to be allowed to hide behind that. The members of the Progressive Conservative Party were silent on this subject. They will have their turn to defend 42 years of inactivity with respect to the pension fund of Ontario. I want to get to the minister who is responsible now.

He cannot hide behind the kind of action that has been taken. Of course the employees have taken legal action. The previous government would not protect them. Does one have to go to court in order to get some protection? What other action would this government expect them to take?

Can the minister tell me how the Pension Commission of Ontario could conceivably have allowed a withdrawal in December 1985 when the plan gave no explicit approval to the trustees to withdraw that money and the commission did not give that approval until January 1986?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The information I have from the pension commission is that all withdrawals were made legally, properly and in accordance with the agreement into which the employees entered with their employer. If there is any question about that, and obviously the leader of the third party thinks there is, then that is a matter for the courts to decide. That is where it is now.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister explain why, on November 28, 1985, the pension commission sent out the following regulation with respect to the refund of surplus assets to plan sponsors, which was to take effect on January 1, 1986, "The commission reserves the right also to require in certain situations that notice of the refund request be given to members and their agents."

Can the minister explain why, in a plan that was not part of negotiations between the company and the union in the sense of being part of a collective agreement, the only trustees were Dominion Stores? The Dominion Stores trustees are asking for the withdrawal and taking it; a conflict of interest if I ever saw one.

Can the minister explain why the pension commission did not insist, prior to the withdrawal being permitted, the employees at least be informed of it? Why were they not informed at any time?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: In the notice the pension commission sent out, it said, "In certain conditions." In the case of the Dominion Stores employees it was the determination of the pension commission, and I have no reason to question that at this time, that it was carved out under the proper legal procedures under the normal practice. The commission felt it was perfectly proper for that withdrawal to be made.

Obviously, the employees and members of the third party think it was done improperly. The employees have done what they should do. They have taken the matter to court to get a determination. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on what the results of that determination are going to be.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Rae: My new question is for the Treasurer, regarding gasoline prices. He will be aware there has been a dramatic shift in the situation around the world. He will also be aware a 20 per cent drop in the price of Canadian crude, which took place in January, should translate into a price reduction of $2.50 every time a consumer buys a fill-up of gas for his or her car.

Can the minister tell us -- and particularly as it affects the people of northern Ontario who are consistently paying higher rates and prices than those in southern Ontario -- what steps he and the government of Ontario are taking to make sure all Ontario residents, especially those in northern Ontario, will finally see some reduction at the pumps in relation to the reduction of prices which is going on around the world?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: In response to a number of letters I have had in this connection, I have been able at least to put in a first paragraph in which I assured the people complaining about this matter that Ontario had the lowest gas tax in Canada, excepting Saskatchewan and Alberta. That is a matter in which we have taken a certain degree of pride.

2:30 p.m.

The member may recall, having read Hansard or being interested in politics, back in the 1970s, when the prices were escalating rapidly, we were very concerned in this House. In those days we were in opposition -- happy days indeed -- and we were asking that the increase in the prices would not be effective to the consumer until the cheap gas, so to speak, had gone through the system. As I recall, the delays in the increases amounted to about 30 days to six weeks --

Mr. Timbrell: Sixty days.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Sixty days, somebody is telling me; right.

Now that it is going in the other direction, we are also concerned about it. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) very recently informed me that he has received communications from one major supplier that it expects a price decrease to be noticeable at the pumps --

Mr. Turner: When?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: When? In April or May.

Mr. Turner: Oh, come on; you have got to be kidding.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We hoped they could do better than that, but we have been inquiring and I am sure the member knows the substantial decrease, down to almost $15 a barrel, is not in the contract oil price but the spot price amount.

Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me another moment -- or maybe I could wait for the supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: It will be in order to wait for the supplementary.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a chart prepared by the government to compare gasoline prices in Sault Ste. Marie with Guelph, Ontario, during last year. In Guelph, there are independent dealers and competition so price wars break out and consumers get occasional breaks in their prices. In the Sault, the independents have been driven out of business.

What will the Treasurer do to make gasoline prices in Sault Ste. Marie and elsewhere in Ontario comparable with the prices charged residents of southern Ontario in the future?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member will know that the government has independently proceeded to have a review of northern gas prices.

Mr. Rae: What do you mean, "independently"?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We did it, did we not?

Mr. Rae: Yes, finally. Where is it?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The report is pending and will be made public in the near future. I understand comparisons of prices have been taken in various communities. I asked the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) while the question was being asked and he said he is expecting the report and he hopes it will be tabled in the very near future. In the unlikely event that the House is not in session, it will be made public.

It seems to me the findings of that report are something the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue ought to look at very carefully.

Mr. Andrewes: Now that the Treasurer's attention is directed towards lower gas prices and, indeed, the New Democratic Party's attention apparently now is directed towards lower gas prices --

Interjections.

Mr. Andrewes: It did not appear that way when we debated the budget bills and they voted against our amendments.

Mr. Speaker: Your supplementary is?

Mr. Andrewes: Would the Treasurer consider in his next budget bringing in a scale of taxing measures that would address the amendments we put to him in our discussion on the budget debate?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member has put forward a novel and interesting alternative, but the House in its wisdom saw fit to abandon that ad valorem approach. I can assure him that the matter is a serious one and I do not want to or intend to treat it with levity. People want to see the arrival of lower gasoline prices. It will have a tremendous and positive impact on our economy and I sincerely hope this will come about.

As in most other matters, this one will be receiving the attention of myself and the people advising me as we make plans for another budget.

Mr. Pouliot: It is dangerous for the Treasurer to mislead the people of Ontario by saying that Ontario pays the lowest price for gas, as he is no doubt aware, or would be aware if he travelled a little more. With respect, he is getting a two-month break. Come on up north and see at first hand what our first Canadians are paying for gas. They are paying $6.50 a gallon.

The Treasurer has that mandate. Therefore, will he give this House the assurance that he will exercise his power and either introduce some incentives or lower the price of gasoline so our people up north will have a chance to become like the others?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I hope that the honourable member did not misunderstand me or that I did not unintentionally say something I did not mean to say. I am not talking about the lowest gas prices; far from it. However, the tax is as low as any other across Canada, except those in Alberta and Saskatchewan, which are producing provinces.

It is interesting to note in this connection that in Alberta, where there is no tax at all, the price per litre is very similar to what one would pay in the southern part of the province, although not in the areas to which the member is referring, above the 50th parallel or something like that. As well, no taxes are payable at all in the very far northern reaches of the province.

U.S. FARM BILL

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Barring a major crop catastrophe in the world this year, United States farmers are virtually guaranteed to get $60 a ton more for their corn than Ontario farmers will be getting at harvest time. What plans does the minister have to minimize this devastating impact on the Ontario agricultural economy?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am well aware of the concerns the honourable member has just raised, concerns I am sure he read in a Toronto Star article that I think appeared today. Those concerns are very real; there is no question about it. I am aware of this and I am aware of the potential impact it can have on Canadian and Ontario farmers.

However, I must tell the member that the province has no jurisdiction over domestic US farm policy. The ministry is working with the government of Canada to develop a Canadian national agricultural strategy that may provide a balance to the US policy.

I must also tell honourable members across the House, who believe that their Prime Minister is on the right track as far as free trade is concerned, that the impact of the US farm bill further heightens the government of Ontario's concern about the impact of free trade on Ontario agriculture.

Mr. Stevenson: I remind the minister that 75 per cent of the corn in Canada is grown in Ontario and yet the minister did nothing yesterday but write a letter as far as high-fructose corn sweeteners were concerned.

The deficiency payments that the American corn producers will get next year are $9 billion. That is twice the value of all the agricultural products grown in Ontario. To match that program will cost the government about $225 million. What is the minister prepared to do to balance the impact of that program on Ontario farmers?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: If the previous administration had not left us in such dire financial straits, I might have been able to come up a few million dollars. However, as the member is well aware, we are looking at several submissions that were sent to the task force that the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and I have established. A report is supposed to be completed by the end of February.

If the member chooses to return to the House in the new session, considering the rather disappointing performance over there during the last session, he will hear a budget. I hope in that budget we will be able to tell him the excellent policies we will have for our farmers to counter some of the other practices in the US.

2:40 p.m.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will wait. The clock is going on.

Mr. Ramsay: With all the pending crises in agriculture this fall, and especially with the United States farm bill, does the minister agree that Ontario should be taking a stronger stand on third-party debt review, something he agreed with before he was minister, and that he should be pushing for that with his federal counterpart?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We had a good discussion about third-party debt review at the --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please do not ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food to strain his voice.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: There was a thorough discussion about this at the last conference of agriculture ministers two or three weeks ago. Outside of one or two ministers, it was unanimous that an arbitrary settlement not be imposed by a third party or even by the courts.

Mr. Rae: They would rather have the banks do it themselves.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The banks now are writing down debt. I will be talking to the federal Minister of Agriculture, because I feel there could be an arbitrary settlement on accumulated interest over eight per cent. I think that feeling is shared by Bill Uruski, Minister of Agriculture in Manitoba. I do not have much to complain about with that kind of arbitrary settlement. It is something I will be discussing with the federal minister before he makes a final decision on his amendment to the Bankruptcy Act.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Ministry of the Environment concerning the massive natural gas storage facility proposed to be built near Cobourg.

Last July I asked the minister to order an environmental assessment of this project. In December he received a recommendation from the Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee. We have still not heard his decision. No plant of this size is proposed to be built anywhere else in Canada. Will the minister tell the House whether he is going to designate this project under the Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I referred the Northumberland liquefied natural gas matter to the Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee, which reported to me. It is a private sector project; that is the first thing I recall about the situation. It would not fall under the normal circumstances of a municipal or provincial government or Ontario Hydro project.

In discussions with my colleagues, I have attempted to come up with a mechanism that would take into consideration all the environmental concerns that have been expressed by some of the individuals in that area. I have received representations from residents in the area who are strongly in favour of it and wish to proceed quickly and from others who do not. They have asked that I find a mechanism whereby all the environmental concerns they have brought to our attention as a government can be addressed. I am in the process of doing that at this time.

Mrs. Grier: I hope the minister will make his decision based on his assessment of what is best for the environment, not on the weight of public opinion of the facility on one side or the other.

It is the largest facility of its kind proposed for anywhere in Canada. It will be 50 metres high, located in a rural area with 500 people within two kilometres of it. It is precisely the kind of project the Environmental Assessment Act was designed to include and the minister has the power to designate it.

Given the limitations of an Ontario Energy Board hearing, what kind of mechanism is the minister likely to find, other than a full environmental assessment?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I understand what the member is saying when she talks about the limitations if we had what we would call a normal Ontario Energy Board hearing. In the past, the hearings have taken into consideration some of the environmental concerns we have raised, but not to the degree I would like to see.

As I said to her, I am attempting to develop a mechanism whereby all these environmental concerns can be addressed and an ultimate decision can be reached which is environmentally sound.

Ms. Fish: Will the minister accept the recommendation of the Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee and subject this proposal to an environmental assessment?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Is that the position of the Progressive Conservative Party on this issue?

Mr. Gordon: The minister cannot handle it, can he?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I would be surprised if that is the position of the Progressive Conservative Party. Is this a Toronto issue? Is this a yuppie issue? Yes or no?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us pretend it is question period and have a chance to ask some questions.

FLOODING

Mr. Harris: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. I want to congratulate him on getting that statement out so soon after our House leader called the government House leader to explain what the consequences were of not having the statement. The minister did a good job.

The minister will know that many property owners along some sections of the Great Lakes, particularly Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair, face the danger of serious flood damage this spring. According to many experts, Ontario residents face the most serious flooding ever. There are concerns that his ministry has done little to prevent what could be millions and millions of dollars worth of damage.

Why is the minister not taking any concrete steps to deal with this situation? How much more damage has to take place before he decides to act?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We dealt with this very issue at cabinet today. We will be releasing the information any time now.

Mr. Harris: What have you been doing for the last eight months?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I did not interrupt the honourable member when he was asking the question. He is getting awfully snarky these days. He used to be a nice guy.

We are taking a very responsible action on this issue. The release is imminent. We have addressed ourselves to what a provincial government can do. I am having difficulty with the member's kissing cousins in Ottawa. That Mulroney gang does not want to help at all.

We have 3,000 miles of shoreline in Ontario. That is considerably more than a provincial government can undertake without help from the federal government. We have a short-term program to address ourselves to the spring thaw and subsequent floods. We are developing a long-term program and we will do everything within the power of this government to protect the shoreline.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Harris: The minister has not given us one specific concrete step, which is usual. That is what he has done for the past eight months. The problem is not there that long.

The minister does not like to deal with specifics. Let me ask him about one. Several thousand acres of prime farm land in parts of Harwich township will be devastated this spring if the dike in the Rondeau Marsh area fails as expected without remedial measures now. He removed the $1 million from the program announced by this government and said it was not necessary. There are 60 to 70 homes along this dike in danger. It is possible that the entire village of Erieau could be isolated and that the water supply, which runs along the dike, could be completely cut off.

The minister knows that repairs and remedial measures are required now. When is he going to respond to the concerns of those people and get on with the remedial measures that are necessary?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I thank the member for the question, but I would like to bring into focus something that is very important. While he would like to take some credit for the initiatives we are going to take --

Mr. Harris: A pretty specific question.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member is going to do it again now. It takes him a long time to learn --

Mr. Harris: Is the minister going to deal with this one or not?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Would the member like me to answer the question? Before he broached the question, the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock), the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller), the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) and the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy) gave much more positive input to help us develop the kind of program needed. They have not just stood up and quarrelled about what has been going on and how little has been done in the past.

