Hansard Transcript 1987-Nov-10 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would like to take a few minutes of the House’s time, because on Wednesday, November 4, 1987, the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) raised a question with respect to the introduction of Bill 1, An Act to provide for greater Certainty in the Reconciliation of the Personal Interests of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council with their Duties of Office. The honourable member and the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) questioned whether the bill was in order because it was referred to in the speech from the throne.

It is an ancient custom that, once Parliament has been formally opened by the declaration of the causes of summons in the speech from the throne, the House may proceed upon any matter at its discretion or convenience without giving priority to the discussion of the topics included in the Lieutenant Governor’s speech. As a deliberate assertion of this right, the House has, as a general rule, given first reading to a bill before proceeding to consider the speech from the throne. However, the precedents indicate that the introduction and first reading of such a bill may be delayed until after other matters if the House is of the opinion that those matters are of greater importance.

In Ontario, from 1867 to 1935, with one exception, the first bill introduced was An Act respecting the Administration of the Oaths of Office to Persons Appointed as Justices of the Peace. In all cases, this bill was a pro forma bill and contained no text. Its purpose was to assert the right of the House to proceed with its own legislation before consideration of the speech from the throne. No such bill was introduced in 1910, but 33 bills were introduced and given first reading. None of these bills was a pro forma bill and none was referred to in the speech from the throne.

After 1935, in most cases, the first bill introduced was a substantive bill and eventually passed all stages and received royal assent. In 1939, 1940, 1945, 1946 and 1947, several bills were introduced on the first day of the session. It would appear that not all of the bills introduced were mentioned in the speeches from the throne.

In the Fifth Session of the 24th Parliament, the bill introduced on opening day was An Act to repeal the Telegraph Act. This bill was specifically referred to in the speech from the throne.

In the First Session of the 25th Parliament, the House met for one day to establish the three select committees called for in the speech from the throne and then prorogued. No bill was introduced in the session.

In the First Session of the 27th Parliament, the House met for two days. On the first day, following the speech from the throne, two motions were debated. One dealt with the printing and distribution of Hansard, the other with dispensing with the address and reply to the speech from the throne and the debate thereon. On the second day, the House established two select committees and gave first, second and third readings to An Act to assist Municipalities to Finance Capital Works. Both the select committees and the bill were referred to in the throne speech.

In the First Session of the 29th Parliament, the House met for five days. Following the speech from the throne, 12 bills were introduced, at least one of which was not referred to in the Lieutenant Governor’s speech.

In the Second Session of the 30th Parliament, the House met in special session for two days. On the first day following the speech from the throne, the Metropolitan Toronto Boards of Education and Teachers Disputes Act was introduced. This bill was specifically referred to in the speech from the throne. However, on the second day of the session, the House considered and passed the Residential Premises Rent Review Act. This bill had not been referred to in the throne speech.

Finally, in 1985, on the first day of the First Session of the 33rd Parliament, An Act to revise the Family Law Reform Act was introduced. This bill was specifically referred to in the Lieutenant Governor’s speech. The member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. R. F. Nixon), then opposition House leader, raised a point of order in the House on June 6, 1985, with respect to the introduction of Bill 1. The honourable member noted that the bill was referred to in the throne speech and that this was a departure from 300 years of parliamentary tradition.

The government House leader, Mr. Grossman, indicated that he agreed with the member for Brant-Haldimand. The point of order was not taken further. As members will note, the application of this custom or practice has varied from time to time in the Ontario Legislature. A custom or practice provides a framework for the proceedings of the House; however, the House is free to apply any custom or practice as it sees fit.

For this reason, I find that Bill 1, as introduced on November 3, 1987, is in order. However, I would ask all members to consider the history and purpose behind the ancient custom. It developed as a result of the struggle for independence of the Commons from the crown and it has an important place in the evolution of parliamentary government. For this reason, I would suggest to members and, in particular, governments of the day that they be vigilant in upholding this custom of parliament.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Allen: As a statement with regard to automobile insurance, I would like to read the following letter:

“I have been a driving instructor for the past four years. Recently, I left a major company to start my own small business. I arranged to insure my driver training car with State Farm Ins. My previous cars were insured in my name or with group insurance. My driving record is so squeaky clean it is almost embarrassing: a few weeks short of 28 years and never a ticket or an accident. In the last eight years, I have driven about 390,000 kilometres.

“This week State Farm terminated my insurance, effectively putting me out of business. Their reason for doing this was because of my husband’s driving record. I should add that we own four cars, three in my husband’s name and one in mine. My business car is in my own name and is used just for teaching. It is never driven by my husband. Personally, I thought we were out of the feudal era, but it appears I am still a chattel of my husband. My business has nothing to do with my husband.

“Insurance that cost me $900 in 1983, $1,150 in 1986, $1,500 in 1987 is now quoted, when you can get an answer back from the companies, at over $3,200. This puts me out of business because it is a great financial disadvantage compared to other driving instructors. Why is my business penalized because of my husband?”

Unfortunately, the insurance legislation proposed by this government has no answer to the question that ends this letter.

1340

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr. Sterling: Tomorrow many of us will attend Remembrance Day ceremonies in our ridings. For some of our MPPs, it will be the first time that they will lay a wreath in memory as representatives of Ontario. For the past 10 years, I have attended seven or eight different ceremonies each year in my riding and this year will be no exception; yet as each year passes, I notice there are fewer and fewer veterans who attend these ceremonies.

In the Ottawa-Carleton area, most of our workforce have the day off since it is a federal government holiday. It is ironic that our public servants have a day off work while those who valiantly served our public during the wars do not share that same privilege.

There is only a small number of individuals from the Second World War who are still in the workforce, but there still are many who fought in the Korean War who must go to work tomorrow. Public servants will enjoy the day at home.

I think it would be most appropriate that we at this time recognize our veterans who risked their lives for our freedom. We believe all veterans who served in the defence of our country during these wars should be given a statutory holiday on November 11. This would give them the opportunity to attend and to participate in Remembrance Day ceremonies, but more important, it would be a small way for all of us to say “Thank you” to the men and women who were willing to put their lives on the line for us.

MISSISSAUGA CITY BOARD OF TRADE

Mr. Mahoney: I would like to bring the achievements of the Mississauga City Board of Trade to the attention of this assembly.

Under the fine direction of Bob Watson, past president, and Mrs. Lois Gibson, general manager, the Mississauga City Board of Trade won recognition from the National Association of Membership Directors for achieving the largest number of new members in 1987, totalling an additional 450 members. This recognition encompasses both Canada and the United States. The board, in its 12th year, has 2,700 members.

During this past August, they also opened up a new business club at 3 Robert Speck Parkway, which allows members to meet one another outside of a business atmosphere in a formal dining-room while also providing complete business facilities for meetings.

I recently attended the annual president’s dinner and met the new president, Fred Trouten. I am sure the Mississauga City Board of Trade will continue its initiative and involvement in Mississauga under his direction.

I feel we should recognize the superb work done by the Mississauga City Board of Trade during 1987 as well as the various other boards of trade and chambers of commerce within the province.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Laughren: In recent weeks there have been statements by the most senior executives of both Inco and Falconbridge that free trade will be good for the mining industry in northern Ontario.

I can understand why Inco and Falconbridge would say that, but they perhaps should have included a further remark that what they really want is a continuation of the past. What they really want is to be able to continue to extract the ore as fast as they can get it out and sell it off as quickly as they can sell it.

If we want a future for northern Ontario that is not a repeat of the past, we do not want free trade. If we want a future that includes tough environmental controls, includes regional development programs, includes requirements that companies such as Falconbridge process the minerals in Ontario and not offshore, and includes the right to set our own stumpage fees, then we do not want free trade.

A free trade agreement would rule out regional development subsidies. A free trade agreement would make environmental controls more difficult than they are now and would make it extremely difficult to require that a company such as Falconbridge process its ores in Sudbury rather than in Norway. Quite simply, free trade would surely take the economic decisions out of our hands and put them in the hands of the marketplace.

ANNUAL REPORT, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to bring to the attention of this House a glaring error in the 1986-87 annual report of the Ministry of Government Services. The acting minister, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), who also held the position of Minister of Education at that time and under whose name this report was released, should be ashamed to have approved this document with such a blatant inaccuracy.

I am referring to the map on page 12 of this document, the annual report. I will also send a copy over to the minister for his information. This is a map of Ontario showing the property management division district and area offices of the Ministry of Government Services. It is quite obvious that the counties of Haldimand and Norfolk are in the wrong places. In fact, they have been switched so that Long Point appears in Haldimand, which as we all know is not so.

Just in case the former minister does not recall this from his earlier days in grade school, I will also send him copies of maps of Haldimand and Norfolk counties from the historical atlas showing their correct locations. It is a shame that this annual report will have to be reprinted at the expense of the taxpayers of Ontario, all because the former Minister of Education could not remember his geography. I am sure the new minister will do a much better job.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr. Daigeler: Born south of Munich one month before the close of the Second World War as the grandson of a German army doctor in the First World War and the son of a German military officer in the Second World War, I salute in deep respect and gratitude my fellow Canadians who gave their lives for freedom and democracy.

Mr. Speaker, that I can stand in this chamber today as the representative for Nepean and honour with you the sacrifice of Canadians is a symbol of hope. It proves the strength of our political institutions and, at the same time, signifies the rebirth of a dignified post-war Germany.

En déplorant les abus d’un nationalisme aberrant, je me réjouis du fait que des femmes et des hommes courageux des deux pays ont su transformer la souffrance du passé en un avenir de justice, de liberté et de paix.

Learning from the past, let us accept the challenge of peace today and renew our commitment to enhance the dignity and rights of all human beings.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other member’s statements? The member for Cambridge for 23 seconds.

CHILDREN’S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Farnan: As the father of a child who received intensive-care treatment at Chedoke-McMaster Hospital, I want to express to the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) how important it is for parents and for their child that this treatment take place in a hospital that permits parents and child to be together through a period of great anxiety and pain.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Hon. Mr. Conway: We would be happy to give the member some additional time.

Mr. Speaker: All right.

Agreed to.

Mr. Farnan: I appreciate that.

During the last months of my child’s short life, my wife and I were able to be close to her and to support her because she received wonderful care and treatment in a hospital within our health region. The current situation at Chedoke-McMaster has resulted in some instances of children from Cambridge and St. Catharines being referred as far away as Ottawa in eastern Ontario for treatment.

I urge the minister and her ministry to address this issue. I ask her to find a rapid resolution to this problem. Her ministry has already delayed for too long responding to the urgency of this situation. For the children’s sake, I ask her, please act now.

1350

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be appropriate to ask unanimous consent of the House so that I might make some remarks in regard to Remembrance Day.