When we release what our program is going to be in the short term and in the long term, the people of Ontario will be convinced that we are going to do much more than the previous government ever did on the flooding problem.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister explain why the federal government was given misinformation by his ministry about this situation on October? Can he explain why the federal government was told by his ministry that, in its opinion, water levels were receding and the problem had reached its peak the previous spring?

Can he explain why, up until this time, no provincial direct assistance has been forthcoming, not with respect to flood insurance but with respect to stopping the flooding before it happens? Can he explain the systematic inactivity in his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The honourable member has raised this question before and I have looked into the business of providing information. The member is wrong. In fact, in a cyclical way, when the water levels were actually receding, that was the evidence at that time. The evidence was proper and it was confirmed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. This is not just from my ministry. I want to share that with the member.

The problem we are looking at and are faced with is precipitation, which is going to continue to raise the levels. Certainly, we are going to share any information with the member. I do not know why he would suspect we would give out any information that is not credible.

Mr. Gillies: Because the minister is incompetent; that is why.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: There would not be any purpose. Why would we do it?

ABORTION CLINICS

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the Premier. Given Monday's provincial court judgement that the padlocking of the entrance to the Morgentaler Clinic did not constitute mischief, and given the predictable conclusion by anti-choice groups that the judgement is a declaration of open season for harassment actions, will the Premier take the only reasonable position on this matter, namely, to encourage an appeal of this very questionable judgement?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I understand it, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is reviewing all the legal options at the moment and I am not in a position to report anything.

Ms. Gigantes: I wonder how many more actions such as this morning's we are going to see, given that position by the Premier. The real problem lies not with the courts but with the government. Access to safe, legal abortions is lacking for many women in all areas of Ontario and for all women in many areas of Ontario. How does he intend to carry out his own election commitments on this question?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not in a position to say anything more to the honourable member.

She knows the policy of this government. I have said with respect to the legal questions that the Attorney General is reviewing them. If there is anything to announce, he will tell the member. He always shares everything with her first.

Ms. Fish: A series of questions was put to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) about a week ago on a very real obstacle to accessibility being created in the Windsor area. Will the Premier undertake to ensure that his minister not only replies to those questions but also reports to this House on the total question of equality of access across the province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will discuss that with the very capable Minister of Health. I recall the member putting that question a week or so ago. As I recall, the minister undertook to look into it and report back. I do not know the status of the investigation he undertook at the member's prompting, but I will remind him that he should be back to her with an answer forthwith.

ACID SPILL

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, who I believe is on the premises somewhere. The minister will know of the very serious train derailment in the riding of Parry Sound this morning, which has resulted in at least seven cars leaking sulphuric acid into a local lake. Can the minister advise the House what steps he is taking to address this serious environmental hazard?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am informed that officials of various agencies, including the Ministry of the Environment, were on the site this morning to evaluate it. As the member knows, and he knows the area well, one of the things they are trying to do is to contain any spill in Cranberry Lake itself rather than have it make its way out of Cranberry Lake into adjacent waterways.

In addition, to neutralize it, 15 rail cars of limestone are en route from Toronto; Falconbridge is sending two truckloads of limestone from Sudbury, and Inco is sending some limestone slurry. Officials are on the scene at the present time.

This brings into focus the concern all members of the House share about the number of derailments we have had recently. Perhaps they have received a lot of additional publicity because of dangerous materials on those trains. I think there has been some discussion federally as well. We want to ensure all rail lines are in the best possible shape so this does not happen.

We will continue to do whatever is necessary to neutralize the sulphuric acid and get it cleaned up.

Mr. Eves: From his remarks, I am sure the minister is aware that Cranberry Lake empties into Beers Lake, which goes through a chain of lakes, including Joselin Lake, Mogridge Lake and Blackstone Lake, and eventually into Georgian Bay. Can the minister give us his assurance that the sulphuric acid now in Cranberry Lake will not be allowed to reach Georgian Bay or any other body of water from which human beings take their water supply?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is the effort of the ministry, according to the notes provided to me. Their main effort at present is to try to contain it in that one lake. As the member appropriately points out, there are a number of other waterways the sulphuric acid could reach. We want to ensure it is neutralized within Cranberry Lake through the limestone and slurry that are being brought in. The member legitimately makes a valid point. The second thing we want to do in that area -- not secondary in importance -- is to contain the sulphuric acid to the one waterway so it does not make its way into other waterways and cause a further problem.

Mr. Wildman: Since the minister is concerned about the federal government's responsibility for the safety of rail transportation in general in relation to spills, will he prevail on his colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) to communicate this province's objection to the application of the railways for Canadian Transport Commission approval of the removal of rear train crews, which will make it far more difficult for train crews to respond to this kind of emergency in the future?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will be pleased to draw that matter to their attention. I think the primary thrust of the question of the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) was to ensure that our ministry was following its mandate. However, I will certainly do that as well, because it speaks to the greater problem that exists in rail transportation at this time.

3 p.m.

ARK EDEN NURSING HOME

Mr. McClellan: In the absence of the Minister of Health, I wish to ask the Premier a question about today's Court of Appeal decision with respect to the Ark Eden Nursing Home.

The Premier will be aware that 42 young people were rescued from the Ark Eden Nursing Home and placed in community facilities as a result of a joint endeavour between the Ministry of Health, a number of community associations and the Reena Foundation. The Court of Appeal has ruled that the Ministry of Health did not have the power to revoke the licence.

My first question is, will the Premier give us his assurance on behalf of the government that no mentally retarded developmentally handicapped young people will be placed in the Ark Eden Nursing Home?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The facts as outlined by the honourable member are essentially correct. I became aware of that judgement myself just this morning. Unfortunately, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is away. I can tell the member that both ministries are looking at the legal and practical implications of that Court of Appeal judgement.

The member has asked me to make sure that no young people are returned to that facility now. I think it is fair to give that assurance pending the resolution of these legal problems. I do not know the answer to them, but I can assure the member they will have the very serious attention of this government.

Mr. McClellan: The Premier will understand there are still a number of children in homes for special care, such as the Ark Eden Nursing Home, who have not been rescued yet. The impact of this decision means he has no means to regulate the nursing home industry. I have the 1983 nursing home inspection report on the Ark Eden Nursing Home, which shows adult-sized patients in baby-sized cribs, no nursing stations, patients in restraints not positioned, nutritional problems, etc.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. McClellan: Will the Premier give us the commitment that when we come back in the second session of this parliament, he and his Minister of Health will have legislation before us which will give his Ministry of Health the power to regulate nursing homes in this province? As of now, he has nothing.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I remember very well the discussions in this House a year ago, or two or three years ago, with respect to Ark Eden and some of the limitations of the power of the government. In response to that, the minister launched a review of the entire policy. I cannot tell the member absolutely that the minister will have that legislation ready for the spring session, but I will remind him of the member's concern. The member's concern about the patients is indeed the most serious concern, but the clients of Ark Eden will not be returned pending a resolution of these legal issues.

Mr. Grossman: I wonder whether the Premier will undertake to have his Minister of Health share with both opposition parties his intentions given the court decision, and his intention specifically with regard to what happens at Ark Eden? Is anyone going to be moved back? Who is going to go in? I ask the Premier simply to give us the assurance that we will be notified before any final decision is taken by the minister.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I just gave those assurances. Unless I am misunderstanding the honourable member's question, I think I just told the member that it is not our intention to move anyone back to Ark Eden. As I recall, he was the minister who closed Ark Eden, presumably in the absence of proper legal authority. Now we have to deal with those legal issues. However, the most important thing is that we protect those patients and anyone else from the kind of situation that existed in the past.

The member can be assured that the minister will do the right thing on behalf of those clients. At this point, that is the most important thing as we review the legal issues to determine our next line of offence; if that is a change of legislation, then that is what it will be.

APARTMENT CONVERSIONS

Mr. Shymko: I want to ask our yuppie Premier about what the third party describes as a yuppie issue, namely, his promise and concern for the destiny of the tenants of the Cadillac Fairview apartments. Is he prepared to support the majority of these tenants, who want to be masters of their own destiny for a change.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: As usual, the member for High Park-Swansea is completely inaccurate.

Mr. Ramsay: He is out to lunch.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Shymko: Is he prepared to support the majority of these tenants, who want to be masters of their own destiny and who want to choose the preferred form of affordable housing, namely, rental or co-op purchase or condominium conversion? Is this his policy, or does he prefer to pass the buck to the city council, which now forbids people, except for the rich, to buy their homes while foreign speculators are given free rein to buy anything, anywhere and at any time in the housing market?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member is aware that under the legislation, the power is in the hands of Metro Toronto, which will deal with this issue on the advice of the city of Toronto. Surely he is not asking me to impose my will unilaterally, one way or another, on this situation. No good yuppie would do that kind of thing; a yummie might do it, but a yuppie would never do it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Could I have a supplementary yuppie question?

Mr. Shymko: That is exactly the promise he made in Tenant News in the spring of 1985; that is, he would fight for their rights.

I want to know whether the Premier is prepared to instruct the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) to provide some assistance in his next budget to those tenants who want to buy their own units or to convert to co-op, since I understand affordable housing to him means helping people to afford owning their homes as well as renting their homes.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, the member knows that nobody on this side or that side of the House tells the Treasurer what to do. He does what he wants to do.

Second, the member is very well aware of our policy in this regard. A considerable allocation of $500 million has been set aside for a comprehensive housing policy that touches many aspects of home ownership as well as rental housing. We think it is balanced and fair and will make a significant impact.

This is the most comprehensive approach ever tried in this government -- in this province. Excuse my slip of the tongue, but we inherited a mess and the member knows it. Even the member's colleagues are embarrassed about it.

CANADIAN CONTENT

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier about TVOntario. I am sure the Premier spends as many hours as I do watching various programs, such as Polka Dot Door.

In relation to the government's stated intentions with respect to cultural sovereignty and to job creation, is the Premier aware of the very limited amount of new programming on TVOntario? Is he also aware that of any 1,000 hours of new programming, less than half of that reflects Canadian content, Canadian production or Canadian jobs? Given the extent of hardware that has been invested by TVOntario, what does he intend to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The facts the honourable member lays out are essentially correct. We are very mindful of the problems with respect to the limited number of Canadian productions we have. As does the member, I spend time watching Polka Dot Door and other programs on TVOntario, and it does a pretty good job. I am mindful of the limitations it has on new production, and I am aware of its great potential.

That being the situation, we put an executive, Mr. Ostry, in there as chairman. He is considered a world authority on broadcasting, and he has a very strong handle on these problems. We are engaged in discussions with the federal government and the government of Quebec -- I hope, at least in the future -- with respect to French programming in Ontario. We are looking at it.

It is one of those situations that could use a great deal more money, but every other situation we have in this province could use a great deal more money. We hope to be fair in our allocation. We do think it is a fine cultural resource, but I cannot give a definite answer to the member at this time.

3:10 p.m.

PETITIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Pope: I wish to table a petition signed by 900 residents from across the province expressing their feelings about the so-called Health Care Accessibility Act.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Henderson: I wish to table a petition that reads as follows:

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

"Whereas Ontario has been well served by a strong public school system; and

"Whereas Ontario is a society working towards tolerance and acceptance of all people; "Therefore, we feel the government is taking a backward step in extending public funding to Roman Catholic separate schools and in considering funding of other private schools. We are concerned that the proposal to extend funding to the Roman Catholic separate secondary schools and possible support of private schools will have a devastating effect on availability of programs, which will reduce educational opportunities available to all children.

"We therefore urge the government of Ontario not to proceed with the proposed extended funding to the Roman Catholic separate secondary schools or to any other private schools."

That petition is signed by E. A. Pauls, president of the St. George's Home and School Association, and by about 100 other members.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Laughren from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Ministry administration program, $7,822,800; industry program, $10,174,000; trade program, $18,104,800; Ontario Development Corporations program, $23,057,000; and innovation and technology program, $4,519,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Ministry administration program, $2,333,400; tourism development program, $15,220,500; parks and attractions program, $18,278,600; recreation, sports and fitness program, $14,374,600; and tourism and recreation operations, $59,311,500.

MOTIONS

TRANSFERRAL OF REPORT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the annual report of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education for the fiscal year ended April 30, 1985, be transferred from the standing committee on social development to the standing committee on general government.

Motion agreed to.

RELEASE OF REPORT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on the Ombudsman be authorized to release its report during the recess by depositing a copy with the Clerk of the assembly, and upon the commencement of the second session of this Parliament, the chairman of the committee shall bring any such report before the House in accordance with the standing orders.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved, seconded by Mr. Offer, first reading of Bill 108, An Act to amend the Insurance Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to introduce for first reading the Insurance Amendment Act, which will provide the framework for Ontario's participation in a national compensation plan for general insurance.

Over the past five years, six general insurance companies have collapsed. All members will agree there is clearly a need for this compensation plan. This plan will protect the consumer and enhance confidence in the general insurance industry (1) by reducing the chance of insurance companies failing through the implementation of new standards such as increased capitalization levels and higher regulatory standards and (2) in the event of an insurance company's failure, by providing some compensation to victims.

This plan will be financed and run by the industry but directly connected to provincial regulations in the business of insurance.

For final implementation of the compensation plan, it will be necessary for the federal government to amend the Winding-up Act, and I am pressing it to do so.

I urge all members to support the amendments.

HEALTH DISCIPLINES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elston moved, seconded by Hon. Ms. Caplan, first reading of Bill 109, An Act to amend the Health Disciplines Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elston: This piece of legislation is designed to deal with some problems that are being experienced now exclusively in the nursing profession. There is a request to increase the number of people they have available to hear matters of discipline. There is a backlog in that operation now. I hope we can have a quick resolution of this when we finally get to discuss this on second and third readings so the discipline proceedings before the Ontario College of Nurses can be dealt with in an expeditious fashion.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I have tabled the answers to questions 194, 212, 218 and 219 standing on the Orders and Notices [see appendix page 4098].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

Resuming consideration of the adjourned debate on Bill 103, An Act to amend the Teachers' Superannuation Act.

On section 14:

Mr. Chairman: Carrying on from last night, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) had an amending motion to section 14.

Miss Stephenson has moved that section 14 be amended by deleting subsections 64(4), (5) and (6) of the act, as set out in section 14 of the bill, and replacing them with:

"(4) The actuary shall deliver to the Teachers' Superannuation Commission every valuation made under subsection 3 forthwith, after making the valuation.

"(5) The commissioner shall transmit to the Treasurer the valuation report which it determines is acceptable."

3:20 p.m.

Miss Stephenson: Members will recall that last night I said I was very concerned about what was being proposed in section 14, because this bill provides -- for the very first time, it seems to me -- the Treasurer with the full responsibility for the valuation process within --

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Are there any copies of the amendment? Critics are normally given copies of amendments.

Miss Stephenson: I am sorry. The amendment was made last night. I am sure the table will be glad to share it with the member. Unfortunately, I do not think he was here last night.

Mr. McClellan: I was here and there was no copy of the amendment.

Miss Stephenson: I am sorry. I did not notice at that point. I apologize.

Mr. Chairman: Does the Treasurer have a copy of the amendment?

Interjection.

Miss Stephenson: The act as it is currently written in actual fact provides the Treasurer of the province with the role of trustee of the teachers' superannuation fund. That has never been the plan, the organizational pattern or the purpose of the activities within the province.

The administration of that fund has always lain within the hands of the Teachers' Superannuation Commission, a commission which is now very well balanced because it is made up of five members nominated by the teaching professions, five members nominated by government, and there is a rotating chairmanship. That provides ample opportunity for balanced input into the administration of this program of superannuation for teachers.

At the moment, the actuary in his triennial review looks at what is determined as a result of that review and provides the information to the superannuation commission. They review it and determine whether they believe the actuary's assumptions are correct or not. When they have completed that review, if they determine they do not think they were correct, they discuss those assumptions with the actuary and may persuade him to modify some on the basis of that balanced input.

When the actuary has completed all of that and it has been accepted by the commission, it is then given to the Treasurer for his purposes, because his role, I would remind him, is to act on behalf of the government of Ontario and the people of Ontario to provide the employer's portion of that pension fund.

I do not know why the Treasurer believes that going the route of the act as it is currently written would not create for him a severe conflict of interest. He would be the trustee and the employer-contributor, and I do not believe that is a role that any legislator -- certainly not any minister -- would really wish to have. Therefore, I would ask that the Treasurer accept my modest amendment to ensure that the actuary reports to the commission, that the commission carries out its responsibilities as the group responsible under the act for the administration of that plan and then provide the information to the Treasurer for his action, as is necessary.

I would never ascribe to the current Treasurer any potential deviousness or suggest that he might be willing to do this in order to manipulate the plan for his own purposes, but that is one of the things that could happen. This Treasurer, monumental though he is in stature and character, will not be here for ever. There will be other Treasurers, and I would hope we would not provide that temptation for any succeeding Treasurer. It would be appropriate for the Treasurer to accede to my request to amend this piece of legislation in the simple way I have suggested, to ensure that he does not have a conflict of interest, in order to ensure that the superannuation commission carries out its mandated responsibility and to ensure that, like Caesar's wife, everything is above suspicion in this circumstance.

Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Would there perhaps be some sense in making my remarks and the Treasurer speaking to both of us?

Mr. Chairman: If the member wishes.

Mr. Allen: I think it might be more economical of our time. I do not want to prolong the discussion of this matter but I want to make one or two very brief remarks. I understand perfectly well what the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) is saying with respect to this process. It is a matter of some concern to some of the parties to the Teachers' Superannuation Commission and the processes that surround it.

At the same time, this is a significant debate between the Treasurer and the teachers of the province. Weighing the balance between what I understand to be our situation -- given the pressure of time at the end of the session, whereby the failure to pass this bill will mean that teachers making career decisions between now and May will not be able to do so with any certainty with respect to the prospect of early retirement -- and given the state of the discussion to date on this issue, in which the Treasurer has indicated he is not now prepared to move on the issue -- given that we are between that immovable object and irrepressible force, so to speak -- the better part of wisdom would be to vote against the amendment of the member for York Mills, support the bill and get it out there and active in the community.

None the less, will the Treasurer tell us how he understands the valuation process, his role in it and whether he can give us some substantial assurance the integrity of the fund and the role the superannuation commission has played in it as the principal determinant of the valuation process will be protected in the context of the proposal he has put before this House?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: With all the monumentality ascribed to me by the member for York Mills --

Miss Stephenson: The Treasurer looks like one of the four faces of granite on Mount Rushmore.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I thought the member left herself slightly vulnerable but I am not going to pursue it.

With that monumentality, if such there is other than in size, I want to assure the member who has just spoken it is not my intention to interfere with the valuation process. The commission retains adequate and independent actuarial advisers who assist and prepare the valuation on a yearly basis. It has to be directed to the pension commission every three years, as prescribed by law.

I have never participated in this, of course, and I doubt the previous Minister of Education has, but I understand the membership of the teachers' superannuation board participates, not directly from the standpoint of teachers and that of Treasury, but section by section and valuation by valuation, they look at the ranges proposed by the actuary and agree, no doubt after some arguments, perhaps protracted ones, as to the appropriate valuation under those circumstances. That is directed to the Treasurer and once every three years it has to be directed to the pension commission under our statute.

I want to say, because I feel it is extremely important and speaks to the comment the member made about a conflict of interest and also to the comment made by the critic for the New Democratic Party having to do with the necessity to proceed with this important bill, I am very glad the critics of both opposition parties welcome the main principle of the bill; that is, providing a window of opportunity for early retirement. We all agree this is a good thing.

3:30 p.m.

I indicated the cost of this, by the time all of the payments are completed, will be close to $600 million. We discussed that when there was a proposal to change the size if not the shape of the window to which we were referring.

The member for York Mills is correct when she says that the Treasurer, under our requirement now, carries the total responsibility for the financing of the plan. Under the act, the Treasurer is responsible. Under the requirement, the Treasurer is the custodian of the fund. All of us are aware that the Treasurer borrows the assets of the fund, now in excess of $8 billion, through a regular process that was established by our predecessors and that has worked very well for a number of years.

This fund is now well in excess of $8 billion and it could be at the next valuation expected in March, over $9 billion. At the rate it is going, it is growing very rapidly. It is one of the most important investment funds, if one wants to look at it that way, in Ontario.

Members would know that in most instances the sponsor guarantees and underwrites the provision of the promised pension benefits. Quite clearly that is the case here. Whatever the fluctuations of the economy in the future, as in the past, the government of Ontario -- the people of Ontario, through the Treasurer -- guarantees that the benefits will be paid. They are substantial benefits and proper benefits and we are improving those benefits with one of the provisions in this bill.

On the other hand, the Treasurer is accountable to all the taxpayers for this extremely large and important fund; important not only to the teachers but also to the participants, including all the taxpayers, who put in substantially more than half the contributions. Actuarial deficits in the past are made up on a regular basis and it is my projection and prediction that there will be such payments required in the future.

On that basis, the people who advise the Treasurer in this matter feel it is fiscally responsible not to do some kind of a number on the teachers, who are treated very well by this in their own fund, but that we should continue our guarantee. It is essential for fiscal responsibility that the Treasurer have this responsibility, in addition to setting the time when the valuation formally is made to the pension officials.

I feel very strongly about this. I can give personal assurances, which may or may not be adequate, that it is not my intention to tamper with the value of the fund. The guarantees continue; we are prepared to evaluate it properly under the Pension Benefits Act. I would ask the members of this House to reject the amendment from the opposition and support the section put forward by myself on behalf of the government in this connection.

I personally attribute a good deal of importance to it. In fact, without that section it would be difficult for me to proceed with the bill. It is not an idle threat. I feel it is important. The Ontario Teachers' Federation has contacted me directly by letter expressing its views in this regard, but I feel we ought to pursue the amendment that is put forward in the bill and I hope members will support it.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Miss Stephenson's amendment to section 14, will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 14 agreed to.

Sections 15 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of whole House reported one bill without amendment.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Conway, resolution 18.

Reading dispensed with [See Votes and Proceedings].

Motion agreed to.

STATUS OF BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Conway, resolution 19.

Reading dispensed with [See Votes and Proceedings].

Motion agreed to.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Conway, resolution 20:

That the 1985-86 estimates and supplementary estimates which have not yet been passed by the committees and reported to the House be deemed to be passed, and that all of the 1985-86 estimates and supplementary estimates which have not yet been concurred in be deemed to be concurred in.

Mr. Pope: My colleague and I are going to speak for 25 to 30 minutes.

I want to raise two points with respect to this motion. The first is to reiterate our concern with respect to the events occurring in the Ministry of Health over the past 10 months.

We have seen an unfortunate priority given to the passage of rather controversial pieces of legislation, without negotiation and consultation, that affect health care providers at the front line of the health care system of this province. I reiterate that it was without negotiation and consultation. That is clear from a variety of sources. That has been revealed in the estimates, in committees of this Legislature and in this House. It is clear the priority of the Ministry of Health has been a political one to the detriment of the health care system.

This Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and his ministry staff have been preoccupied with media wars with health care providers. For more than nine months they sat on the northern health transportation policy that was funded by the previous government. The money was provided in the budget of the then Ministry of Northern Affairs. It was $1. million to transport people who need medical attention from northern to southern Ontario. They sat on it for nine months. The minister, in the estimates of the Ministry of Health, did not even know the money was there.

It is exactly the same situation with respect to the 24-hour air ambulance service across the province. He sat on it for nine months while he was hatching his media wars against the health care providers of this province.

He sat for 10 months in total on 4,500 nursing home beds in this province that are needed by the sick and the elderly. For what purpose? He now is going to reduce those 4,500 nursing home beds. He said it on December 11 in the estimates of the Ministry of Health in the standing committee on general government. He is going to reduce the number of beds. He is reviewing it and still has not made a decision.

Of those beds, 1,570 were to be allocated in the next 18 months. He is going to sit for 18 months and those beds are not going to come into place. They were not allocated on an ad hoc basis. They were allocated on the basis of work done by the district health councils and studies by the Ministry of Health.

3:40 p.m.

Three major essential health care programs that were high priorities of the previous government have been sat on for 10 months to the detriment of the people of this province and of northerners who need those services. What was the minister engaged in? Media wars with the doctors and the pharmacists of this province. His targets will continue. He will take on the dentists next when he brings in the denticare program. They will not be allowed to extra bill; they will be opted in. He will take on the nursing home operators; they are next as well.

He has every medical specialty in this province up in arms: the optometrists, the chiropractors and the medical specialists. They know this government has decided it is committed to state-controlled medicine on an ad hoc, profession-by-profession basis. Who will be the next target?

It will be state controlled. The Deputy Minister of Health knows everything. No one else knows anything. The government will pick off one profession after the other. The minister's intention is well known out there.

The government has written off one of the best health care systems in the world, a system founded on co-operation, negotiation and consultation, which recognized that the private sector and the individual professional had a role to play and tried to nurture individual professional responsibility and liability vis-à-vis health care being provided at the front line through day-to-day negotiation, discussion, caring and concern for individuals across this province.

The government is willing to throw that away. It is willing to accept the dictates of the third party and throw the best health care system in the world into complete and utter chaos. I do not think that is appropriate. As my leader said yesterday, there are other ways to do it. Negotiation with the medical association has been done in every single province in which there was an end to extra billing.

We saw the exchange of correspondence on January 21 between the Ontario Medical Association and the Premier (Mr. Peterson). Both letters were made public, both clearly stating and reiterating the Premier's position that he will proceed with Bill 94 and not negotiate.

The government took the same position on Bill 54 and Bill 55. There were no discussions with the pharmacists. I am not talking about the price-spread issue. I am talking about all the other things included in Bill 54 and Bill 55, such as interchangeability and the impact that can have on professional liability and the health of the people of this province.

When all was said and done, when it came out in the wash in the estimates of the Ministry of Health on November 27, the negotiations with the pharmacists had consisted of one hour before the bills were introduced to tell them what the government was going to do. Is that any way to deal with caring professionals who want to work with the government to improve the health care system of this province? It is not. It is the wrong way to go, believe me.

I can accept the government's political priorities and that it may want to implement those political priorities. That is the way it is. The government has an obligation to do that. However, it should not sacrifice the existing quality of the health care system by proceeding abruptly and without negotiation on these measures.