Mr. Speaker: Is there consent?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Tomorrow, November 11, Canadians of all generations across Canada will pause to pay tribute to and to honour all the brave individuals who served and gave their all that we might live in freedom today. On behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I would like to express the government of Ontario’s respect and gratitude.

Canadian men and women have always responded quickly and with determination to defend the freedom and way of life that we enjoy today. This way of life is their memorial, our freedom is their legacy and the realization of world peace is the best monument that we can erect in their honour.

For many people in this province and this country, war is something remote, other than the viewing of special television programs of the remembrance of Vimy, Dieppe, D-Day, etc. We have throughout our province and, yes, within the Ontario public service and within this building, those men and women who served with distinction, were decorated. There are also those who know only too well the horrors of it all through confinement in prisoner-of-war or concentration camps.

In urging the twinning of sister communities throughout the world, General Eisenhower said at the close of the Second World War, “We have learned to win the war, but we have never learned to win the peace.” Our obligation is both to keep alive the memory of those who served and to do everything within our power to be windows to the world in international friendship and understanding.

Tomorrow, Remembrance Day, we have that opportunity, appreciatively, through the leadership of our comrades of the Royal Canadian Legion, to express our gratitude and to take it to those to whom we owe a tremendous debt. At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them.

Mr. Mackenzie: With respect to Remembrance Day, few Canadian families were not touched by the loss of loved ones in the two great wars and the Korean conflict. The grief felt so strongly by the families and loved ones of those who paid the supreme price has been slow to fade, yet fade it does. It takes a little longer for those who did come back, with their broken bodies and lost limbs.

My dad’s older brother was one of those who went off to France in the First World War and did not come back. Beyond the grief, the strongest legacy felt by those who knew him and those who were born later and only heard of him is best described by a comment of one family member who simply said, “What a terrible waste.”

Surely if there is a lesson for all of us, it is to reflect on what a terrible waste is the loss of lives in the horror and ferocity of war. I am personally pleased that the Royal Canadian Legion in Hamilton and across Ontario and Canada has promoted the poppies that we all wear and continues to hold Remembrance Day ceremonies which we all attend in order to keep alive the memories of comrades lost. It reminds us of the debt that we all owe to those who answered the call to defend their country.

It is extremely important that we understand the selflessness of those who paid with their lives. It is equally important that in remembering them we understand that we are not glorifying the horrors of war, that rather we decry the wasteful destruction and the loss of lives and limbs. The torch we must grasp from fallen comrades is that such inhumanity of man to man must never happen again. If this is the focus, then I am sure their sacrifice will not have been in vain. The phrase “We shall remember them” will have some real meaning.

Mr. Brandt: Sixty-nine years ago today, the First World War came to an end. During this war, the Second World War and the Korean War, 100,000 Canadians lost their lives and thousands more were wounded in a valiant effort to protect our nation as well as democracy in the world. One hundred thousand Canadians perished, but their dreams did not die with them. The cause for which these men fought so dearly is one that we have a duty to uphold. As we live freely in our democratic society, let us remember that these lives were not lost in vain.

I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of my party, to pay homage to those honourable citizens who gave so much to protect and defend this great nation. Their wisdom and fortitude have allowed Canadians to live in freedom and in peace.

Tomorrow being Remembrance Day, I ask the members to remember the legacy that was left to us, the legacy of peace, order and the right to live as we choose. We cannot take these liberties for granted. Looking at the world around us, we know the liberties that we in this country and in this province take for granted on occasion are not universal liberties.

Words cannot express the gratitude and respect we hold for our veterans. Only a retention of our cherished heritage and traditional beliefs can. Their hopes and dreams live on in a nation committed to upholding the rights of its citizens. The efforts of our forbears have helped mould a greater awareness of the importance of their cause.

Today let us honour Canada’s heroes and give them our heartfelt gratitude for what they have given us, but let us remember as well that their work is still not completed. There are still wars being fought and lives being lost around the world. If we can do nothing else today, let us pray that one day soon the war to end all wars becomes a reality and we can all enjoy a world of peace and prosperity.

Mr. Speaker: It would seem to me most fitting if I could ask all members to rise for one minute’s silence in remembrance of those who gave their lives.

The House observed one minute’s silence.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I wish to announce increases amounting to $82.6 million in the benefits paid to recipients of Ontario’s family benefits and general welfare assistance programs, to take effect in January 1988.

These increases will ensure that the purchasing power of social assistance benefits in Ontario stays ahead of increases in the cost of living since the last general rate increase of January 1987.

The major item is a five per cent, across-the-board increase in basic allowances for all family benefits and general welfare assistance recipients. In addition, I am announcing an eight per cent increase in maximum shelter subsidy benefits. The shelter subsidy is an amount paid in addition to the basic allowances and is intended to assist those clients faced with higher shelter costs.

These increases are being announced at a time when the rate of inflation stands at 4.5 per cent.

I am also announcing a $25 increase in the maximum handicapped children’s benefit, which will be raised from $275 to $300 a month. The handicapped children’s benefit is provided to low- and middle-income parents caring for a severely handicapped child at home.

The increases represent the continuation of a two-part strategy the provincial government has adopted since 1985 with respect to improvements in our social assistance system. The first part of this strategy has been to substantially improve the benefit levels. The second part has been to reform outdated aspects of the system. I would now like to elaborate on each of these.

1400

Since I became Minister of Community and Social Services, the government has announced, on five separate occasions, major improvements to social assistance benefit levels. Including the $82.6 million I am announcing today, those five improvements represent a 22.5 per cent increase over three years in social assistance benefit levels, well ahead of increases in the cost of living.

I would like to provide some case examples to illustrate, in dollar terms, what these improvements mean.

When I became minister in 1985, a family of four receiving general welfare assistance was receiving a maximum allowance of $762 per month. Including the increase I am announcing today, that figure will be $1,043.

In 1985, a single disabled person in this province was expected to live on a maximum allowance of $519 per month. That figure will rise to $693.

As a final example, in 1985, a sole-support parent with two children aged 10 to 15 was receiving a maximum of $767 per month. That figure will rise to $993.

When you add the value of all the benefits provided by the federal and provincial governments as of January 1988, that sole-support parent will be receiving approximately $15,500 per year.

In addition to continuing to make improvements in benefit levels, the second part of the government’s strategy has involved making fundamental changes to a system which we all know is out of date. The Social Assistance Review Committee chaired by George Thomson has already provided the government with advice that assisted in the removal of the archaic spouse-in-the-house rule.

The government is looking forward to receiving the final report and recommendations of the Social Assistance Review Committee in the early part of next year.

The amount of concentrated effort that so many people have put into the review process will, I am certain, be reflected in the contents of the report.

The committee has visited 14 communities, received some 1,500 briefs and submissions, and commissioned numerous research reports.

Once the review committee is satisfied with the range and quality of its recommendations, we can expect a report of considerable scope and magnitude that will be used as the recent speech from the throne promised, to redesign our system of social assistance so that we can better enable individuals to achieve independence in Ontario.

RESPONSES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Allen: I am quite certain that the 270,000 recipients of family benefits and the 500,000 others who are dependent on social assistance from this government appreciate at least whatever help the minister can give them.

However, I would want in the first instance to call attention to the fact that most of the groups involved in those that are being addressed by this announcement were hoping that the minister would reach something such as a 25 per cent increase in the rates in order to meet their real needs and to catch up with past losses in effect that they have been subject to, notwithstanding a certain increase that does not disguise the losses.

Last March or April, I believe, when Mr. Thomson, as chairman of the review committee that is examining the social assistance payment structure and the delivery system of that in this province, asked that the minister, in the interim awaiting his report, do something to help these very people, I am sure he had something much more substantial in mind when he made that request.

If we look at two or three specific programs that the minister has referred to, the handicapped children’s benefit is really an impossible program. It provides such a small proportion of the real costs that families with handicapped children in fact have in maintaining them in their homes that it might better have been done away with and something else put in its place, if only some more guaranteed access to the special needs program that is at least more generous and is an alternative for many of those families.

If one looks, for example, at the new increased amount of $1,043 that is being offered to the family of four on general welfare assistance in 1985, I am certain that people on that program in Toronto would find it difficult to find adequate two- or three-bedroom housing for that family in any apartment block in most of the city that I am familiar with that would cost much less than that amount of money; it would cost possibly more. So what one is talking about in fact in terms of moving towards real independence is a figure which really provides about 50 per cent of independence and not 100 per cent of it in any sense of the word.

I wonder why the minister, for example when he is dealing with the benefits for single disabled persons in this province, did not take advantage of this opportunity to wipe out the difference that we have all known had to disappear, the difference between the schedules for the guaranteed annual income system for the aged and the guaranteed annual income system for the disabled. Even with the minister’s announcement, there is still a $60 gap or something of that order, if my memory serves me correctly, and I would have hoped this would be the occasion when he could have wiped out that difference, which we have all sought for some time.

Finally, I think the main comment has to be that one hopes the minister will not only introduce the report to this body that Mr. Thomson is making at the earliest moment it is available, but that at that time the minister will also indeed embark on a major overhaul of social assistance payments in this province so that we may move in fact from the measure of poverty to some sense of a measure of adequacy.

Poverty is a kind of negative criterion. We just simply do not want people narrowly to escape being poor in this province; we want people to have a sense that the supports they are entitled to give them a sense of adequacy and acceptance and a broad participation in our community that is enabled by that funding.

I would hope, and we would all hope in this caucus, that the minister will take the next earliest opportunity to really tackle this problem.

Mrs. Marland: At the outset, when you know there is a statement being made on increases for social assistance recipients in a year such as we have had in this province in 1987, you might think that you would be able to get quite enthusiastic and quite excited on behalf of those people.

However, I must say that I do not find the announcement at all exciting. I am disappointed that when the minister says he has had a 22.5 per cent increase over the past three years, he seems to have mentioned that in his announcement as being something worth recognizing. I would really challenge that, when in those same three years the government’s revenue has increased in excess of 35 per cent.

I also find it interesting that there is a reference to the fact that there is an eight per cent increase in the maximum shelter subsidy benefits. I think that is an area, if the minister wants to get out of Disney World and into the real world, where perhaps he should find out what shelter costs. Perhaps in that area he might find some very real assistance if he met with the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and came to a better solution for these people who in fact require the subsidy in the first place.

I also have to wonder when he talks about the monthly allowance for the disabled in this province and what that figure will rise to. I notice that my colleague from the New Democratic Party has also referred to the Gains-A and the Gains-D question of those recipients. I wonder what that figure would rise to if in fact this government had been totally honest in passing through the money which the federal government allocated to those eligible people in that category. In fact, I am still wondering where the $100 per recipient has gone in that particular category alone in 1987.

I also feel I must comment on the controversial spouse-in-the-house rule. I hope the minister is not moving too quickly in that particular area. I notice it is something that has been given to him from the committee, apparently in advance of its final report. I understand it may be difficult to administer and I understand the costs may go up, but most important I understand there is a great deal of concern by people in the field about whether in fact that is the route to go.

I respectfully suggest that before we leap, as the minister says, into the removal of the archaic spouse-in-the-house rule, we know very well what the consequences of that may be.

Finally, I have to say that in the real world in Ontario in 1987, where this government had in excess of $1 billion, I think this announcement is a sham in terms of real support for the people who really need it.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. B. Rae: My question is to the Premier. I wonder whether the Premier is aware that the agreement initialled by Canada’s free trade negotiators and by the representatives of the American government calls, on pages 15 and 16, for some very specific measures to be carried out by provincial governments with respect to wine and spirits. Is it the intention of the government of Ontario to implement the specific requirements of the agreement as they relate to listing practices, pricing practices, distribution practices and blending requirements? Is the government of Ontario going to implement those parts of the agreement?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This is the same question my honourable friend has asked me before. As I said to my honourable friend then, and I will say to him again, we are not prepared to stand by and see the wine industry and/or the grape growers wiped out. As he knows, they have some similar interests and some different interests.

That being said, my honourable friend will be aware that there is an impending General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade decision with respect to our wine distribution practices and possibly beer as well. We have to consider this entire matter in the context of all the, shall I call them, assaults on that particular sector of our economy. In addition, there is one more my honourable friend will be aware of and that is a potential section 301 action under the US trade law against our wine industry that could seek retaliatory action against our distillery industry. So we have to think it all out in that context.

In broad terms, let me say to my friend that we are against the agreement. Obviously, we are not going to sign anything to implement that accord. That is why, with respect to the particular question of the grape growers, we have to think about it in the context of all the assaults they are receiving.

Mr. B. Rae: First of all, the Premier is not going to be asked to sign anything.

Second, can the Premier tell us if he was aware of the section 301 action and the GATT action when he was in the Niagara Peninsula during the election? In particular, was he aware of those two particular actions and their potential impact on the wine industry when he was standing in the shade, sipping grape juice in the Niagara Peninsula and shaking hands with Brian Nash, saying to Mr. Nash, “OK, we will shake hands on that one,” referring to Mr. Nash’s statement, “Don’t sell us out on free trade”?

I wonder whether the Premier can tell us if he was aware of those two actions, and if he was, does he not think it is a little bit dishonest to go into the Niagara Peninsula and say “I am not going to sell you out on free trade,” when he is perfectly aware of other actions that can be taken against the industry and he does not even have the courage and the forthrightness to state what those problems are in the middle of an election campaign? Does the Premier not think that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In the middle of the campaign, I discussed those very matters with Mr. Nash.

Mr. B. Rae: We have culled the files and I do not recall having seen one statement by the Premier in a public manner whatsoever dealing specifically with those questions.

As my final supplementary to the Premier, is he telling us today it is the intention of Ontario not to implement the Wine Content Act with respect to 1988? Is that what he is announcing today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There are a number of issues that attach to the wine question. One is the Wine Content Act, one is the markups, one is listing practices and one is in the context of a potential GATT ruling. All those things have to be taken into account.

We are in discussions with the grape growers, the wineries and a variety of other people. We will be doing everything we possibly can to assist those particular people. That is a different issue from the so-called bilateral trade agreement that the federal government wants to promote with the United States. We are not prepared to sell out our grape growers under that agreement.

INCINERATORS

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Premier. Yesterday, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) raised with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) the question of the incinerators that are being built in Detroit. The minister said, and I quote, “It is Ontario that is in the courts of the United States...fighting for the people of Essex county, fighting for the people of Windsor.”

I wonder whether the Premier can explain to the House why his government is not in the courts of Ontario fighting to protect the citizens of Toronto from the dioxins that are being spewed out daily by the Commissioner Street incinerator right here in the city of Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, let me convey the profound apologies of my colleague the Minister of the Environment, who enjoys very much the daily exchanges he has with the member on these matters. He is far more knowledgeable, as the member will be aware, than I am on these matters.

I know the Minister of the Environment has taken a very keen interest in this particular question. He is looking at a regulation with respect to incinerators that I gather has been around for some 19 years. Is it regulation 308? I could be wrong in that number. As the member knows, the minister has taken some very definitive action with respect to closing down apartment incinerators and a lot of other areas in that regard.

I guess I read the same story the member did in the Toronto Star today with respect to that particular incinerator, but I can tell the member that the minister is very much aware of that and is working on it and with new regulations that pertain not only to that but also to other incinerators.

Mrs. Grier: I would just like to say to the Premier that I raised the question with him not because I wished to deny the Minister of the Environment any enjoyment of my questions, but because I think the questions I am posing relate to policy of the government of which the Premier is the head.

I want to ask my supplementary question with relation to a questionnaire that the Premier filled in during the recent election campaign, the one put out by the Project for Environmental Priorities. When the Premier was asked whether he would support a moratorium on incinerators, his response was no, he would not support a moratorium because environmental assessments would ensure that all new incinerators would be free of toxic contamination.

What I want to find out from the Premier, who said no to a moratorium, is why his government has not done anything to deal with existing incinerators. There was never an environmental assessment for the Commissioner Street incinerator, but the government does have the power to close it down and has made no moves to do so.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that I do not think she is being quite fair in the way she has characterized this. My honourable colleague the Minister of the Environment has indeed banned apartment incinerators, which is a major step forward. He is looking at the regulations on airborne pollutants in that regard. He has brought in major new recycling programs to get to the root of this.

If the member is suggesting that we go in tomorrow and close down that incinerator, and I appreciate her advice if that is what it is, then she will obviously have some alternatives with respect to disposing of the waste that goes through there.

Mrs. Grier: I recognize that there are alternatives and that those alternatives are being worked on, but not sufficiently hard enough, and there are a number of alternatives that are not being explored.

What I want the Premier to recognize and what I would ask him to acknowledge is the hypocrisy of boasting about the actions that are being taken in the United States against incinerators that country may be planning to build, boasting about centres of excellence and high technology here in Ontario, and yet tolerating, almost on the very doorstep of this Legislature, an incinerator that is decrepit and obsolete. Where is the logic and where is the consistency in that kind of an approach?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I would say to my friend that she has tried to bring a lot of unrelated matters together to make her point. She is not happy with our centres of excellence, not happy with our centres of entrepreneurship and a number of programs we are undertaking with respect to excellence in education. That is fine if my honourable friend disapproves of that.

But I say to my friend that there is a problem. As I understand it, that incinerator is not violating the current guidelines, but on the other hand, that does not mean for a moment that we should not be improving those guidelines and my honourable friend is doing that. I am sure the member will acknowledge, even though the problems exist, that this minister has taken a very activist and creative approach to solving those problems. I think it is very easy for her to say in opposition, as she constantly will, that whatever we do is not enough. But I ask her to compare it to any reasonable standard in this country or in the United States and I think she will see that Ontario is viewed as a leader in North America with respect to environmental controls.

1420

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

Mr. Brandt: In the last couple of days, the Premier, through his government, released a world-class study relating to free trade in which some comments were made to the effect that 100,000 jobs would be at risk in Ontario, that those jobs were primarily in textiles and in certain types of manufacturing and, further, that those jobs would be primarily female jobs.

Now, the Premier, being someone who at one time had at least some modest interest in an importation company that was involved in purchasing from other countries in the world, will know full well that this particular industry, primarily textiles, is under attack not from the United States primarily, and in the context of a free trade agreement would not be under attack at some future point from the US, but is in fact being competitively challenged by countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and many other countries, some of which are Third World countries, which are now getting into that business.

Would the Premier not agree that those 100,000 jobs that were identified in the study that was released -- that world-class study that we received in the last couple of days -- would in fact be at risk with or without free trade?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the object of the study was as it relates to that particular binational agreement that is coming by. Obviously, we live in an international trading atmosphere; obviously, we have to consider our place on the globe, not just in North America.

The current studies that are going on, I say to my honourable friend, are in the context of a bilateral, binational agreement -- the so-called free trade agreement -- and what we are trying to do, as best we can in the circumstances, is to quantify the effects of that, both positive and negative. That is one study. There will be other studies as well that try to determine that.

My honourable friend is suggesting that we have to trade in the world. I would agree with my honourable friend, and admittedly, there are lots of assaults from many corners of the globe. But what we are looking at is the so-called free trade agreement and the specific effects on our economy.

Mr. Brandt: Recognizing there are these competitive difficulties that we have from low-wage countries, and taking the position that I do, which may be contrary to the Premier’s, that in fact many of these jobs would be at risk with or without a free trade agreement as a direct result of some of the situations that are developing on a global scale, particularly as they relate to textiles, footwear and other industries, are the Premier and his government prepared to move quickly to assist some of these workers to upgrade their skills, to advance to some of the new technologies that may be necessary to find some different types of employment in the future, recognizing that some of those jobs will be lost with or without free trade?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think what my honourable friend fails to understand is that this country has methods for controlling imports from some of the so-called Third World countries he is talking about, particularly from the Pacific Rim.

He will know, I am sure, that a lot of the emerging countries -- countries such as Jamaica and many others -- are making a full assault into the textile business and many others, but we have methods to control those imports. Essentially, they function under national quotas now.

I do not think my honourable friend would want to confuse the two. Yes, we always have to consider our competitive position vis-à-vis any country in the world. But every country also has the sovereign right to protect its own markets, should it so choose, from any imports from any other country.

Yes, to my honourable friend’s question, there are job dislocations going on daily, weekly and monthly in this province. We have some of the most comprehensive programs in this country today to deal with those. We have introduced Transitions and a variety of others; we have a training strategy in this province that is considered a leader. But it is interesting that the federal government, which with one stroke of its treaty-making pen could wipe out literally hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country, has yet to come forward with one cent in terms of a special adjustment, with one new program in terms of adjustment.

I think my friend -- a strong proponent, I gather, of the free trade agreement as has been presented to this House -- would want to stand up and defend it and say, “What is the federal government going to do for those people who will be dislocated as a result of that agreement?”

Mr. Brandt: The federal government was prepared to enter into an agreement with the province relative to new skills training programs and it was this government that delayed that particular program for up to a year and has held back the money that would be forthcoming on a joint basis from the federal government. The federal government is, in fact, prepared to assist and the Premier knows that is the case.

The question I put is, in a competitive environment such as we have at the moment in Canada and in Ontario, and recognizing that the textile industry, the footwear industry and some light manufacturing industries are at risk as a result of international competitiveness -- which has absolutely nothing to do with free trade but has to do with the importation of low-priced goods from other countries -- is this government, recognizing that this is a problem, prepared to make some anticipatory moves to help some of these workers make an adjustment well before the time occurs when it is an absolute crisis?