We fundamentally disagree with the whole process that has been undertaken by the Ministry of Health in these negotiations. It is not just isolated to Bill 94, Bill 54 and Bill 55. The physiotherapists have met with the minister once. They have not had a settlement of their fee negotiations. They have had two meetings with the negotiator since last spring and the government has yet to put on the table a negotiating position for 1986 fees. It has yet to negotiate meaningfully with the physiotherapists with respect to 1985 fee increases. That same story communication runs the entire gamut of health care providers in this province.

With respect to Bill 94, Bill 54 and Bill 55, the government may feel it is on the right side of politics and can bluff its way through. However, what has been put in place is a modus of operation in the Ministry of Health of no consultation, no negotiation and no discussion. The deputy minister, the minister and the Premier's office know all and no one else can tell them what to do or make any suggestions.

That is the feeling in virtually every occupational group across this province. We did not go out to seek their opinions. They are writing to all the Liberal members. They are writing to us, talking about their complaints. They are going to ministers' offices. They are going to constituency offices and telling members exactly what they feel.

Oh, yes they are. Every constituency office in this province has been getting calls from physiotherapists, chiropractors, dentists, pharmacists, doctors and optometrists, voicing their complaints at their inability to talk to a government that said it would be open and accessible. The government said there would be no barriers or doors that would prevent anyone from coming in and having an impact on the decisions that were about to be made.

The Treasurer should ask any health care provider group in this province if it is satisfied with the communication and negotiation opportunities it has had with this new government. It is not a figment of anybody's imagination. It is mirrored in a petition signed by 900 people today and in public relations and media campaigns from different groups across the province. The message is the same in all of the campaigns and petitions. They say: "We cannot talk to this government. This government promised us that it would listen and be open to negotiation, and we cannot talk to it."

I just want to put on the record my concern with respect to what I see as damage to a high-quality health care system because of this attitude and approach. I urge the government to contemplate over the period of the break how it can repair those relationships, develop a new compromise and consensus among health care providers and recipients about improving the system on a co-operative basis. If it can do that, then I think it will find in this party and this Legislature widespread support for some of the improvements that I know it will want to bring to the health care system.

I have 10 minutes left of my time and then my colleague has five minutes.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am watching.

Mr. Pope: I know.

The second issue I want to talk about very briefly is the conduct of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and his ministry staff with respect to the Provincial Auditor's report. In their own ways, the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources have been implying that I could not stand the release of the truth. They are implying this government is in favour of the truth getting out but somehow this party and this member are not. They are implying that somehow this member of the Legislature is afraid of the auditor's report.

I was a cabinet minister for six years. Every single year the auditor's report came out and every single year cabinet ministers had to account in this Legislature and in committees of the Legislature for their activities as revealed by the auditor's report. Every year some of us had to acknowledge that the auditor made some good recommendations that we should implement for the sake of good management practices in this province. I have been through it for six years. It was not new to have an auditor's report on my ministry made public or answer questions about the auditor's report or about the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Let us just read into the record exactly what happened in the fall of 1985 with respect to this report. It is found on P-1200-1 and P-1200-2 of Instant Hansard on January 30, 1986, in a question from myself to the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources,

"Mr. Pope: When did you submit your reply to the Provincial Auditor?

"Miss Mogford: September 13, 1985.

"Mr. Pope: Can you tell me why you waited from September 13 until the first part of November to release what was already available in the ministry?

"Miss Mogford: First, it had had to go back to the Provincial Auditor, who then had to review our response. I then had discussions with Mr. Archer with respect to this being available as a public document. I think this was in October 1985. Mr. Archer had no objections to that. He thought there would be very positive aspects to having the report released."

Then less than a minute later, do members want to know what the truth was? Let us read it into the record.

"Mr. Wildman: I have a supplementary for Mr. Archer. Is the process normal that once you get a response from the ministry you have to review it? Then if the ministry wishes to make it public, it would have to discuss it with you prior to making it public?

"Mr. Archer: No, it is not the normal process, Mr. Wildman. Normally when we get the response from the ministry, that is the end of the episode until we either do another audit --

3:50 p.m.

"Mr. Wildman: I understand that, but if the ministry wishes to make it public, does it have to discuss it with you prior to making it public?

"Mr. Archer: No, they do not have to. I think it would be very prudent of them to do so in case there were some aspect in the response with which we totally disagreed. They might want to cover that off.

"However, this is such an unusual situation. It is the first time in my tenure with the office that a ministry has ever publicly made available a full report that we issued. Therefore, we did not have much precedent to go by. However, our position generally is that we issue the report to the ministry and it is free to do whatever it likes.

"Mr. Pope: I have a series of questions about this. Did any other ministry prerelease sections of the auditor's report of which you are aware?"

This was just in case you had a government-wide policy of no doors or barriers and a completely open system.

The Provincial Auditor's answer was: "No, as I said, this is the first time in my 15 years at the office."

So the Ministry of Energy, under that same minister, did not prelease the auditor's report. No other ministry in that government did. But the Ministry of Natural Resources did.

"Mr. Pope: Did you have any meetings with the staff of the Ministry of Natural Resources subsequent to receipt of their response of September 13? What were the dates of those meetings?

"Mr. Archer: I personally did not have any meetings. I had several phone discussions with the deputy minister. My staff may have. Could I ask them to comment?

"Mr. McCarter: We had no meetings on the report. We had the draft going back and forth from the printers with a couple of typographical errors. However, that was the gist of it." He is from the Provincial Auditor's office.

From September 13 until the early part of November there were a couple of phone calls to correct typographical errors. However, the report was not released by the end of September or in the first part, middle or end of October. It was released in early November, the only ministry of the government to do that.

I just want to put one other thing on the record. I do not have to listen to the Minister of Natural Resources and the Premier of this province say that I am afraid of the truth getting out. When I was Minister of Natural Resources, we had 186 open houses where land use planning in this province went to the people and 10,000 people got an opportunity to talk about land use planning issues under that new consultation process I initiated as minister.

When I was the minister, I went to five regional forums in different parts of this province and listened to more than 5,000 citizens talk to me directly and debate with one another on land use planning. When I was Minister of Natural Resources, for the first time we had open houses for every single land use, land, and forest management agreement that was signed in my tenure, and had open houses on the 20-year and five-year plans.

When I was Minister of Natural Resources, I appeared for cross-examination by a battery of lawyers in front of the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment. When I was the Minister of Natural Resources, I made myself available to the media and members of this House to debate any issues they wanted to bring forward. I never hid from those debates. I met with interest groups, as this minister does, and talked about any issues they wanted to bring up.

After I was no longer a minister, I was willing to go before a committee of this Legislature and answer any questions its members wanted to pose about what had happened in the time I was Minister of Natural Resources and on the issues raised in the auditor's report. I did not have to do this, in spite of what the New Democratic Party said in its press release, but I wanted to because I had nothing to hide. I was prepared to answer questions from the Liberal Party members and the New Democratic Party members. They put it to me for two and one half hours and I tried my best to answer. I explained the rationale for the decision.

In the last six years, I have never hidden from public comment, public observation or any open discussions on policies of any ministry of which I was a part, or from the members of this Legislature in response to their questions, whether in estimates, question period or any other forum they wanted to select. The same was true with interest groups across this province.

Therefore, let the minister not tell me I am asking questions about the timing of the prerelease of this report, which he would not do for the Ministry of Energy, because I want to try to hide from the truth. It is a bunch of nonsense. I explained fully the reasons for the decisions I made.

He was aware of them, but he never called me to ask me any questions about this report. The Provincial Auditor never called me to ask me any questions. All in all, it was a sleazy performance; so the minister should not lie to the people of this province by saying that I am hiding from the truth. It was a sleazy performance by him and his ministry, whose motive was to interfere in another event. We all know that. The minister should not try to deny it. He should not lie to this House. It was a sleazy performance and he deserves better.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am not sure I heard correctly, but it seemed as if the member used language that is not acceptable in the House.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that. I was listening very carefully. He said, "Do not lie to this House." I hope I am correct.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I want to make it abundantly clear that I do not.

Mr. Stevenson: I am very sorry we do not have a bit of time to address some of the issues, particularly in agriculture, where the estimates were finished on December 4. Many major issues have developed since then and we have not had a forum in which to address them.

I want to mention very quickly the stabilization situation this year. The minister rushed into signing the stabilization agreement in order to get the glory at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture annual meeting. Now the payments to the farmers are dribbling out in dribs and drabs and there is a great deal of frustration in the agricultural community about the rate of payment.

Most of the cheques that are coming out now are for the pork stabilization; that is the easy one. Wait until they get to the beef. When one asks a lot of the local Ministry of Agriculture and Food people whether the farmers are having trouble filling them out, they just throw up their hands and tell the people to do the best they can.

There is a swine artificial insemination funding issue in front of the minister. Some statement was expected on that in the fall. As far as I am aware, at least up until a week or so ago nothing had been said.

We have a $64-million market for corn in the high fructose sugar area. It is certainly a market we can deal with politically and economically. It is right here in our province; it is not a market that is halfway around the world, and yet the minister has written a letter about it.

We have a land use policy that the minister put out last week, and after being supposedly the champion --

Mr. McGuigan: Who let the sugar beet industry die in Ontario? It was Bill Stewart.

Mr. Andrewes: Gene Whelan.

Mr. McGuigan: It was Bill Stewart.

Mr. Stevenson: Oh, come on. We are talking about something far more competitive. We are talking about high-fructose corn sugar.

Mr. McGuigan: We are talking about sugar.

Mr. Stevenson: The member should talk to his corn farmers and see what they have to say. He should go home and talk to them.

The minister talked about right-to-farm legislation. It is something that all three parties have made strong statements in favour of. He had an opportunity to bring out legislation along with his policy statement and he did not do it. I really wonder at the timing of those two statements and the priority of each of them.

I want to mention the stockyard situation very briefly. We have a situation at the Ontario Stock Yards where the minister has cancelled three meetings with the stockyard's board. Even Ross Beattie, who has been voting Liberal since before he was born, has been unable to arrange a meeting with the minister or the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon).

We have Kruger calling all the shots on the stockyards. For example, there is the rough brick floor there, which is very durable. It is there because it stands up well and is a relatively safe floor for the livestock to run on. Kruger walks in and says, "That floor has got to go because it is too rough." I guess he must have been getting a little bit of steer dust on his new office shoes or something. We have people out of the Premier's office apparently calling all the decisions on the public stockyards, and there is not one of them who knows to which end of the cow to carry the hay.

I would certainly request that the minister look into that issue and finally have a meeting with the Ontario Stock Yards board and let us get a little bit of stability into that.

4 p.m.

The last issue is the United States farm bill, which is probably the most threatening piece of legislation ever to hit the agricultural industry here in Ontario.

I stated earlier that a number of organizations, including this party, have been working to try to determine the significance of this bill to Ontario agriculture for the past couple of months, but it is very difficult to go into something as lengthy as that to establish the real situation. Very clearly, from what I have been able to get out of Ottawa, the province does not have any plans to deal with the situation; and from what I can determine, I would say Ottawa has nothing in mind to deal with it either.

Here we have a situation where 75 per cent of the corn grown in Canada comes from Ontario and so far, from what I can determine, the minister has written one letter to try to do something about it.

The agricultural economy is seriously threatened, and there is some very real question of whether the corn growers of Ontario, or indeed the grain growers of the province, will have even a remote chance of getting their direct cash inputs into that crop back out in next year's harvest.

I am sorry I do not have any longer time to dwell on it, but I understand there is some sort of agreement; I will honour that agreement and sit down.

Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Speaker, since the House has not acknowledged any such time allocation, I intend to take a bit of time on a couple of subjects that are of concern to my riding.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Is the member talking to me or to his House leader?

Mr. Treleaven: I am talking to whomever wishes to listen. With regard to the Ministry of Health, the moments we have in which to speak now are replacing the concurrences that were to have taken place. I want to refer back to a news release of April 1985, when 615 nursing home beds were being allocated to western Ontario; in particular, 50 of those beds were allocated to Oxford county.

I draw the attention of the House to the last four lines of the news release of the then minister: "The additional beds announced today include only extended care beds and facilities under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health, not those in homes for the aged, which come under the Ministry of Community and Social Services."

What has happened over the past two years in attempting to get these 50 beds? The 50 beds were being lobbied for and discussed long before April 1985. In my riding, 25 beds were allocated to Woodingford Lodge, a home for the aged, which is, as the minister said, under the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act and under a different ministry. At that point, that home was attempting to obtain 40 extended care beds; 40 plus 50 is 90.

Since then we have reached the point where the ministries are saying the 25 that have been allocated are included in the 50. This is great reneging by the two ministries, sloughing back and forth.

Tillsonburg District Memorial Hospital has been attempting to deal with these 50 beds. They referred to the 25 being included in the 50. They do not use the word "reneging," I use that. Among other things, they talk about Tillsonburg hospital expending moneys in its role review with regard to these 50 nursing homes beds and they state how badly it is needed.

They go on to say that Oxford has two unique problems. Of the nursing home beds in Oxford county, 41 per cent are situated in Tavistock, a village of 2,000 on the northern edge of Oxford, which leaves 59 per cent of the beds for the rest of the county, all attributed to Oxford.

The majority of the beds in Tavistock, which account for 41 per cent of those in the county, are being used by patients from Perth county -- you will be familiar with that, Mr. Speaker -- Waterloo, Kitchener-Wilmot -- which is the riding of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) -- and Huron county. People from far and wide are in these three large nursing homes in Tavistock; however, these unbalance the county and are being put in the Oxford county quota, if I may call it that.