We are trying to avoid the kind of thing we have raised a number of times in the House, with respect to the housing crisis developing in Ontario which this government is doing very little, if anything, about. We are trying to get the government to move on this situation when there is a --

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

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend asked me a second supplementary, and I will try to assist again. He will be aware that the federal government has actually been cutting back in the last year or two in terms of the real dollar transfers with respect to training. I am sure my honourable friend will want to check that out, because he is such a strong proponent.

Now he is standing in this House and asking me to train workers who are going to get laid off, maybe, as a result of some deal that is going to be imposed by the federal government. Would it not be more constructive --

Mr. Brandt: I did not say they were going to be laid off as a result of the deal.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Now he has said they are not going to be laid off, so what is the point of his question? Either they are going to be laid off or they are not going to be laid off. He is saying he wants it both ways.

In fairness, I say to my honourable friend, he wants to get precisely on top of the question he wants to ask and then I will try to give an answer. Are they or are they not going to be laid off? If he thinks they are going to be laid off, why would he not go to his federal colleagues and say, “Assist with those people you are going to lay off”? If they are not going to be laid off, what is the point of the question?

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Last week, outside the Legislature, the minister indicated that the Ontario home ownership savings plan would be made available before the end of this year, so it would be available in the 1987 taxation year. Would the minister indicate in the Legislature that this plan will be instituted in time for the 1987 tax year?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The home ownership savings plan, which was announced in the election campaign, is supposed to be coming forward soon. I did not indicate a specific date.

Mr. Cousens: In the Globe and Mail of November 4, 1987, the minister indicated that very thing. She had better start reading the paper or maybe there is something wrong with the facts she is giving.

Let me enlighten the minister on some startling facts from Metropolitan Toronto home buyers. First, someone living right now in a two-bedroom apartment which is not government subsidized pays roughly $966 per month. The average price per home in Metropolitan Toronto next year will be approximately $200,000. A person making $40,000 per year will not be eligible for a mortgage.

I would like to ask the minister what kind of home she expects anyone to purchase in 10 years with the $10,000 savings plan the government is offering, assuming this program will be in place in the near future?

1430

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The Ontario home ownership savings plan is one feature of a variety of strategies that we are going to be using to make housing more affordable for more people in Ontario. The other parts of the strategy have been detailed here before. They include, in particular, more creative and innovative use of land.

Mr. Cousens: Will the minister tell us what her other strategies are?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I gather there are several people who are a little impatient with the member across the way, who seems to be hard of hearing.

We have listed a variety of methods we are going to be using. Let me simply highlight the one that has the most impact, and that is new strategies for the use of land.

While I have the floor, may I point out to the member across the way that one important way of increasing the supply of affordable housing is through building nonprofit housing in our various communities. Our government has used the nonprofit method in partnership with nonprofit housing corporations across the province. However, for some reason the town of Markham, from which our member seems to come, has no such nonprofit housing corporation. I wonder if I can get the agreement of the member opposite to work hard with his friends and colleagues on municipal council to make sure there will be a nonprofit housing corporation in Markham soon.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Pouliot: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. The minister will be only too aware of my consistent efforts to have his ministry four-lane the portion of the Trans-Canada Highway in northern Ontario. He must be very much aware of the carnage, the petitions, the letters, and yet we have not received a commitment from his ministry.

What timetable approach has he undertaken so that northerners will be the beneficiaries of an impact in terms of tourism, in terms of safety and also in terms of economic development in the north?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I thank my friend the member for Lake Nipigon for his question. I share his concern for the Trans-Canada Highway and other highways of equal importance to the economic and tourism development and for the regional needs across the province for that road and others.

The member would be aware that the Trans-Canada Highway, Highway 17, stretches some 2,000 kilometres from Manitoba to Quebec. Within that distance, there are tremendous pressures on this government to improve and, in some cases, widen Highway 17, known as the Trans-Canada.

I undertook some time ago -- and the member would be aware -- to have my staff review as quickly as possible and to the best of their ability a study to see what it would cost. Recent figures indicate that some $3 billion would be needed in 1987 dollars to commence a widening project. I would point out the pressures in the areas we are working in around Ottawa in Arnprior, Sudbury, Wawa, Nipigon, Thunder Bay and Kenora. We are not ignoring Highway 17, the Trans-Canada.

I remind my friend that we also approached our federal counterparts, who indeed participated in the original construction of the Trans-Canada Highway back in the 1950s, to participate in some joint-venture funding. I can tell him that the federal Minister of Transport, as recently as this summer, has said no.

Mr. Wildman: He said you did not ask him.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: That is not true; we did.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interjections are out of order.

Mr. Pouliot: The minister is a conjuror of illusions, nothing short of that. No wonder his federal counterpart will not fund a highway. The analogy or the parallel, with respect, is that of a young lad wanting a beat-up Ford for his 16th birthday and on the eve of that birthday changing his mind for a Ferrari.

This minister asked the federal minister for $2.7 billion. I suspect he knew very well that under those circumstances there was not a chance in hell that the northerners would have the benefit that they, southerners, are taking for granted.

I am asking the minister to be patient. On a timetable, will he please give us a commitment that he means what he says and that he will start, step by step, giving us a four-lane highway in northwestern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am not sure what the member’s first comments were. I could not hear them, but I think he said he is mad at me or he likes me; I am not sure which.

With respect to the fatalities, and I think the member’s word was “carnage,” on our highways, while I do not pretend for a moment to take credit for it, but certainly everyone in Ontario may -- the police departments, our ministries and others -- in 1986 we had the lowest number of fatalities on Ontario’s highways since 1954. It is something I am very proud of.

We have indeed asked the federal government to participate in a massive project. We are attempting to widen, as our friend in the front benches is well aware, through Sault Ste. Marie, which is his priority for widening Highway 17. He might want to negotiate something there, but the member has my assurance that this government will do, as it has done. The Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has provided more funds for roads and highways in this province than the member has ever seen. We will continue with the passing lanes, the restructures, the shoulder widenings and all of those other things which make passage on our Ontario highways safe.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. I would like to continue to pursue and bring into full public view the issues surrounding the nightmare we know as Bill 51.

We have engaged for four days in this House in trying to get at the points of the problems with this bill. We have not gotten the straight answers we had hoped for. The media, fortunately, have been able to take those questions and ask them of her ministry. We have been able to establish the numbers of outstanding applications. We have been able to establish several other facts -- that the backlog will take over a year now to complete.

My question today to the minister is, after being on the job for six weeks, has she asked her ministry staff if one single section 74 or section 82 whole-building review has been done at any level within her four regional offices or her 21 field offices? In 11 months, has her ministry been able to bring at least one order in this province in those two categories to be able to issue an order?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The rent review process is going more slowly than we wanted, but let me tell the member today that we are going to be adding staff to the tune of a 35 per cent increase in the staff that is currently handling rent review applications, and that will considerably speed up the process.

Mr. Jackson: It is important, if the minister is going to continue to increase staff, that they know exactly what they are doing. I have been bringing to the floor of the Legislature a ministry document that she persists in not making public. Specifically, I have advised this House that in Toronto 44 per cent of all the applications are for 25 per cent or greater. In North York, 35 per cent of all applications are in excess of 25 per cent.

There is one jurisdiction in all of Ontario that is unique. It would appear that there are 511 buildings her ministry is unable to categorize in terms of what the requested increase is going to be. They just disappeared off her statistics. It is unusual because that means that in this community 66 per cent of all the buildings are unaccounted for; so even if the ministry hires the staff --

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Jackson: Why is it that in Scarborough, the community where the minister’s predecessor was the Minister of Housing, there are 511 buildings unaccounted for in any category, and why was all information about Scarborough stopped from public access before the provincial election?

1440

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The matter of the buildings that seem to have disappeared from the record is entirely new to me. I will talk to the ministry officials to discover what, if anything, has happened there.

HOURS OF WORK

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of the extent of overtime currently in some departments at Stelco? For example, does he know that in the iron-making mechanical department 185 workers for the first eight months of this year have worked 25,227 hours of overtime? In spite of that, 25 people have just been shifted out of that department. Is he aware that in the steam-generation utilities, in October alone, 32 people worked 106 shifts of overtime totalling 1,848 hours, one worker working 11 overtime shifts in that period?

Will he investigate this excessive use of overtime, when all those on summer recall have been laid off and when there are large numbers of workers on layoff in that plant?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not aware of the particular use of overtime that my friend the member for Hamilton East is referring to. Obviously, I am going to look at it to see if it warrants investigation. The larger question is one that I think this House is very familiar with. My friend from Hamilton East is aware the government is considering a new approach to overtime as a result of work done in the Donner study. When we have completed that work, we will be bringing proposals, first to cabinet and then to the House, in the form of amendments to the Employment Standards Act.

As to the particular instance, I know the degree to which my friend can get exercised about that. I will make note of the particular instances and if they warrant coming back with a response on the matter, I will do that.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister will also be aware of the Donner committee he referred to, which was set up better than a year ago now. It was at first, hopefully, to report last spring and then last fall. I understand that report is in; I am not even sure the follow-up report is not in. I am wondering if he can tell us when this House is going to see the result of that committee’s study. Not only would members on this side of the House like to see that report, but some members of the committee the government commissioned would like to see it dealt with in this House too and are beginning to wonder if it was not a bit of a runaround.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It was not a runaround at all; it was, is and will continue to be a very serious exercise. I recall that my colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) last session about this time said “before the next full moon.” I have not looked at the lunar calendar, but it should not be too far after the next full moon.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM

Mr. Cureatz: I have a question of the Premier. Before I do that, Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on your appointment again as Speaker. I had the opportunity a time long ago of serving in a similar capacity and I can appreciate the fine line you have to walk. May I add, though, if you have not noticed, that there are a fair number of newcomers to this assembly. Once they learn the ropes and become a little more rambunctious, I am sure you will in your capacity hold a stern fist and make sure all members --

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the comments. You do have a question?

Mr. Cureatz: May I also congratulate the Premier on his election on September 10 and his victory. During the campaign, as the Premier criss-crossed Ontario, I am wondering if he became familiar with a particular municipality called the region of Durham.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First of all, let me take this opportunity to congratulate my honourable friend the member for Durham East on achieving his re-election. Since I am here, may I say to you, Mr. Speaker, congratulations, and may I commend you on the very dignified way you hold your responsibilities.

While I am at it, may I commend the dean of the House, the member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. R. F. Nixon) for his outstanding re-election and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) for his elevation and return to the House. May I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) on his recent ascension and may I say to the absent member, the leader of the Conservative Party, what a fine job he is doing serving in an interim capacity.