I also point out that in Tillsonburg, for example, which is on the southern boundary of my riding, seniors account for more than 20 per cent of its population, well above double the provincial average. This shows, slightly, some of the pressures.

I ask the minister to take note that Oxford should not be harmed by the use of its quota by those residents of Perth, Huron and Kitchener-Wilmot, although they are welcome to come to Oxford. Perhaps that is enough on that subject.

[Applause]

Mr. Treleaven: Good. Members will encourage me to go on a little longer with that kind of applause.

That situation has been lasting for only two years. I want to refer to one that is four and a half years old. It is a project that began in 1981 for the mentally alert/physically disabled young, a group of mainly multiple sclerosis patients in Oxford. It was anticipated that some kind of separate building would be created for them where they could be with others of their own kind, mentally very bright, and be intellectually stimulated even though they are deteriorating physically.

This project was started. The federal member for Oxford obtained a grant in the International Year of the Disabled. A committee used an office in my building to put together a study. That was all done nearly four years ago. It went to the Thames Valley District Health Council, which for reasons of its own decided that another, more extensive type of study was required. There are inches and pounds of correspondence on this; about the study, the money and the bureaucracy bouncing it back and forth. A tennis game is the best way to describe it.

We received a letter recently from Parkwood Hospital in London. One of the people from Oxford attempted to get her husband into that hospital. That hospital stated it will not take patients from outside the county of Middlesex; it will not take them from Oxford. After four and a half years, the discrimination is a little much. This has gone far enough. It also states it is now disagreeing with the methodology. This is the same as with the other nursing home beds where the ministry is disagreeing with the methodology of the study of its own health council.

With the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Health bouncing the mentally alert/physically disabled young back and forth, we now have another quote from the deputy minister: "Because the definition, study purpose, objectives and methodology have been revised, we are presently examining them."

I do not wish to take much longer. I will be speaking at length in the future, either in the House or personally. I am not speaking to many people in this House; I am speaking to the people of Oxford. It will not be dropped, and it will be debated in this House at length in the future if something does not get finished.

Motion agreed to.

4:10 p.m.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, before moving government notice of motion 21, I want to bring to your attention a minor amendment. It is a lengthy motion, and in the section that refers to standing committee on general government, I would like to add the words "The committee shall have authority to adjourn from place to place in Ontario."

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Mr. Conway, government notice of motion 21, that the following committees be continued and authorized to sit during the recess between the first and second sessions of the 33rd Parliament in accordance with the schedule of meeting dates agreed to by the three party whips and tabled with the Clerk of the assembly, with power to send for persons, papers and things as provided in section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act, and with power to examine and inquire into the following matters:

Select committee on economic affairs: To consider the implications to Ontario of bilateral trade.

Select committee on energy: To consider matters relating to the supply and demand of electricity.

Standing committee on administration of justice: To consider Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Ontario Statutes to conform to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Standing committee on general government: To consider Bill 75, An Act to amend the Education Act, and the annual report of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education for the fiscal year ended April 30, 1985. The committee shall have authority to adjourn from place to place in Ontario.

Standing committee on members' services: To consider the provision of simultaneous translation services to the House and its committees.

Standing committee on the Ombudsman: To consider the annual report of the Ombudsman of Ontario for the year ended March 31, 1985.

Standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions: To consider Bill 34, An Act to provide for Freedom of Information and Protection of Individual Privacy, and appointments in the public sector. The committee shall have authority to adjourn from place to place in North America.

Standing committee on public accounts: To consider the annual reports of the Provincial Auditor for the fiscal years ended March 31, 1984, and March 31, 1985, and the annual report of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1985.

Standing committee on resources development: To consider Bill 65, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act. The committee shall have authority to adjourn from place to place in Ontario.

Standing committee on social development: To consider Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act; Bill 54, An Act to Authorize and Regulate the Payment by the Minister to Specified Persons on Behalf of Specified Classes to Persons for the Dispensing of Specified Drugs; Bill 55, An Act to provide for the Protection of the Public in respect of the Cost of Certain Prescription Drugs; and Bill 94, An Act regulating the Amounts that Persons may charge for rendering Services that are Insured Services under the Health Insurance Act. The committee shall have authority to adjourn from place to place in Ontario.

Committees may consider any other matters referred to them prior to prorogation.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have a minor amendment to government notice of motion 22 with reference to the standing committee on the Ombudsman. Mr. Pierce is to be replaced by Mr. McLean.

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Mr. Conway, government notice of motion 22, that the membership on the standing and select committees for the recess between the first and second sessions of the 33rd Parliament be as follows:

Select committee on economic affairs: Messrs. Andrewes, Barlow, D. R. Cooke, Cordiano, Ferraro, Hennessy, Knight, Mackenzie, McFadden, Morin-Strom and D. W. Smith.

Select committee on energy: Messrs. Andrewes, Ashe, Charlton, Cureatz, Gordon, Mrs. Grier, Messrs. Haggerty, Jackson, McGuigan, Polsinelli and Sargent.

Standing committee on administration of justice: Messrs. Brandt, Callahan, D. R. Cooke, Ms. Fish, Ms. Gigantes, Messrs. O'Connor, Partington, Polsinelli, Sargent, Villeneuve and Warner.

Standing committee on general government: Messrs. Dean, Guindon, Henderson, Hennessy, Knight, McCague, McKessock, Poirier, Pouliot, Swart and Wiseman.

Standing committee on members' services: Messrs. Grande, Gregory, J. M. Johnson, Lane, Laughren, McKessock, Poirier, Rowe and Ms. E. J. Smith.

Standing committee on the Ombudsman: Messrs. Baetz, Bossy, Hayes, Henderson, McLean, McNeil, Morin, Newman, Philip, Sheppard and Shymko.

Standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions: Messrs. Bossy, Breaugh, Mancini, Martel, McCaffrey, Morin, Newman, Sterling, Treleaven, Turner and Warner.

Standing committee on public accounts: Messrs. Ashe, Cordiano, Epp, Ferraro, Gillies, Harris, Leluk, Philip, Runciman, D. W. Smith and Wildman.

Standing committee on resources development: Messrs. Callahan, Gordon, Laughren, Mackenzie, McGuigan, Pierce, Ramsay, Ms. E. J. Smith, Messrs. South, Stevenson and Taylor.

Standing committee on social development: Messrs. Bernier, D. S. Cooke, Davis, Jackson, R. F. Johnson, G. I. Miller, Offer, Reycraft, Miss Stephenson, Messrs. Swart and Ward.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Mr. Conway, government notice of motion 23, that substitution be permitted on the standing and select committees authorized to meet during the recess between the first and second sessions provided that written notice of substitutions is given to the clerk of the committee before the committee meets or in the first 30 minutes after the committee meeting is called to order.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 107, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have a brief comment. The bill is being put in place to expedite arrangements between counties and municipalities to enter into a spray program with the ministry.

Mrs. Grier: We support this motion and this bill. We appreciate the fact that the statement by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) when he introduced the bill makes it very clear that the funding will apply only when the private lands in question have been sprayed with bacillus thurengiensis, a biological insecticide spray. We consider this a progressive step on the part of the minister and we look forward to continuing to use only that kind of spray in all spraying exercises in this province.

Mr. Timbrell: I want to add the support of our party to this legislation and to recognize that what the minister is proposing to do is only one part, but a necessary part, of the overall assault on the problem.

The statement the minister made earlier today with respect to the government's own spraying program was well received on this side of the House and --

Mr. Brandt: Plagiarized.

Mr. Timbrell: Plagiarized to a great extent, as the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) said. It is basically the reaffirmed policy of the previous government, but that is fine. We hope that the open houses, which are either just completed or about to be completed, will lead to the conclusion that what the government announced to be the policy for 1986 will be the policy for all time. We will look forward to hearing that announcement at some later date.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 3, An Act respecting Actions arising from Transboundary Pollution between Ontario and Reciprocating Jurisdictions;

Bill 16, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act;

Bill 76, An act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.

Bill 107, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved third reading of Bill 103, An Act to amend the Teachers' Superannuation Act.

Miss Stephenson: I will take this opportunity to remind the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) briefly that he is embarking on a parlous course in the action he is taking related to the teachers' superannuation fund. I hope he will consider very seriously the content of the very minor amendment I suggested. I hope he will recognize that he has the potential of being in serious conflict of interest as the provider of the funds in assuming the role of trustee of the funds and that of evaluator.

It is of major concern to all of us that the Treasurer not get himself into that position, that he look very carefully at what he is doing and that he consider seriously having discussions in the very near future with those who are interested, the Teachers' Superannuation Commission plus the teaching profession in Ontario, to discuss a more appropriate route to deal with this matter.

He has given us his assurance that he does not intend to manipulate, and I will accept that at face value. However, if I were a letter writer to the Globe and Mail, I would be shocked and appalled by the fact that the Treasurer is even suggesting he should go in this direction at present. I should think he would want his purity to remain as virginal as it appears to be at present.

Mr. Andrewes: Not this Treasurer.

Miss Stephenson: I keep hoping it might be.

None the less, it is my grave concern that the Treasurer is embarking upon a very improper course, one that could be considered perhaps legal but certainly not what I would propose is entirely moral. Although he has that responsibility under the Pension Benefits Act, he has to remember that under that act, the employer is specified. Under the Teachers' Superannuation Act, the employer is not specified; it is the people of Ontario who provide the employer's portion of that fund, and he acts for the people of Ontario. That dual role is going to provide him with problems, and I hope the Treasurer will seriously consider looking at not modifying the action, as he is suggesting in this act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I simply want to assure the House that I take the admonitions from the honourable member very seriously. She indicates she is shocked and appalled. I am glad she has not gotten to the high dudgeon stage, which is even more formidable.

However, she makes a point that has to be carefully considered. I have already indicated to the House that the Ontario Teachers' Federation has expressed its views to me. I can also indicate to the member that I consider myself to be taking a stand that is fiscally responsible and in the best interests of the people of Ontario. I know I will be subject to any criticism if any is due, and maybe if it is not.

Motion agreed to.

4:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Before calling for the resumption, and I hope the conclusion, of the debate on the budget, and while the leader of the New Democratic Party finishes his third chocolate bar, I would like to inform the House that after some discussion it has been agreed in a rather loose agreement that the speeches be limited to 20 minutes, if possible. I ask the clerks at the table to use the technological apparatus available to indicate the elapsed time.

Mr. McClellan: It is called a clock.

Mr. Breaugh: It is called a clock.

Hon. Mr. Elston: No, it is not.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is a clock, but it is a weird clock.

For the convenience of the members on all sides, the representatives of the three parties have agreed to attempt to limit themselves to this restricted time. At the end of that, if there is occasion for a vote, we hope to limit the bell-ringing to 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker: It has been suggested by the government House leader that the speeches be limited to 20 minutes for each party. Is that agreeable to the House?

Agreed to.

BUDGET DEBATE

(CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that his House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government. Mr. Speaker: The member for York South.

[Applause]

Mr. Rae: I was wondering when the minister would finally get a chance to express his gratitude.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Better before than after.

Mr. Rae: I realize it has taken a long time, but I appreciate it.

I want to take this opportunity to review the events of the past few months, particularly as they relate to the budget and to the accord the leader of the Liberal Party and I signed on May 28, 1985, the accord that led to the defeat of the Conservative government in June and which I am proud to say has led to an enormously progressive agenda for the province.

As I said yesterday, I know Liberal ministers are under strict instructions from central casting never to mention the word "accord," the name of the New Democratic Party, the names of our front-benchers or any other spokesmen for our issues. I know that message has gone out and I can appreciate why that is so. It is not always that the actors in a play spend much time talking about those who wrote the script.

I take pride in what took place after the election of May 2. I can recall conversations that took place the day after the election. I can reflect on all the events that took place in May. I will have a lot more to write and say about it in the future, since I took very careful notes of all the discussions we had during that time --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Look at the Tories turn white.

Mr. Rae: -- including all the items that were on the agenda that the Tories were desperate to sign with us but suddenly withdrew.

Mr. Andrewes: Not as desperate as the Liberals were.

Mr. Rae: No; the degree of desperation was greater, the degree of willingness on our part was not greater.

Two political parties decided to make history in Ontario. I remain proud of the fact we did make history in the province. We put to an end 42 years of tired government. We put to an end a dynasty that was there too long and was too tired.

When I came here in 1982, I said to the members of the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and my own party: "Is it always like this in this place? Do we always spend time debating what the provincial bird or the provincial song should be when there are millions of unemployed out there?" Members may recall me asking that. We had serious debates in the House under the direction of the Tories. Their agenda was what the provincial tree should be.

Those days are over. We spent a year wondering whether Bill Davis was going to run for the federal leadership, so nothing could happen. Then we spent another year waiting to see when he was going to call an election or whether he was going to retire. Then when he retired we had to wait for the Tories to decide who their new leader was going to be. A book was recently written about the last years of the Tory government. Its title is, quite simply, Nothing Happened.

We have had a very crowded agenda. I take pride in the role my colleagues and I have played in helping to set that agenda. Since we are not going to hear any words of congratulation coming from the government with respect to this, I think it is time for us to take the initiative and make it very clear that we are proud of the role we have played. We will continue to play a positive, effective, tough, critical role in this Legislature. We are proud of the role we are playing and what we have been able to achieve.

Let us look at what has been achieved. We have made a move with respect to freedom of information. I am delighted that finally, after having been the first bill to be called, it is going to be the subject of committee scrutiny during the break.

We have begun to reform the House. We have begun the changes we negotiated. We have begun the process of redefining and broadening the rights of public servants. These are not momentous changes done in one fell swoop, but at least we have begun the process of making those changes.

There were substantive items we negotiated with the Liberal Party. Let us see precisely what progress we have made with respect to the accord. "To begin implementation of separate school funding." That has been done. We know what that situation is.

"To introduce programs to create employment training for young people." We have some disagreements about the program. I see the minister is here. We will continue to have disagreements, but the program is there.

"To ban extra billing by medical doctors." The House took the historic step yesterday of passing in principle our approval for an end to extra billing by medical doctors.

"The proclamation of the sections of the Environmental Protection Act dealing with spills." The Tories sat on their collective fannies for six years and did nothing. It took a polychlorinated biphenyls spill in the middle of the election to awaken the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) to the fact that there was a problem with respect to the environment. There are some Tories who have still not accepted that reality.

Imagine the leader of the Tory party going down to Sarnia and saying: "Clean water? That is a yuppie issue." Those are words that will stick with the leader of the Tory party for a very long time indeed. Let him go down to Windsor and say, "Worrying about your water supply is a yuppie issue." Let him come to Toronto, Etobicoke or York, all over this great province of ours, and say that caring about the safety of the water supply is a yuppie issue. Like hell it is a yuppie issue. It is a people issue that unites every single person in this province. If the leader of the Tory party wants to mock those who think the safety of our water is an issue, that is his problem. Those words will be wrapped around his neck and nobody else's.

We are moving with respect to tenant protection laws, the four per cent guideline, the rent registry, the extension of rent review to cover post-1976 buildings and an end to the $750-a-month exemption. We are not making as many moves as we would like as quickly as we would like, but we are beginning to make those moves for the first time.

We have a first-contract law in labour legislation. In the last days of Pompeii, as the volcanic ashes were beginning to pour on this place, the Tories in their deathbed repentance presented a 96-page speech from the throne read by John Aird, written by the member for Muskoka, saying: "Oh, God, please let us hang in there. We will do whatever the hell you want."

4:30 p.m.

One of those things was first-contract legislation. We had a bill. It is one we are going to try to amend. I have some very good amendments for the minister. I know he is going to be interested in listening to them and will give them the scrutiny, the respectful hearing and indeed the approval we think they deserve.

Where was the Tory party when the actual bill was there to be passed? When it was here to be approved in principle, when they had a piece of legislation in front of them, the dinosaurs took over. The Neanderthals came back. It was the return of that tired generation that said, "Let the workers stand out on a picket line for six or eight months; it is good for their health." They voted against that legislation. The men and the women of this province, and it is women who are affected by this dispute more than anyone else, are going to remember where the Tories of this province stood on first-contract legislation. That is going to be wrapped around their necks for the next generation.

Under the very effective drive of my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), of whom it can fairly be said that he has become the conscience of this Legislature with respect to occupational health and safety, we are finally beginning to get the kinds of reforms which are necessary to protect the people who have been so long left unprotected by government and the law.

After a bit of a light, which I am proud to say we led, we have continued the prebudget freeze on the ad valorem gasoline tax. It took a bit of work. It took the provincial Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) agreeing it was possible for a Treasurer to make a mistake, but we did it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I did that before the third party started --

Mr. Rae: That in itself makes the Treasurer almost unique in the history of this province. With respect to the accord, one of the things it showed is that we can cause a change in the budgetary policy of the government of this province without causing a defeat of the government. That is a good thing. It is positive and a good sign. It is a method of reform which we are going to continue to use.

After 42 years of hearings, roughly 600 briefs submitted and a mountain of documents, the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment has finally been wound up and has reported.

We have provided coverage for medically necessary travel under the Ontario health insurance plan for residents of northern Ontario. I remain as proud of that achievement as of anything.

I think of the work of my colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), the trip I took right across the north in conjunction with all my colleagues from northern Ontario, the meetings I had in Dubreuilville, Sault Ste. Marie, Wawa, Marathon, Red Rock, Timiskaming and New Liskeard, and the effort and work we put into that issue. As a New Democrat, I am proud that we finally have a program which allows people in the north to get the same kind of coverage as people elsewhere.

We have moved with respect to housing and the establishment of co-op and nonprofit housing units. The drought in the housing field has come to an end; the lean years have finally stopped. We have made some progress.

We have moved with respect to a number of other areas. There are things that have not been done and things yet to do. We have to move on pension reform. I say to the Treasurer, we in this party will not be satisfied until we have protected those pension funds, fully provided for indexation for people who have private pensions, and most important, as has been stressed by my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) in his brilliant article in the Toronto Star, we will not be satisfied until we have full coverage for all the citizens of the province and not just the 50 per cent who now have private pension plans. We are going to continue to fight on that.

We have fought the battle on overtime. The leader of the Tory party said we are throwing lobs. I never heard him ask a question on overtime. Where was the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) when it came to standing up against Conrad Black? I never heard the leader of the Tory party say a poop, a pip or a peep about Conrad Black and Dominion Stores. He never said a word about overtime. Name a Tory who has asked a question on occupational health and safety or tough questions on the layoffs.

The lob balls have been coming over from that party, which has still not accepted the fact it is in opposition and is not the government. The people of Ontario are not about to vote for a return of the Romanovs after 1917. They do not want those people back in power and they are not going to get back into power. The Tories in opposition look about as comfortable as King Farouk in a laundromat. The Tories --

Mr. Andrewes: Why would King Farouk go into a laundromat?

Mr. Rae: The member asks why King Farouk would go into a laundromat. After he lost power, somebody had to do the washing up. Now the Tories are discovering that and they do not like it, so they have several different approaches and several different lines. One is to say, "We are the only real opposition." I want to say they are the only representatives with respect to opposition who are speaking for the vested interests. If one takes the nursing home owners, the doctors who want to extra bill, the polluters who do not want to clean up, those pharmacists who want to charge extra, and puts them all together, that is the coalition the Tories expect to lead them over the hills.

That is the group of people who are going to lead the Tories farther away from power and farther away from the affections of the people of Ontario, because the people are tired of those vested interests having a monopoly on government. They are tired of those vested interests having a pipeline to power. They are tired of those vested interests having exclusive rights over the laws of Ontario. If that is the kind of coalition the Tories want to lead, they can have it. That is not the real opposition; that is the past and this is the future.

It is to the future I want to turn because I want to say to the government, as we adjourn and as we prepare for a session which will be coming in April, as proud as we are of what has been accomplished, there is so much more to do. We are in the middle of a life change in the economy of this province. We are in the middle of greater technological changes than we have ever seen before.

Today, in my constituency, the largest industrial employer has just announced a reduction in employment as part of a worldwide scheme. I say to members that this is common throughout all larger industries in the province. Look at what is happening in every major company. What has been the experience of Inco? What has been the experience of Stelco? What has the experience been in every large manufacturer? It has been similar. It has been that since the recession there has been the steady cutback of employment.

We continue to face an incredible degree of discrimination against the handicapped. We continue to face incredible discrimination against many visible minorities in this province. We continue to face enormous problems with respect to inequalities between men and women. We confront these changes and these inequalities with a set of institutions which still have not really been reformed, with a pension law that is still more than 40 years old, with a series of laws with respect to employment standards and work time which have not even been looked at since the 1940s.

It is the courage to face those reforms with respect to the world of work that is essential. We discussed health care yesterday and I outlined for the House, as best I could, my own sense that there is an agenda for real reform in the health care system which is crying out to be accomplished. It is not going to be easy to get the people of the province to look to new ways of delivering health care. It is not going to be easy for all of Ontario to recognize that we face tremendous problems in the work place, tremendous problems of occupational health and safety which are posing enormous problems for the health care system, and that we are facing an epidemic of cancer as I described it yesterday. We are facing the ageing of the population, resulting in a tremendous problem for our health care system and for our hospitals. It is going to take enormous courage to face up to those.

As the father of three young children under four and a half years old, I think day care is one issue about which I can say I have some personal sense of how it touches families. One cannot have a strategy for equality that is serious unless we have a policy on child care. As Judge Abella has stated in her report on employment equity, we cannot have a serious strategy for equality unless we have a policy on child care and we still do not have a province-wide policy on child care worthy of the name. Unless those problems are addressed, equality will remain a mirage for hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of women in this province.

4:40 p.m.

We have an environmental agenda, as my colleague the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) has pointed out so eloquently, as has my colleague the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay), who has newly arrived. As I would say about all my colleagues who were elected in May, I am proud of the work my newly elected colleague from Lakeshore has done on environmental issues in this House. She has been a goad, a conscience and a critic of whom we can all be proud in respect to the work she has done. She has pointed out as effectively as anybody that it is cheaper to pollute in Ontario today than it is to clean up. She has pointed out that Dow Chemical is dumping just as much crap into the water around Sarnia today as it was a year ago. Nothing has changed in that regard.

Yes, we have made progress, but there is still the same amount of stuff being dumped. It is nearly two tons a week. People say, "You must not use those words," but when one sees that chemical junk going into the water, one has to call it what it is. It is stuff that has to be cleaned up. Just as much of it is flowing today as was flowing before.

When we look at this change, this life change in the economy of our province, as we move into what the experts call the post-industrial society, I see workers in my riding who are 50 or 55 years old and cannot get jobs. They are facing enormous barriers to employment and opportunity. I see the whole need for a pension reform that will get the retirement age down to 60 or even 55 years of age for people in heavy construction work. Why should we not give those people a chance to enjoy their retirement?

Auto insurance is the other issue my colleague from Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) will be raising this spring. We have a large agenda to accomplish. However, what we did after the election in May was a breath of fresh air. I am proud of it. I am delighted with the progress we have made and I am looking forward to the day when New Democrats will form the government of Ontario.

Mr. Andrewes: I rise with some trepidation to interrupt the apparent love-in. However, I want to say to the member for York South (Mr. Rae) that, in spite of his cynicism, we are proud to be the official opposition. We are proud to be the only opposition and while we are here we will hold a point of view. We may not agree on that point of view, but we will not abdicate the parliamentary process to take up the member's point of view.

In the remarks of the leader of the third party, he studiously avoided making any comments on the budget. Was he ashamed of the budget? Was he surprised at it? Could he compliment the government on it? He could not say anything about the budget because it was that very issue that brought this coalition to fruition.

His colleague from Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) mocked our arguments on reduced oil prices and lower gasoline prices. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) today admits we are going to have lower gasoline prices. However, the people of this province are continuing to pay a gasoline tax, in spite of the protestations of this party, because of the aid and support of the NDP.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I will direct my comments to the 1985 budget because I think it is appropriate to do that at this time. I want to summarize some of my party's concerns about the economic and fiscal policies the budget sets out.

The same thought has no doubt occurred to a number of other members of this House as well. It has been a long time since a member of the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario has been called upon to deliver a wrapup of the official opposition in a budget debate.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Get used to it.

Mr. Andrewes: I want to say to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot we have no intention of making this an annual event. Probably one or two budget wrapups from the Conservative party would be sufficient because I am not sure this province can stand more than one or two Liberal budgets.

The opposition wrapup is somewhat of a unique experience for me. However, I have on many occasions in the past enjoyed, though seldom agreed with, remarks made in the budget wrapup by opposition leaders and other members in this House.

In spite of the temptations -- and I may try to resist them -- I recall the silver-tongued rhetoric of the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), who stood in his place on this side of the House and chastised certain employees in the then Premier's office for practically an hour in the budget wrapup; he chastised the integrity of Dr. Stewart, Hugh Segal and other members of the Premier's staff. I am tempted, but I will resist making comments about John Kruger or Hershell Ezrin.

I recall the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), who rose in this House to wrap up a budget debate and lectured the members on the government benches about the cars they used for transportation; he called them limousines. However, I fail to see that the new government and its ministers have altered that pattern. I have not yet found a date advertised for the auction sale that is to be conducted at Varsity Arena. I see those same vehicles being replaced. The very modest vehicle purchased by myself as Minister of Energy is now relegated to the government garage for use by some parliamentary assistant.

I recall on occasions in this House being chastised by the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) about the self-indulgence of certain cabinet ministers who put their names on government advertising.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The jet.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order.

Mr. Andrewes: I recall the chastisement that was delivered to us. Yet as I walk home in the evening, because that is the only means I have of getting home, I look up on the billboard and there I see, "Futures, Brought to You by Greg Sorbara," and, "Insulate Your Home and Save a Lot of Money, Brought to You by Vince Kerrio."

If I were to invoke the word "hypocrisy" in this debate, I do not think it would be appropriate, but perhaps we should relive a little bit of history and re-read some of the Hansard reports on the debates and estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and read through some of the comments made by the present minister about a publication called OMAF News. Oh, my, was he degrading of the minister of the day for that publication. Yet when I now get my three copies -- one at home, one in my constituency office and one in my office in Toronto -- there on the front page is the smiling face of the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell).

He came down so hard on both sides of that issue that it is a wonder his voice did not change. Perhaps we can indulge him that privilege since he cannot watch himself on television.

There seems to be something about the budget wrapup that inspires members to new heights of rhetoric. We saw that demonstrated by the member for York South.

Mr. McClellan: We are waiting.

Mr. Andrewes: Do not be silly.

Mr. Foulds: Farouk is flat.

Mr. Andrewes: I did not like the story about Farouk.