To the member for Brampton North (Mr. McClelland), a new riding, may I congratulate him. He is a new member in this House and I think he has distinguished himself very well.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the Premier that the throne speech debate will continue after routine proceedings. Do you have a response?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, help me. Was there a question? Help me out.

Mr. Cureatz: Do you know the regional municipality of Durham.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Do I know the regional municipality of Durham?

I can say without fear of contradiction, we now have, in most cases at least, the most outstanding representation from Durham that I have ever seen in this House. They stand and they make their voices felt. They have a great impact on public policy. It is a compliment to the judgement of the voters of Durham with one possible minor exception.

Mr. Cureatz: In that regard, since the Premier is so familiar with the regional municipality of Durham, he is, of course, familiar with those three excellent Liberal members who have been elected: the member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger), the member for Durham Centre (Mr. Furlong) and the member for Durham West (Mrs. Stoner). Since the Premier is familiar now with the regional municipality of Durham -- it is probably the largest-growing municipality in Ontario, if not Canada -- I am wondering why he has not seen fit to put one of these three newly elected Liberal members in the executive council, so the regional municipality of Durham could feel comfortable that one of the largest-growing areas in Ontario would have a fair and geographically represented say in terms of what takes place around the cabinet.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: May I say I detect a little tinge of envy in that question. Let me share my problem with the honourable member. When presented with three such outstanding individuals as my honourable friend has mentioned, it is like being presented with the choice among gold, frankincense and myrrh. Which is the best?

Unfortunately, there was not room for all three of them, but it is interesting to note, because they are such strong and powerful voices, these people have such an effective voice in government today that it does not matter what side of the House they sit on or from what position they express their views, they are forcefully heard. I believe the people of the great region of Durham are now saying they are at least three quarters extremely well represented.

Mr. Cureatz: The next cabinet shuffle -- one of them?

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Yesterday my friend and new colleague the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) asked me a question about prosecution as a result of what she described as a potentially fatal incident at one of the facilities of Inco.

As a very small bit of background, on July 4, 1986, two supervisors at that facility removed a protective structure prematurely. That was the incident my friend was talking about. She was right, of course. Prosecutions were being considered in that matter and the process of evidence-gathering was going on. In fact, files did go back and forth from Toronto to Sudbury on a number of occasions.

She was also right that the file ultimately was lost before a final determination as to whether there was sufficient evidence to lay a prosecution was taken. The gist of my friend’s question was about what steps the ministry has taken as a result of that incident.

I should tell the member the branch has taken a number of steps. The first is that it has recently appointed a special investigation officer. One of the responsibilities of that investigation officer is to improve and streamline the prosecution procedures, particularly the tracking of cases through the system.

1450

I also want to say that the ministry appropriately reprimanded the individual who was responsible for having lost the file, and we have taken a number of steps to computerize the system so that those instances do not --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Miss Martel: The minister has talked about a special investigations officer who has been appointed to streamline these cases. In this particular case, are there going to be charges laid against the company? Is there going to be a prosecution in this case even at this late date?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The simple answer to that question is no.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Morin-Strom: My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Today the minister has indicated that the estimated cost of four-laning the Trans-Canada Highway through northern Ontario is approximately $3 billion. The last budget committed additional funding of $26 million for highway construction in the north. At that rate, under the minister’s timetable, we are looking at over 100 years to complete the four-laning of the highway across northern Ontario.

The minister would know that the only connection between a major centre in northern Ontario and southern Ontario via four-lane divided highway is the highway which runs through the state of Michigan from Sault Ste. Marie to Detroit, and then our connection would come across the highways in southern Ontario.

What is the minister’s timetable, and is he going to increase the funding so that we will see major highways connecting the major centres in northern Ontario with the rest of our country and with the centres in southern Ontario in this century, not next century?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I thank my friend for the question. As I indicated earlier, we are looking at in excess of $3 billion in 1987 dollars for any meaningful project on Highway 17, the Trans-Canada, and other pressures on Highway 11, also part of the Trans-Canada. There are a number of highways and roads pressures, not only into Michigan but also Highway 61 from Thunder Bay into Minnesota, and I can go on and on.

We have the dollars he refers to as extra funds, not the total fund that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) allocated for roads and highways in the north; the member is aware of that.

We are continuing with our efforts with the federal government, and I would urge him to enlist the aid of his federal counterparts in northern Ontario to assist us in persuading the federal Minister of Transport to change his mind.

Mr. Morin-Strom: The minister refers to the fact that they are additional funds. Well, we need additional funds because the base budget is barely enough to keep the roads in the shape they are supposed to be in in the north, let alone to commit the funds we need additionally to get the kind of four-laning we want across our northern highways.

I will be enlisting our northern colleagues in the federal caucus, and in fact they appear to be the only ones who are in contact with the federal government on this issue. Certainly the minister himself has not been, as is evidenced by a letter from the Minister of Transport, Mr. Crosbie, to one of the NDP federal members, John Parry, MP for Kenora-Rainy River, in which the federal minister states:

“As no large-scale improvement program for the Trans-Canada Highway has been initiated by the provincial government, nor have any relevant official representations been received by the federal authorities, I cannot envisage any federal involvement in the project...”

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a question?

Mr. Morin-Strom: Yes. My question to the minister is, why has he not been acting on behalf of this province to ensure that we do have a commitment from the federal government to assist us, and even if it will not assist us, why does he not put in a phased approach so that we get the improved highways we need across northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I can assure the member that we are indeed doing what we can do in a number of areas, as I expressed in response to an earlier question.

I can assure every member of this Legislature that I indeed have approached and my ministry has approached the federal Department of Transport and spoken directly to the federal minister. Indeed, I raised that issue over a year ago at the Roads and Transportation Association of Canada here in Toronto.

I also want to say to my friend that, because I heard from him and his colleagues, I have taken it upon myself to share his concerns, and less than three weeks ago I personally drove nearly a full day from Sudbury to Sault Ste. Marie to see for myself the concerns he has raised in this House. I will do what I can to address them.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr. McLean: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Can he explain to the House why Vickers and Benson, the same advertising firm that supplied the Liberal Party over the past two elections with its services, has suddenly captured an over 500 per cent increase in advertising business from the ministry by jumping from $1.9 million in 1985-86 to $9.9 million in 1986-87?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: The member for Simcoe East should be aware of something that this government put into effect on September 30, 1985, when the government announced a new, open system for selecting advertising agencies for ministries, agencies, boards and commissions under the direction of the Advertising Review Board.

I should say to the member that the competition that awarded Vickers and Benson the advertising contract was conducted through the Advertising Review Board. I should also mention to the member that this new process ensured that the competition was both open and fair. Two hundred and fifty Canadian-owned companies were invited to submit their credentials for this contract. Of the 17 companies short-listed and four finalists, the selection process established by the Advertising Review Board awarded the contract to Vickers and Benson.

Mr. McLean: Could the minister tell us in this Legislature who the four on the short list were?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I do not have that with me today, but I will get in contact with the member and give him the details he has asked for. I will say that the process is now very different and new and is very fair and equitable to all concerned.

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr. Wildman: In view of the unexplained absence of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), I would like to place a question to the Premier. He will know that on August 21, the Minister of Natural Resources responded to the controversy over competing demands by user groups in the area of Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater Provincial Park by stating that he was going to appoint a so-called working group to review resource-use issues in the area to suggest ways to resolve potential use conflicts.

How can the committee report to the minister by December 1, as he indicated it would, when he has not even appointed it as yet?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great difficulty.

Mr. Wildman: Obviously.

In view of the fact that in his August announcement the minister stated that he was going to allow the carrying on of forestry operations in the Gull Lake area, a statement which itself calls into question the sincerity of the government in appointing this committee as a way of resolving competing land use demands, how can the Premier justify the allocation by the ministry yesterday of another area for logging in the area proposed for a wilderness reserve even before the committee starts its work?

Will the government impose a moratorium on logging in the proposed wilderness area until the working group gets going with its report and completes its work?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not want to minimize or treat this issue lightly. I appreciate my honourable friend’s question. Shall we say it is as difficult an issue of this particular type as I have faced since we have been in government in the last couple of years. My honourable friend, I am sure, as a northerner and as an environmentalist, both of which are not necessarily incompatible in any way, will recognize an enormous clash of values over this particular issue.

My honourable friend will be aware of the enormous pressure from a number of the communities there, in particular mills, and I am referring to Milne and Goulard, which have immediate wood supply problems. At the same time, we are anxious to establish that whatever is done there is done respecting the environmental values in that particular area.

1500

I think we have proceeded in a thoughtful way that is going to try to reconcile these two very difficult questions. There are ongoing discussions, I say to my honourable friend, with respect to getting the best people to handle this situation in a fairminded way that in a sense respects both sides of this issue. He will be aware there is no suggestion of anybody’s touching the park; the question is over the buffer zone. Someone just said, “That should be the buffer zone,” and then other people said, “Well, that should be the buffer zone.” It is not a question of logging in the park.

Mr. B. Rae: We know that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Well, some people do not know that; the only reason I am saying it is that some people do not know that. So the question is, what should take place in the buffer zone, how big should it be, who should set it and what should the rules be? I do not have all those answers for my friend today, but I say to him that I think we will conduct that, hopefully in as fairminded a way as possible, and come back with a sensible resolution to this House as soon as possible.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Treasurer. Our party has now established the appalling fact that there is currently a backlog of some 23,000 whole-building rent review applications in the Ministry of Housing, an estimated quarter of a million units now backlogged.

Yesterday the Treasurer tabled the public accounts of Ontario, showing a 76 per cent increase in expenditures for rent review operations. One obviously wonders how they could get into this backlog mess with such a dramatic increase in spending -- and hiring, I might add, as we have heard -- over one year.

Does the Treasurer think, and would the boys back at Earl’s Shell think, that the public is receiving value for its money on its rent review operations?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I doubt that in the municipality of South Dumfries there is any building that qualifies under rent review. I will ask the boys on the weekend about that matter.

But I think the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) has made it very clear indeed in her answers this week and last week, which were very well put to the House, that she has a commitment to see that this backlog is worked through effectively, and the money the honourable member referred to has been used to get competent staff and facilities so that the reviews the honourable member is concerned with and we are all concerned with can be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, with fairness and equity for all.

Mr. Harris: I would like first to refresh the Treasurer’s memory. Rent review cost us $7.8 million in 1985-86, $13.8 million last year and this year estimates are $25.3 million, a 220 per cent increase in cost over that two-year period. The only thing growing faster than these rent review budgets is perhaps the hiring of more staff and the backlog of the whole-building applications for review. These are the things that are increasing.

We have heard today again that the minister’s answer is that she is going to hire 35 per cent more staff again. So the government hires staff on staff, it triples the budget and yet the backlog keeps growing and growing.