4:50 p.m.

Even the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) has achieved new eloquence on occasion on these budget wrapups. For instance, the Liberal Party leader used the occasion in the last budget wrapup debate in this House, which occurred some 14 months ago to this very day, to reflect on the nature and purpose of politics. He said:

"There is gamesmanship to politics...However, there is the other element of dreams, hopes and aspirations. I believe profoundly that it is our responsibility to speak and plan for the future. There is no other institution in society, except perhaps the church, that has the responsibility of preparing us now for the next decade or the next generation."

I very much doubt that any member of this chamber could quarrel with that statement. Yet if we examine this budget -- and that is the purpose of this debate -- in the context of that statement, we can only conclude that the government has failed to discharge what the Premier has said is its most serious responsibility, namely, to prepare this province for the next decade and the next generation.

I want to stress to members in the government benches, particularly to the Treasurer, that we are not here to play games. What we want to impress on the Treasurer and on his colleagues is that we in this party are very concerned that the measures introduced in this budget will undermine and compromise our ability to achieve the socially stable and economically prosperous future which all of us in this House want to help build for Ontario.

We are concerned that this budget will not and cannot achieve its stated objective of ensuring steady improvement in the long-term performance of the Ontario economy. We are concerned because this is a budget that lacks vision, a budget that lacks imagination. We are concerned because the budget fails to encourage productive business investment and fails to encourage consumer spending, the two major sources of economic and employment growth in our economy.

We are concerned because this budget does nothing to facilitate and expedite technological diffusion and upgrading, a challenge we must meet if we are to compete effectively in an increasingly complex and rapidly changing international system.

We are concerned that the long-term consequences of the budgetary policies of this government will be reduced economic growth, a loss of employment opportunities and the erosion of the province's financial stability, with a consequent diminishing of our fiscal flexibility to provide the so-needed social network which is so important if we are to plan properly for the next decade and for future generations.

Mr. Haggerty: What is your view on free trade?

Mr. Andrewes: I might ask the member for Erie what his view is on free trade.

A number of members have noted during the budget debate that the 1985 Ontario budget is the first budget tabled by a Liberal government in 42 years. I suppose one might cynically say if they had had 42 years to think about it, they might have done a better job.

I can only speculate about what the Honourable St. Clair Gordon -- the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) would recognize that name because I know of his interest as a historian -- the last Liberal Treasurer to table a budget in this province on March 19, 1943, might think of the budget tabled by his successor the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. In his 1943 budget, the Liberal Treasurer called attention to the efforts his government had made to establish the excellent financial position which Ontario enjoys today.

The 1985 Liberal budget, by comparison, has resulted in a downgrading of the province's triple-A rating and severely circumscribed the fiscal flexibility this province has always enjoyed.

The Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine), and whatever else he is, may laugh, but in the operation of his business, fiscal responsibility becomes critical.

St. Clair Gordon said, "Given the tremendous increase in employment and the vast sums of money available, the province has adhered to the policy of no new taxation." I draw the attention of the Treasurer to that comment, because in 1985 his budget told us the province was in the midst of a strong and sustained economic recovery and was poised to enjoy its fourth successive year of economic and employment growth. He said employment levels and job creation rates were at a near-historic high and the tax base was in generally sound condition.

Unlike his predecessor, St. Clair Gordon, the current Treasurer has not followed a policy of no new taxation but has instead increased just about every tax and every licence fee that was available to him. He says "except one," but he will find that one the next time.

In his 1943 budget, the Liberal Treasurer stressed the need to maintain a sound financial position in the province. St. Clair Gordon said something that is perhaps one of the few examples of common sense in economic policy demonstrated by a Liberal cabinet minister in Canada's recorded history.

He said, "After all, it is good business, is it not, to pay your debts in good times so that in bad or depressed times you have good credit." This was in 1943.

I can only assume that our friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk did not read his predecessor's budget statement. He did not accept the wisdom of his predecessor; nor could he possibly have accepted the good, sound wisdom and advice he received from the boys in the back rooms at Earl's Shell Service in St. George, where the price is soon to fall.

Apparently, the Treasurer does not agree with St. Clair Gordon's view that it is good business to pay one's debts in good times, because if he did, he would not have increased the province's net cash requirements by some 30 per cent during a period of economic growth. I ask, as no doubt many Ontario taxpayers are asking, where is St. Clair Gordon when you really need him? Wherever St. Clair Gordon is, if he has had an opportunity to peruse the 1985 Liberal budget, he must be shaking his head in disbelief.

I realize the limitations placed on this debate by the agreement. Unlike my colleague from Woodstock Centre or wherever he is from, I will not violate that agreement. However, I will draw our portion of this debate to some conclusion by saying we are concerned that this budget presents no blueprint or, to use a term so often enjoyed by the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine), red print for the economic future of this province. The budget does nothing constructive in the two sectors that members of all parties recognize as vital for the future prosperity of this province, the areas of technological upgrading and trade.

5 p.m.

On technology, the budget is silent, period. On the trade front, there is nothing in the budget to build on or to expand on the many export support and promotion programs introduced by the former administration. The government is going to close three trade offices, two of them located in our major trading market in the United States. It is going to close these offices at a time not only when we are in the midst of a national debate on enhanced trading with the US but also when the statistics indicate the American market is more important than ever to Ontario exporters.

I am sure the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Treasurer know that during this decade the value of our trade with the US has increased at a greater rate than our trade with any other trading partner. In spite of that, the government has decided to close those offices.

This budget debate is in many ways more about political posturing than about policy. This is a budget without vision because it ignores the future while trying to settle a few old scores with former administrations.

The budget does nothing in the area of technology and trade.

Interjections.

Mr. Andrewes: My colleagues are now urging me on. Where were they earlier?

This budget and the performance of this administration during the current session have taught me a valuable lesson about how this government operates. I would like to share some of this insight with my friends, particularly those on the government benches, if I have any.

When this government does not have the policies of the former Tory administration to fall back on or to continue, or it does not have the policies of the New Democratic Party to adopt or to implement -- the leader took all the credit for that today -- it is a government without an agenda and without a purpose. Every time this government has been faced with a problem to which it cannot turn to the New Democrats for an answer or to find a reason to blame them, its only response has been to appoint another task force or another commission. There is an endless series of task forces and commissions.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Andrewes: I will conclude my remarks in due order by going back to the wise statements by St. Clair Gordon, that great historian, former Liberal and now the treasurer of Liberal heaven. St. Clair Gordon would be ashamed of a budget that he would not support and this party will not support.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This is not the only budget windup I have ever participated in in this House, but it is the first time from this vantage point and I must say I prefer this vantage point.

I learned a great deal as I sat and listened to the members opposite summing up today on behalf of their parties. I was not aware that the leader of the New Democratic Party was contemplating his autobiography. Obviously, he is coming to grips with his own mortality and wants to get it all in writing before someone gets writing ahead of him. A pre-emptive strike, graphically speaking, is always the best strike one can take.

Hearing my friend opposite talking about St. Clair Gordon, Bill Gordon to his friends, I appreciate the new reverence he has for our Liberal forbear. I agree with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio): There was no good Tory to quote, so he found a good Liberal.

My sense is that if we could talk to Mr. Gordon today, he would say, "That young whippersnapper, that kid of Harry Nixon, did a hell of a good job." My sense is that is the kind of thing he would say. "I knew when I looked at that 10-year-old boy at the time that he would turn out to be the Treasurer of this province and produce the finest budget this province has ever seen." Members can substantiate this. I am not sure there are any Tories in heaven they could commune with, but the Liberals in heaven we have communed with all agree with everything I have just said.

I want to take advantage of this opportunity to thank the many people who have made this session one of the busiest and most productive, in my memory, in the quantity and quality of the legislation. Many people may attack this government for being wrong, and some will, but I do not think it will ever be attacked for its failure to press ahead, its lack of courage or its clear vision of where it wants to go.

I want to thank many people; first, the members of this Legislature. In spite of our differences, we have seen that minority government can work and work well. I am the first to acknowledge that we sit on this side of the House today through a series of accidents. I call them happy accidents; others may not. We have had three minority governments over the past four elections and this House has achieved a degree of maturity on all sides, I say that respectfully, from all members to make it work for the benefit of the people we all serve.

When we signed the accord with the New Democratic Party, it did not include everything we or the NDP have talked about but we were both searching for the things we had in common, just as we have a great deal in common with the Conservative Party. In spite of the things that divide us, the things we have in common are far more important. That is what the people of this province want us to act upon.

In summation, may I also thank you, Mr. Speaker, the members of your table, the pages and the number of people who have served us all in making this Legislature work. I have a special obligation to the civil servants. When I sat opposite, my views about them were occasionally different. I am the first to acknowledge it. If I have to publicly atone, I will so do.

I have been impressed with their professionalism, the way they have accommodated one of the fastest transitions we have seen outside of the recent Quebec election, with six days into this House, and they have been dedicated and loyal in every respect. They have respected the leadership that must come from the parliamentary wing and they have never done anything to subvert the leadership they expect us to provide and recognize we have provided in this House.

Miss Stephenson: They have been well schooled.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member for York Mills wants to make a speech. She is welcome to. I always enjoy listening to her. I include even her in my thanks. She provided a great deal of joy to me when I was in opposition and she was in government, just watching her on a daily basis and watching her react to the events of the day --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Talk about Vesuvius.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: One of the things we have to do is make sure we continue to have the maximum participation and creativity of every member of this House.

Miss Stephenson: Mount Rushmore is going to get it; the old stone-face.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member for York Mills should leave the Treasurer alone. He has been criticized by the members opposite. He cannot handle being picked on any more.

Miss Stephenson: The poor, delicate little boy cannot handle anything except that he is setting himself up for Premier.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member could do me a favour. She left for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) while he was speaking; will she kindly leave for me as well? I will be grateful if she goes to her office and listens to this on the machine. She did not hear her own member. She should not feel obliged to hear my speech. I do not think she will enjoy it. She does not have to stay.

5:10 p.m.

I believe we need new outlets for the creativity of the members. We have gone some way towards that in the last session with committees on economic affairs, energy, parliamentary procedures, appointments and things of that sort. We have a responsibility to try to increase that. Indeed, I am anxious to negotiate a new set of rules with members of this House, agreed to by all parties, and try some experiments to make sure every member in this House is participating to the fullest extent of his or her abilities and creativity. If these experiments do not work we can always go back to the old way.

We have nothing to hide on this side of the House. We have shared information. I am not here just to trumpet the cause of the government, but I think any reasonable, fair-minded person -- and I assume this includes the members opposite -- would agree we have brought forward initiatives in the last seven months to bring openness to government unlike any ever contemplated by the members opposite.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is just a reality. We are providing real leadership right across this province with respect to freedom of information. I am not anxious to get into a partisan fight, but members know I am right. Any public opinion poll that has been taken by our government -- I do not think we have taken any -- has been tabled and shared. We believe that information rightfully belongs to the people of this province.

We are bringing television into this House. We are going to let everyone see what is going on here because we think it is important that we be fully accountable in all respects.

We are going to bring in translation and other aspects to make this Legislature accountable to the people it serves. We will have better government when more people know what really goes on in this House.

We have tried to bring a new kind of fairness to the appointment process. We have brought women and minorities into important roles in the government and in the institutions, boards and agencies of this province. We will continue to do that because we take the view that we represent them; they do not represent us. We are trying to make all people feel fully comfortable in their Ontario. That is a profound commitment of this party and we are fulfilling it at present.

We have much left to do. I think we have achieved a great deal in a relatively short time. I assure the House we will continue with these thrusts in the future as we have in the past.

I do not intend to dwell at great length on the budget, except to say I think the Treasurer used extraordinary judgement. All the numbers bear that out. Since January 1985, 196,000 jobs have come to this province. I am not the Prime Minister -- I am not trying to take credit for everything -- but look at the facts and the growth. There has been five per cent real growth over the past year. Housing is up by 33 per cent.

I recognize there are certain inexorable economic forces with which we have to deal as a government, as do others who are not in the government. However, those are the realities of the numbers at the moment. Manufacturing shipments are up by 8.5 per cent. Our economy at the moment is relatively buoyant.

Mr. Timbrell: It is all due to the Premier; is that not wonderful?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is not due to me. I assume the member is not pretending it is due to him.

I am also the first to admit that no one can guarantee a rosy economic future. We face some extremely tough challenges ahead. Along with the rest of Canada and the industrialized world, we have to contend with enormous economic changes that are taking place around us. The recent run on the dollar, followed by the rise in interest rates, shows how quickly these things can happen in the modern world. The world is becoming smaller. We see rapid advances in science and technology. We have a great challenge to meet as a province and as a country. Dealing with these economic realities as an agenda for the future will be an important thrust of this government, as it has been in the past. The last budget had to deal with an enormous number of problems. I point this out to remind members that this Treasurer took a tough-nosed, business view of the books and wrote off close to $4 billion in inflated or worthless assets that had been on the books of this province. Previous governments were too embarrassed to state the real worth of these assets. We came in with a tough business view. We were respected for doing that and did extremely well, in my view, in the circumstances.

By contemporary or traditional accounting methods, the net cash requirements actually came down. We accomplished that in the context of increased programs we promised during the campaign without increasing the deficit. We saw in this budget a great deal of creativity, as was seen in the past and will be seen in the future.