Before the Treasurer throws any more money away and doubles and triples the budget again, adding another 35 per cent of staff, would he not agree it is time for a full value-for-money audit on the Ministry of Housing’s rent review program?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member will be aware that in the last two years since we took office we have fulfilled the commitment made in the election of 1985 and supported by almost all the members of the House, although some of the Conservatives did not know which way to vote on this. One of them in the front row is indicating that he did not vote for it.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that we extended rent review to all of these apartment buildings, all of them. At the same time, we have established a rent registry. All these are expensive but extremely important aspects to the improvement of the policy that was left to us in such disarray.

HOUSING ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning yesterday’s tabling of public accounts documents that detailed $51.8 million that were allocated to provide housing in Ontario; her ministry failed to deliver on that. How does the minister explain to all those hundreds of community groups around Ontario who had their applications to provide affordable, decent housing in their community denied by her ministry that she wasted almost $52 million worth of allocations she could not deliver? How does the minister explain that?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The allocations process that we underwent in the past year has delivered a significant number of housing units, and let me read some of them for the member: in Kenora-Benedickson, 75 housing units opened in August 1987; in Thunder Bay-Picton, 50 housing units in September 1987; in Ottawa, 104 housing units in June 1987; in Stoney Creek, 60 housing units, fully occupied; in the town of Haldimand, 40 units in September 1987; in the township of Roxborough, 26 units opened in June 1987.

Mr. Breaugh: I appreciate that the minister is a very good reader, but the question is, who screwed up? There were almost 10,000 units under certain plans that could have been provided to people in Ontario. More than $50 million was allocated to provide decent, affordable housing for people across Ontario, and her ministry screwed it up. Who did it?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: One of the programs we had --

Mr. Laughren: Why are you pointing to Alvin?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Is the member interested in seeing the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Curling)? He is right here.

The Ministry of Housing, under one of its programs called Renterprise, did not achieve the targets we had set for it, and that is one of the reasons we decided it was not moving quickly enough and we decided to reallocate the resources towards nonprofit and co-operative housing starts.

Mr Harris: I do not know why the member for Scarborough North sits there and applauds these answers.

Mr Speaker: The question is to which minister?

MINISTRY BUDGETS

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Treasurer. I have before me this stinky-flowered document of 1987. On page 50 of this document there is a line item that says, “Expenditure Savings and Constraints,” $350 million; $275 million will be pared out of operating budgets, $75 million will be pared out of the capital budgets.

I guess we are a little past halfway through this fiscal year. I wonder if the Treasurer can tell us now which ministry programs the $275 million operating is coming out of and which ministry capital program the $75 million is coming out of.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I expect in Ontario Finances, the most recent issue of the publication to be tabled early next week, there will be some detail in that publication concerning that, but I can assure the honourable member that we have every expectation of achieving our goal, certainly from the capital budget as well as the operating budget, and that he need only ask the individual ministers how successful Management Board has been in reviewing this matter. I can assure the member that, by the end of the fiscal year, a report of the total amount and where it comes from will be made available to the House.

Mr. Harris: I can only assume from the nonanswer that the Treasurer has not got a clue or that he does not know. We knew there was a fair bit of sleight of hand in his budget when it was brought in. He allocated $275 million more than he said there was going to be money for to the ministries. Is he telling us now, more than six months through this fiscal year, that he has no idea? Or is what he is telling us that he is refusing to tell us? He knows, but it is not for us to know, it is not for the public of Ontario to know where the sleight of hand appeared back when he presented this budget. Is it that he does not know or that he refuses to tell us?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member would recall that this procedure was adopted from the precedent set by Frank Miller, the former Treasurer and former Premier of Ontario. In fact, it is quite a useful budgeting procedure. I cannot list for him right now where the money is being extracted from the various ministries, because there will be a full report of those $350 million in savings. I can assure him that it is going to be done without seriously impairing the ability of my colleagues to carry out their very important responsibilities.

1510

DENTAL CARE

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. The minister may not be aware that the Liberal Party and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) promised to bring in a dental care program for senior citizens during the 1985 election campaign, but nothing has been done to implement this promise during the past two and a half years in office. Since she undoubtedly does know that the Premier repeated this promise in the 1987 campaign, can she tell me whether she has yet brought to cabinet a program and a timetable for implementation of this promise to our senior citizens, who have lost faith in the credibility of Liberal promises?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: In the midst of an ageing population and a rapid increase in the cost of health care strategies and delivery, we must develop new strategies for healthy living. I might indicate that some of these health areas will include a multidisciplinary department of geriatrics at McMaster University in Hamilton. The office for senior citizens’ affairs has been working in co-operation with the Ministry of Health in developing such initiatives. The additional funding to expand home support services as well will be another service that will continue to help seniors to stay in their homes.

There are five geriatric hospital services and plans. The Ministry of Health has issued the guidelines for them. We have the programs up and running in both Ottawa and Hamilton and three are set to go in London, Kingston and Toronto to address the health needs of seniors.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for oral questions. I see the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) on his feet.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Cousens: Under section 30 of the standing orders, I give notice of dissatisfaction with the answers given by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek).

PETITION

DIALYSIS UNIT

Mr. Pollock: I have a petition.

“To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

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

“That the government of Ontario provide the funding for a haemo-dialysis unit for one of the hospitals in Peterborough.”

It is signed by 79 people from Peterborough county and surrounding area.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Ms. Bryden: At this time, may I give notice that I am dissatisfied with the answer to my question to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. It appeared to have no teeth in it and I would like to have it debated.

Mr. Speaker: You will follow the usual routine and give it to us in writing as well.

MOTION

ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that when the House adjourns today it stand adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Monday, November 16, 1987.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BARRISTERS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved first reading of Bill 15, An Act to amend the Barristers Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The purpose of this bill, which is reintroduced this session, is to deal with the appointment of Queen’s Counsel.

CLEAN WATER ACT

Mrs. Marland moved first reading of Bill 16, An Act to encourage the Rehabilitation of Water Delivery Systems in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs. Marland: The purpose of the bill is to ensure a clean water supply by promoting and assisting in the rehabilitation of water delivery systems. The bill would require the government of Ontario to investigate the question of the need for rehabilitation of water delivery systems used in municipal water systems throughout the province, considering the desirability of having a clean water supply, as well as environmental and health concerns, to assist municipalities in determining how most efficiently to effect appropriate rehabilitation of those water delivery systems, to assist municipalities in determining the cost of that rehabilitation and, finally, to consider giving municipalities the financial assistance necessary to carry out that rehabilitation and assist them in finding further assistance.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. R. F. Johnston moved first reading of Bill 17, An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is the third time I have introduced this bill. An Act to amend the Planning Act would make it illegal for municipalities in Ontario to have constructed any manufacturing concern which might involve itself with nuclear weapons or their component parts. I am hoping this will be something that can be dealt with when the Planning Act itself is brought forward by the government this year.

I would bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that Friday will be the anniversary of the passage in this House of the resolution to make Ontario a nuclear-weapons-free zone.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS ECONOMIC CONVERSION ACT

Mr. R. F. Johnston moved first reading of Bill 18, An Act to provide for the Conversion of Technologies and Skills used in the Nuclear Weapons Industry to Civilian Uses.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This bill does not end present contracts that exist, but rather states that any company which has a contract to make nuclear weapons or their component parts must develop a plan with its workers and with the community to change its processes at the end of that defence contract so that it will provide jobs for those people of a civilian nature and not of a military nature; and where that is impossible, that a fund be developed to provide for the needs of those workers who may suffer layoff.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

Mr. M. C. Ray moved first reading of Bill Pr69, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Offer moved first reading of Bill Pr8, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

1520

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. B. Rae: I am delighted to be able to participate in this debate; it is the first speech I have had the opportunity to deliver as the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition in Ontario.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: How do you like the big office?

Mr. B. Rae: I like the big office -- I am going to talk about that in a moment -- but I very much appreciate this opportunity.

I do not do this in a formal way, but let me start by congratulating the mover and seconder of the motion I will be amending at the end of my speech, I want to congratulate them and welcome them to the House.

I also want to make a point -- and I have tried to see as many people personally as I can since the beginning of the session to welcome all the new members on all sides of the House -- of saying it is quite a remarkable and lovely development to have been here for a short five years and now to be in a position of welcoming so many new people. When I came in here in a by-election, I was greeted with open arms by some very kind and generous people --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Unfortunately, none in your own party.

Mr. B. Rae: No, actually they were much nicer than some other people I can think of.

I do want to just remind members on all sides of one of the features of a Legislature, as I often compare it to a ship or a cruise ship or something; we are all together on this voyage whether we like it or not. Here we are in this chamber where we have to learn how to live with each other and how to get along, and it has always been my belief that whatever differences we may have -- and they will be expressed by many, certainly by me on many occasions -- they are not intended, nor I hope taken, personally.

One of the things I have always enjoyed about politics in this country in my brief political career is that it is a profession which one can practise with a degree of a sense of integrity and in which one can have real differences with people and express them and yet also have respect for other positions.

While I am being such a nice guy, let me also congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your re-election, which I had the pleasure and honour of seconding, and say how much I am looking forward to your leadership of the House. If I may say so, sir, we look forward to your leadership in the administration of Queen’s Park itself, and that is a development I hope I may be able to touch on at some point in my remarks.

Finally, I know the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) is not here, and he sent me a very kind letter indicating that he would not be able to be here for my remarks this afternoon. I just say to him that I wish him well in his role as leader of the third party. It is a job I know a little bit about and I want to wish him all the very best in his career. I have no idea what plans his party has for future conventions, but I know all members of the House will regard the member for Sarnia not only with respect but also with a lot of affection. He is somebody we certainly wish well in his role as leader of the third party.

Let me say that I think what we were expecting, or at least hoping for, in this first speech from the throne after the election of September 10 was an approach to politics and to government in this province which took a big view, which looked at the big picture, which gave the people of the province a chance to reflect on all that had taken place, which in a sense made an assessment of where we were at, an assessment of our strengths and weaknesses as an economy and as a society, and which indicated very clearly and categorically the intention of the government of Ontario to lead, to provide a sense of place, a sense of including people, a sense of bringing people together in a province that is now nine million people strong and which is a province of such enormous contrasts and great potential.

That was not the kind of speech we got. Because it is not the kind of speech we got, I do intend to spend some time this afternoon outlining how we see our role; how perhaps, if I could put it personally, I see my role as Leader of the Opposition in this four-year period or three-year period, whatever it may be, until the next election. I also indicate that I do not see this as a job that is purely negative.