It is not often that politicians have an opportunity to be true pioneers. It is my belief that in the introduction of the legislation for equal pay for work of equal value, the pay equity legislation, we have together participated in something historic. I believe we are in a position to provide leadership to other jurisdictions, not just in Canada but in North America and the free world. I am looking forward to the successful resolution of that new policy thrust.

I am mindful of the objections. I have heard them from everyone. I have heard them from the members opposite. I have a number of letters in my office. I suspect they are very similar to the kinds of letters politicians received in the year 1953, when equal pay for equal work was brought in as the law of the land in Ontario.

It is one of those things we will look back at 20 years from now as we are all sitting around at the Albany Club or wherever we will be sitting around 20 years from now. Not me; they do not invite me. We will say, "Remember that discussion about equal pay for work of equal value? Remember the howls that used to come up, but remember how we surmounted those problems and together forged something that is significant and real and has made a real difference in people's lives?" I think we will look forward to that day. I look forward to sitting down with all the members of this House at our reunion 20 years from now and sharing the credit together.

As members know, we have made a number of initiatives with respect to medical care and northern travel. A number have been alluded to already. The honourable member is quite right; we have faced up to our campaign promise to end extra billing. It is not easy. I am not one who relishes the disgruntlement of the medical profession. I wish it was not so. I respect it as such, but it is a reality that we have the responsibility to govern. This party will never become captive to élites. We will do, and we are doing, what we said we would do. It is my belief that this matter can be worked out with thoughtful discussion. We stand ready to sit down with the Ontario Medical Association on any occasion to discuss the successful implementation of our principle to end extra billing. I hope there is going to be substantial progress along the way in the next little while.

We have also made great initiatives with respect to the elderly. There has been very sensitive work done by my colleague the Minister without Portfolio who is in charge of senior citizens' affairs, the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), that will bear fruit in the next little while.

We have strengthened rent review. We have brought in a comprehensive housing package, which I believe is the most comprehensive view ever taken of the housing situation in this province.

We have provided first-contract arbitration.

Mr. Timbrell: We will see how many starts there are by April.

5:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I see the member opposite is trying to provoke me, saying our policies are a sham. I never cease to marvel at the temerity of my friends opposite attacking us for what we did not do. How they can summon up that duplicity never ceases to amaze me.

In the area of the environment, I agree with the leader of the New Democratic Party that his critic has done an outstanding job, but it is second only to the outstanding job done by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). I am mindful, as are some on this side of the House, of the enormous pressure that comes to bear on people with his kind of dedication and zeal. I have been subject to the pressure, as he has, but we will not yield to that pressure. We believe the land that yields us our daily bread is not for sale. We are going to continue to press the environmental cause and I am very proud it is in the hands of someone as strong-minded as our minister.

There have been many initiatives, and I hope we all share them, because we now are creating an example for the world and not just for Canada and North America. People are coming to us and asking how we are able provide this leadership. I do not see anybody who has left this province because of environmental concerns. I do not see anybody who has left this province because we have taken a tough-minded view. They are ready, willing and able to respond to tough-minded leadership.

We do not try, every time we make a decision, to make every single person happy, because we cannot do it. The only way one can make everybody happy is not to do anything. I know of previous governments in the past that took that view, but that is not our view of our responsibility. As a party, we are very proud to have the opportunity to live our ideals and to practise them in a legislative forum.

We have taken other initiatives in the cultural area with respect to the Ontario Arts Council, the Ontario Film Development Corp. and others that I think will be beneficial not only from a cultural standpoint but also from the standpoint of the economics of this province. I hope that we in this province will continue to play a constructive role in national forums as we continue to discuss free trade and other issues.

I could be proved wrong in future, but I believe relations in this country today are probably as strong as they have been in a very long time, not only with our sister province of Quebec but also with sister provinces in the west, such as Alberta and British Columbia, ones with which we have historic differences. I have spent a lot of time with my peers and all of them, including the Prime Minister, are reaching out to try to end some of the confrontation of the past.

Je crois qu'on va probablement avoir une confédération plus forte, une confédération qui serait plus sensible à tous les besoins de toutes les régions du Canada.

I think we have accomplished a great deal together. I believe that as of yesterday we had passed 34 bills on third reading, we had seven bills on second reading and 21 bills on first reading. Obviously, we still have a lot of work to do in the session that is to come in a couple of months or so. It has been time-consuming and it has been demanding.

I recognize, as the members opposite recognize, that we can come forward with an announcement and say what we are going to do. However, then we get into the difficult and laborious process of working it through the legislative chamber to make it law, taking time and carefully contemplating each clause, each word and all the definitions. We need everyone's help in that regard. Then comes the final stage of the execution and management thereof.

Together we have approached these matters in a sensitive and constructive way. I am mindful of the overblown rhetoric we all use; I am the first who participates in that and probably we are all guilty on occasion. In spite of that, it has gone extremely well. We have accomplished a lot and we have a lot left to do.

I hope the members opposite are persuaded on rereading the expert budget of my colleague the Treasurer, so that they will rise up and support the budget, recognizing it was creative and ground-breaking, one of the finest budgets this province has seen since the great St. Clair Gordon.

In conclusion, I hope everyone has an opportunity to have a little holiday in the next month or two and to get reunited with his or her family. I will look forward to seeing everyone back here some time in April -- I believe the date has been set -- as we sit again on a very busy and, I hope, constructive agenda.

Mr. Speaker: On Thursday, October 24, 1985, Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Mr. Peterson, that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

On Friday, October 25, 1985, Mr. McCague moved, seconded by Mr. Gregory, that the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government be amended by deleting the words following "that" and adding thereto the following:

"This House, recognizing that the 1985 budget fails to provide the policies and programs needed to sustain employment, economic growth, and enhance social equity, condemns the government for:

"Irresponsibly increasing the deficit and jeopardizing the financial stability of the province;

"Its failure to meet the needs of 386,000 unemployed people in Ontario;

"Abandoning the people of northern Ontario by failing to provide for adequate funding for development of the north;

"Ignoring the plight of farmers throughout the province;

"Its failure to respond to the needs and interests of the women of Ontario;

"Its failure to provide for the preservation and enhancement of our environment and resources;

"Inadequate support for homemakers and home care programs for the seniors of Ontario at a time when the demand for these programs is increasing;

"Worsening the situation for our tourism industry by reducing financial assistance and increasing taxes;

"Exorbitant tax increases which will further reduce the spending power of Ontario consumers while offering no visible benefit;

"Its failure to provide assistance in the form of food banks, emergency shelters for those of our citizens who fall through the social safety net;

"Its failure to guarantee accessibility to the health care system by enhancing the Ontario health insurance plan premium assistance programs;

"Neglecting the need for a comprehensive and coherent economic and industrial strategy to generate new growth, employment and wealth in an increasingly competitive and complex international marketplace;

"Therefore this government lacks the confidence of this House."

5:40 p.m.

The House divided on Mr. McCague's amendment to the motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Brandt, Cousens, Davis, Dean, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Lane, Marland, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McNeil, Partington, Pierce, Pollock, Pope, Rowe, Shymko, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, Timbrell, Treleaven, Turner.

Nays

Allen, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Callahan, Caplan, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cordiano, Curling, Eakins, Elston, Epp, Ferraro, Fontaine, Foulds, Fulton, Gigantes, Grande, Grandmaître, Grier, Haggerty, Hayes, Henderson, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Knight, Kwinter, Laughren, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel,

McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. L, Morin, Morin-Strom, Munro, Newman, Nixon, Offer, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Poirier, Polsinelli, Pouliot, Rae, Ramsay, Reycraft, Riddell, Ruprecht, Sargent, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sorbara, South, Sweeney, Van Horne, Ward, Warner, Wildman, Wrye.

Ayes 35; nays 66.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Nixon's motion, which was agreed to on the same vote reversed.

5:50 p.m.

SUPPLY ACT

The following bill was given first, second and third readings on motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon:

Bill 110, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. Mr. Alexander: Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

Assistant Clerk: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 3, An Act respecting Actions arising from Transboundary Pollution between Ontario and Reciprocating Jurisdictions;

Bill 16, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act;

Bill 76, An Act to amend The Public Service Superannuation Act;

Bill 103, An Act to amend the Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1983;

Bill 107, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, we, Her Majesty's most dutiful and faithful subjects of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario in session assembled, approach Your Honour with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty's person and government, and humbly beg to present for Your Honour's acceptance, a bill entitled An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986.

Clerk of the House: The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth thank Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill in Her Majesty's name.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to deliver the following gracious speech.

PROROGATION SPEECH

Hon. Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly, I am pleased to address you for the first time and take this opportunity to look back on some of the work completed during the first session of the 33rd Parliament of Ontario.

My government has given priority to the objective of setting the province on a course aimed at achieving the aspirations of the people, the goals of a strengthened economy, an open government, a clean environment and the creation of opportunities for all. The co-operation and participation of all members have contributed to the efforts to achieve these objectives. For that dedication to duty, you are to be commended.

The Treasurer's 1985 budget dealt with the need to encourage increased economic activity and improve services essential to the health and wellbeing of the people of Ontario in a framework of fiscal responsibility.

The financial statement brought greater clarity to the province's accounting and budgeting procedure and eliminated some outstanding financial obligations, including the note on the province's interest in Suncor oil. Ontario's eight per cent unemployment rate in 1985 was the lowest in four years, and the 7.3 per cent adjusted rate last month was the lowest in 50 months.

The government has set the stage for long-term development through the budget and other measures, including the Futures program, to provide meaningful jobs and training opportunities for hard-to-employ young people; the establishment of funds totalling $80 million to promote excellence in colleges and universities; a $50-million program to help farmers cope with high interest rates; a $20-million allocation for Ontario red meat producers through a tripartite stabilization plan; a $6-million transition fund for tobacco growers and other farmers leaving agriculture and a policy to preserve needed farm land; the creation of a $100-million northern development fund, and an expansion of the role of small business development corporations in the north and the east.

During this session, a concerted drive was launched to improve government efforts to meet the basic needs of the people of this province, including introduction of the comprehensive assured housing for Ontario program; expansion of rent review and funding to aid the construction of at least 10,000 additional nonprofit housing units; the initiation of a process to create 10,000 additional spaces in child care facilities over three years and preparations to open a day care centre at Queen's Park; introduction of legislation to eliminate extra billing by doctors;

Allocation of an 8.3 per cent increase in provincial funding for Ontario hospitals; subsidies to northern residents who have to travel more than 300 kilometres to receive necessary medical care; introduction of legislation to ensure realistic drug prices to protect consumers and bring sound management to the government drug benefit plan; initiation of studies to improve our ability to provide services to senior citizens in their homes; an allocation of an additional $11 million for services to senior citizens; introduction of legislation to tie workers' compensation benefits to inflation; increased family benefits and additional assistance to provide winter clothing for children, and introduction of legislation to provide for arbitration of first-contract disputes.

This session also saw determined efforts to protect and preserve our environment and natural resources, including proclamation of an amendment to the Environmental Protection Act to ensure that those responsible for chemical spills are also responsible for cleaning them up; a new program, Countdown Acid Rain, requiring Ontario's four major producers of sulphur dioxide to reduce emissions sharply; release of an independent audit of the province's forests and their management; an agreement with the state of Michigan to help combat transboundary air pollution and prevent chemical spills in boundary waters, and a policy to regulate the production of soft drink containers to stimulate a province-wide recycling program while protecting the interests of the steel industry and its workers.

During this session, considerable activity was devoted to achieving equal rights for all, including a $1-million grant to the women's Legal Education and Action Fund to support cases brought by Ontario women based on women's rights and guarantees in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; tabling of a green paper on pay equity and introduction of legislation to provide for that principle in the public sector, and proclamation of a Family Law Act bringing our statutes into line with the principles of fairness and equity.

We have also seen considerable progress in opening the process of government to the people it serves, including introduction of freedom-of-information and privacy legislation; the release of 30 public opinion surveys conducted over the past three years and paid for by public funds, and introduction of television in the Legislature for a trial period to set the basis for full-time broadcast.

At the same time, the goal of encouraging and promoting the province's cultural development has been furthered through such measures as the creation of the Ontario Film Development Corp.; allocation of an additional $2 million to the Ontario Arts Council to fund small-sized and middle-sized arts agencies and organizations, and initiation of a dialogue on multiculturalism with representatives of 21 communities across the province.

Honourable members, your efforts to improve the quality of life in this province have been admirable and your achievements have been considerable.

Au nom de notre souveraine, je vous remercie.

In our Sovereign's name, I thank you.

Je déclare cette session prorogée.

I now declare this session prorogued.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly, it is the will and pleasure of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor that this Legislative Assembly be prorogued, and this Legislative Assembly is accordingly prorogued.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

The House prorogued at 6 p.m.

February 12, 1986

MEMBER'S NEWSLETTER

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

SPRAY PROGRAM

ORAL QUESTIONS (CONTINUED)

PENSION FUNDS

GASOLINE PRICES

U.S. FARM BILL

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FLOODING

ABORTION CLINICS

ACID SPILL

ARK EDEN NURSING HOME

APARTMENT CONVERSIONS

CANADIAN CONTENT

PETITIONS

EXTRA BILLING

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

MOTIONS

TRANSFERRAL OF REPORT

RELEASE OF REPORT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

HEALTH DISCIPLINES AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATUS OF BUSINESS

ESTIMATES

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READINGS

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

BUDGET DEBATE

(CONTINUED)

SUPPLY ACT

ROYAL ASSENT

PROROGATION SPEECH