I think it is fair to say that leaders of the opposition have often been expected to spend, and have spent, considerable time simply opposing the government of the day because that was what the job description required. I think it is fair to say that it is necessary in a political system such as ours for members of the opposition to do that, to ask the questions and to attempt to probe as best we can the acts and intentions of government, to expose in whatever way we can the inadequacies of government action and to continue to reflect as best we can the wishes of our constituents, who voted for us just as the constituents of members opposite voted for them.

But let me also say that because of the kind of party the New Democratic Party is, because of the traditions we maintain and which I have an obligation as its leader to maintain, it is not my intention to oppose simply for the sake of opposition. It is our intention to try to do something which, if I may suggest, is probably a little more difficult; that is, to break the climate of complacency which now so clearly surrounds and envelops this government.

Something happens to a government and to a political party when it receives the kind of majority the Liberal Party received on September 10. We can all have our private reasons for the kind of majority that took place. No doubt each individual member believes that he or she is here because of his or her particular genius and ability. That is a fantasy to which we are all individually entitled and which no doubt reflects the egos that drive many of us into public life.

Whatever the reasons for the majority, here we are. It is ironic that a majority of people voted against the Liberal Party in the last election, and yet we have a government with virtually a three-to-one majority over the combined forces of the opposition. With that has occurred not a transformation of the Liberal Party, because it is not an animal that requires that kind of conversion, but I think it is fair to say a clear falling into the miasma of complacency which I felt I was walking into when I was first elected here on November 4, 1982.

1530

I am, I might add, celebrating my fifth anniversary as a member of this House this month. It feels like only yesterday, as I am sure the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) will agree. One of the things that struck me, entering this place at that time, was the extraordinary sense that had seized hold of the government that it was there by some kind of divine right to rule, that the questions were to be asked and answered and one was to be patted on the head and told: “There, there, run along. Many others have come before you and many will come after you and there is nothing you can say which will change our mind on this or that question.”

If I may say so, what seems to me a very real danger in the political culture of this province is that that complacency is the tradition which the party in power today is very much -- I would not say in danger of because I think we are already seeing it take place before our very eyes day by day. That complacency is something which I believe has to be fought against and has to be exposed.

It is a complacency where the Premier (Mr. Peterson) chats with Martin Goldfarb on the phone and Martin Goldfarb says: “Don’t worry. The public doesn’t realize that you are breaking your word and you can carry on doing what you are doing. Don’t worry on free trade. You have given the public the impression that you are doing something, so carry on giving them that impression,” even if that impression is delivered at the price of truth itself and at the price of reality itself. It is a complacency which says it is more important for a government to deliver the impression that it is doing something rather than for the government to actually be doing it. It is more important for a government to be seen to be saying something rather than doing something.

I know it sounds a little grandiose and probably a little absurd to some, but I must say I do see it as our role, and my role as leader of our party, in this assembly and outside, to try to break some of that complacency. It is a complacency which, if I may say so, is reflected in our economic life at the moment, is reflected very much in the extraordinary contrasts, the divisions in our society, the differences which are differences in kind so enormous, such enormous differences. Yet for a large number of people in this Legislature everything seems to be going along just hunky-dory. There is nothing to be concerned about; everything is in hand.

It is one of the ironies of our time that at the same time as Jaguar sales are higher in this province than they have ever been -- I am sure all members would agree that as you drive around this city, you just have never seen so many Jaguars. It used to be considered a complete luxury car. Now there are a lot of them around, and they all have licence plates with EZG or whatever, sort of a funny name, FAT CAT or whatever name the person wants to have on it.

At the same time as we see that reality, we have this incredible fact which we continue to bring up and people continue to write about in our newspapers and the wives of the Blue Jays team hold special bazaars to see who can bring in the most cans of food. We have the largest number of food banks in our history in Toronto today and right across the province. We have more people who are applying for free food than ever before.

We have more homeless people today than we had in 1982, more homeless people today than we had right in the middle of the most serious recession, only five years ago, since the 1930s. We have people in northern Ontario who continue to live not in the streets but in campers and in Winnebagos. We have people in Toronto who are living in bus shelters and are forced to leave when it gets too cold. We have people living in Barrie who are living in tents. This in a province which by any stretch of the imagination can only be described as one of the most affluent, one of the richest places in the world.

What disturbs me, and I think what has to be said, is that we are not, in our party, prepared to live in a province which is that way; affluent, well-off, comfortable for so many and a place of real hardship for not just a few hundred but, indeed, thousands of our citizens. If I could say there is one reason for the existence of the New Democratic Party, one reason for its foundation, that central reason is this: to fight on behalf of working people in this province, of ordinary people in this province and to fight to change and to break a climate of complacency which keeps those people out of their place in this province. That is the central task of our party.

It seems to me that could be and should be the central task of a government. Would it not be refreshing to have a government that would say: “Look, Ontario, there is no reason to be complacent about where we are and where we are at.” Let us not forget that a short five years ago, we had unemployment rates of 12 per cent, 15 per cent and 20 per cent. Let us not forget that our prosperity is based very much on a narrow ledge, that our prosperity is based right now on our access to markets in the United States and it is based on a boom in the North American economy which has, to many of us, seemed like so much a paper boom, so much a casino boom and, as everybody is beginning to understand this month, that kind of a casino boom can change into a casino bust very quickly indeed.

Throughout the last election campaign and indeed well before that, we made a point in our party of telling the story of individuals because for so many people listening to what politicians do, it seems like a question of abstractions. We talk housing statistics back and forth. We throw numbers back and forth. The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) today produced a number which I thought was a very telling number: $52 million which the government had agreed to spend, had agreed to invest in housing; $52 million which was not spent on housing; 10,000 places to live which were not built because the government could not get its act together to spend the money which it had agreed to spend.

I would like to ask each and every member in this House to think for a moment of the hours that we spend in our constituency offices and to think for a moment of the families and faces and histories and real people and real stories and real situations that we encounter every day with respect to housing. Every time members think of the figure which my colleague the member for Oshawa brought up this afternoon, they should stare into the eyes of a family that is living in a basement with children who are two, three and four years old, who are sleeping next to hot water heaters and reflect on the fact that the government of the day could not get its act together to spend that money.

It is not a question of abstractions. It is not a question of blue books and question period and the jousting that goes back and forth in this place. It is, frankly, staring into the eyes of those children and of those parents and admitting that the government screwed up, to use the vernacular that was used so effectively this afternoon by my colleague from Oshawa. That is what politics is all about.

I might remind members that money was not spent at a time when we faced, by general recognition, the most serious housing crisis in this province. I simply say to the government, it may have the troops, it may have the members to defeat any argument that comes from this side of the House, but it is our job, no matter how many or how few of us there are in the House on any given occasion, to remind the government of certain uncomfortable facts, which should make it uncomfortable because they should make all of us uncomfortable and which should do something to break the complacency which threatens to envelop this government.

1540

It is all very well to have the answers in the briefing books, which say, “Here are a few housing developments which have taken place.” But how much harder it is to go back into one’s riding and to the next family that comes in and says: “We are number 522 on the housing waiting list that has 18,000 names on it. What do we do?” to say, “It was our fault, we screwed up.” That is a fact which is undeniable.

One of the things I am committed to continue to do, because I believe it is right -- I do not know if it is effective or how well it works or whether it convinces people, but I do believe it is right -- one of the ways one should conduct politics in this place and in this province is to let ordinary people tell their story. It is to force government and to force majorities to listen, not to the Leader of the Opposition or the member for York South or to any one of the individuals here, but to the voice of people who have no other voice when it comes to getting access to power; to listen to the voice, as I asked the province to do in the election campaign, of someone like Jean Larcher, whose husband and so many members of her family died working underground.

She is like so many widows of hardrock miners today, who are still not compensated for the deaths their husbands suffered; their cancers are still unrecognized by a Workers’ Compensation Board that 10 years ago refused to recognize them, that 20 years ago refused to recognize them and that today, even with this so-called new government, is still failing to recognize their claim.

There is no answer to that, except to say, as the argument goes: “Well, that is the way the bureaucracy works. That is the way the system has always worked. That is the way it has always been and that is the way it will always be.” I suggest to the government that it has to listen to those voices. I suggest to everyone in this House that they have to listen to those voices. They have to respond; they have to answer. It is to those voices that, ultimately, they are responsible.

I talked earlier about homelessness and housing and how people should listen and think, not of a general problem, not of a statistical quagmire where you say, “The number of spaces needed is this many and the number of people looking for them is this many and this number over here is far greater than the number available,” but to think more in real terms of what that does to people.

I have also asked, when we think of health and safety problems, when we think of environmental problems, when we think of insurance problems, which I will be touching on in a minute, that we think of the families who are affected, that we think of the people who are affected and that we use this place as a forum which, when people watch it, they can understand the politics we are practising and talking about. It is not some event that is taking place at a level of abstraction which means nothing or does not relate to people’s lives or where they are at.

It is a province of contrasts. It is a province where some people are doing very well, where the articulate and well heeled and well connected are always going to do very well, and it is a province where there are very profound, real, structural reasons it is difficult for ordinary people to get a fair shake. It is not an accident; it is very real.

The Ontario we know is also a province where insecurity can come at almost any time; where injury and accident can occur at any time; where lives that seem settled and well taken care of and well planned can suddenly be transformed and devastated by an accident, where our society still does not compensate and provide for people who are affected by those accidents.

We do not, for example, provide any kind of real compensation for people who are affected by an accident at home. We have one system of care for people who are injured at work. We have another system for people who are injured in an automobile accident. We have another completely different system for people who are injured at home. For those who are disabled from birth, we have a system of welfare that covers the vast majority of cases other than those very few families that have some civil suit to launch against an individual doctor.

If you do not have the money or the wherewithal to sue a doctor, or a doctor was not involved in what took place or you cannot sue the drug company, what have you got? You have got a government welfare program which, whatever announcement the minister may make in this pre-Christmas period, is a system that still is designed to keep people poor. That is what it is there for and that is what it does.

For all the success that has heralded the political life of the Liberal Party in this last while, I do want to suggest to the government that there is another side to the story of what could be done and what needs to be done. There are opportunities to invest, to plan, to help and to provide justice where there is none, a chance for government to do things that need to be done and that are simply not being done.

In the face of this, what did we get in the throne speech? As I said, we got words that sounded as if something was being done, but which when you actually look at them, ended up producing less even than the government was prepared to do in the period we now know as the accord.

I want to talk about those priorities the government has set out because I think we do have to respond to them. Then I want to talk about what we think the general priorities for the province should be.

There was a great deal of talk about education, about literacy, about housing and about health and health promotion and the prevention of illness. Finally, there were some words about technological change and about the role of the so-called Premier’s Council. I want to deal with each of those areas and then move on.

The former Minister of Education, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) is here. He is now the government House leader. In a complacent majority in which the Premier is not able to extend either the courtesy of being here or the courtesy of explaining to the Leader of the Opposition why that normal courtesy would not be extended, I appreciate the presence of the government House leader.

I want to say to him that it is all very well for the government to talk about establishing new provincial benchmarks for literacy, languages, mathematics, sciences and social studies, to talk about more testing for students and to talk about more detailed information on the children’s progress. It is all very well to talk about how the government intends to provide a computer for every child, access to a computer for every child and smaller class sizes for kids who are in school from kindergarten to grade six.

But there is still a kind of technocratic flavour to this government’s approach to the education question. There is still an almost naïve belief that if we hook up enough kids to computers, that in itself is going to be the measure of educational progress, and that as long as the government can measure who is doing well and who is doing badly, at least the system will be a little more accountable than the sort of very loose, flacid approach we all associate with the Bill Davis years in terms of educational reform.

There is no question that our children are not getting the kind of opportunity and chance in our education system today that we think they should get. The class sizes are too large and there is a need for greater accountability in our education system; I think that is fair to say. But the government is almost obsessed with the process and not with the result.

1550

Let me put it another way. If the same number of kids are dropping out as a result of all the testing that is taking place in Ontario, and if we find after doing all the testing that there are still the same ranges of equality and inequality that we can only expect to find, does the government not have an obligation to those kids who are dropping out when they are in high school and who are not doing as well when they are in elementary school to try to do something for those children and to say, “That is the kind of program we are going to introduce in the province”?

Am I the only one in this House who thinks it is more important that kids go to school well clothed and well fed than that they have access to a computer when they get there? I believe very strongly that we can do as much for the educational environment of those children by ensuring that they are well housed, well clothed and well fed and provided for than by tinkering, if I may say so, with the latest machinery that is available. I really do believe that.

I think that is a point that has to be made time and again, because for all the technocratic tinkering of this government when it comes to education, I can assure the minister and the Premier that the results of whatever testing they do in five years will reflect the reality of this province that kids who are poor are not going to do as well in that testing, that kids who are hungry are not going to do as well in that testing, that kids who do not know whether their father and mother are going to be together and have a house are not going to do as well in that testing. Those are the same kids who in 10 years’ time are going to be dropping out of school.

You do not have to be a genius to understand or to know that. You simply have to walk down the street in any one of our communities, walk into homes and walk into a school and know why kids are underperforming. Talk to the teachers in our school system today and the best and most sensitive will say, “I can predict what is going to happen, depending on what Mary or Johnny is feeling at home, how secure they feel and what kind of future they are going to be facing.”

We still have hundreds of thousands of kids who are living in poverty in this province today. To pretend that we can deal with the educational problems of this society without dealing with the problem of children in poverty is a nonsense and should be exposed as a nonsense in Ontario. Yet this is a government that would have us believe there is a mechanical solution to this thing, that there is an electronic solution, that the difficulty with our education system is that there are not enough computers.

Mr. Speaker, I would love to see the most up-to-date computer equipment made available to our children. Do not let anyone misunderstand or misconstrue what I am saying. But what I am saying is that once the government has done that, it has not gone very far; it has not changed some of the problems we face that we know we face.

There is a debate that has gone on for literally decades among social thinkers, educational theorists and everybody else as to why there is so much inequality, why there is a class structure in education that reflects the class structure of a society. Those who think you can change that or provide more equality of opportunity simply by tinkering with the educational mechanics are making a profound mistake.

The reality is that we will improve our educational performance, we will improve our literacy, we will improve the ability of our kids to perform as we want them to and to have the chances we want them to have only if we deal with this nagging, persistent question of inequality and poverty. Unless we deal with that question and that problem, we will continue to see the kind of inequality that the government has failed to address.

There was an interesting contrast. When the Premier made his first speech in this House as Premier setting out what he was going to do, he did not talk about the accord but about all the items that were listed in it. One of the areas he mentioned, interestingly enough, was the question of streaming. I wonder if members remember that. He talked very specifically about streaming and how he was going to be doing something about streaming. Do you know something? I have never heard him talk about it since. I have never heard the government talk about it since. I have never heard the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) discuss it since.

Mr. Laughren: Not in this House.

Mr. B. Rae: Not in this House. Not as a matter of priority. Not as something the government is going to address. What was addressed in the last election because it was an election in which the Premier wanted to present himself as the yuppie answer to the world. It was the question of technocracy. Technology is going to answer the problem; not the questions, they are more difficult. They demand not simply saying: “Here, you’ve got a problem. Let me buy you something.” That is not the answer. The answer is to recognize that there are some profound social problems, which are related as much to our educational system as anything else and more responsible for it than anything.

Similarly, with respect to the question of literacy, I can say I am delighted that the words about literacy are contained in the throne speech. The only thing that makes me sad is that there are not the resources to make it happen. I may be old-fashioned, but I happen to think that basic literacy and numeracy skills are the mission, if I may use a word which is not unknown to the former Minister of Education, of our education system in this province. And yet for some time it was handed over as a kind of frill to the Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms. Munro). Now it has been given to the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling). All those literacy folks just finished getting unpacked in the Ministry of Culture and Communications and now they are sent over to another minister who has some interest in this question of literacy.

I want to say to the Premier that I think the question of literacy is one that should be at the foundation, at the heart, of our whole approach to education. It is one that should inform our entire approach to education.

Housing: the Speaker will be glad to know, from reading the words of the throne speech on page 8, that “Many Ontarians do not have access to affordable quality housing.” That is an understatement. We are in the middle of a housing crisis and it is a housing crisis that affects all levels of society.

There was a time when one would see the housing crisis as something affecting the homeless. Four or five years ago there were homeless people, people who were living on the very margins of our society, people with severe psychiatric problems, people with severe drug and alcohol abuse problems. There have always been shelters and places of refuge for those people. One could talk in those years of a housing crisis as it related to them, and one would have been right.

But today we have a housing crisis which affects all levels of society. It continues to affect those whom we have classically treated as homeless people, street people of one kind or another, but it affects all levels of society. It affects the younger couple who are working and who cannot afford to buy a home. It affects younger people who are working and who cannot find a place to rent. It affects people who are living well beyond their means in rental or housing accommodation and who are desperate for affordable public housing and cannot find it. It affects our older people who may not qualify for one reason or another for seniors’ accommodation and who cannot find a place to live. I think it is fair to say that it affects all levels of our society.

It is not a surprise. It is something all of us saw coming, but I think it is also fair to say that it is a development that has hardly been greeted by actions worthy of the name from the government of Ontario.

The Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), who has been newly appointed -- and it is always a pleasure to welcome new ministers and new members. I must confess, and I do not want to be unfair, that I always feel like a somewhat backward member of a first-year university class when I listen to the Minister of Housing. There is a kind of a sense: “Did you not hear me the first time? Here are all the programs. I will write them down. There is convert-to-rent and there is this, that and the other and here they all are. I will list them all. Now recite them back to me.”

1600

That is not what we are here for. We are here for an explanation of why money was not spent, why people are still being overcharged for their rent and cannot get access to the rent review panel. We want to know when houses are going up. We want to know who is going to be able to move into them. That is what we want and that is what we expect as members of the Legislature, all of whom have to face our constituents and explain to them why there is not a place for them to live in Ontario. That is what we expect from our government and that is what we are not getting, from this minister or from any other minister.

There are two other areas which I wanted to touch on very briefly, questions of health promotion and illness prevention and the questions of technology and technological innovation and the role of the Premier’s Council. In both areas it is very hard to disagree with what the government says, but it is very difficult to see any connection between that and what the government does. What you do in this business is ultimately more important than what you say.

With respect to the question of health, our party has been talking for two decades about the challenges in the health care system once we had moved to medicare. Once we had moved to a good system of health insurance, we then said, and the member for Parkdale at that time -- what a contrast to the current member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht), but I will leave that for another day -- I invite the new members to go back to the speeches of the member for Parkdale, Dr. Dukszta. I am quite serious. Go back and read Janos Dukszta’s speeches when he was the Health critic in the early 1970s and have a look at what he was saying about the promotion of health, about what is happening to the street people, about mental illness, about the creation of an illness system in Ontario instead of a health system. All the things we were attacked for saying at that time the government is now saying, but none of the institutional changes that have to match that are being made.

I want to say that you cannot maintain the current bureaucratic structure with respect to health care in this province and expect to change the system. You have to break up that bureaucratic structure if you are going to be able to do that. I want to come back to that point because I think it is important.

I just say to the government that it is all very well to talk about the promotion of health and the prevention of illness and to talk about the realities of an ageing society and what needs to be done, but you have to make and be prepared to make the institutional changes which will do that. If I may be blunt, to expect the current Ministry of Health to act as the vehicle which will change our health care system in this province is impossible because I would suggest that the structure of the Ministry of Health is part of the problem, not part of the answer.

Finally, we have the Premier’s affection for the Premier’s Council, which is his personal baby and which he is now going to couple with the health council, which he also is going to be producing. I want to suggest that both of these endeavours are no doubt interesting seminars for the Premier and an important opportunity for him to listen and learn, one which I think all members would enjoy: sitting around with a number of very well informed people talking about what needs to be done and what can be done.

But I say very respectfully to the Premier that what is at stake now is more than simply an exercise in trying to develop the knowledge base of the Premier of Ontario. As interesting and long-term an exercise as that no doubt is, it is not, it seems to me, the function of government.

What we need is structures in place today that will ensure that, when government plans, that planning is integrated into what it does, and you do not have planning institutions -- and I am going to come back to this because we have had experience with this in this structure for a number of years. We have had secretariats -- not the horse, the actual structures. We had Robert Welch and other people who were responsible for the secretariats for various areas, none of which was integrated into the work of government. We have had the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, which was sort of out there as part of the Premier’s baby, separate from the work of major departments in the government.

We have also had, I may say, a Liberal government which has had two years now to have a look at the structure that was bequeathed to it by the Tories, which has had two years to deal with the bureaucratic structure of the government ministries and the way in which government is organized that evolved over the 42 years of Tory administration.

What is fascinating to me as a student of government, as a student of the way in which governments operate as well as the way in which politics operate, is that that foundation has not been changed at all. It has not been changed at all. The basic structure of government, the basic structure of programs, the basic way in which departments are organized has not been changed by the Peterson government.

What I say is this: What we needed in this speech from the throne was a clear indication that they, having governed for two years, were ready and eager for a new mandate to really carry on the change which they felt elected to carry on.

Instead, what they produced in the throne speech was the clear statement to the province: “It’s all right, Ontario. We had two years when things started to happen. Don’t worry, you can calm down now. Nothing is going to change again; life will go back to just the way it was. Some of the players have been changed, and the faces may be different, but the basic structures are going to remain the same and the policies will remain the same; there is nothing to worry about.”

So what was to be a mandate for change became in fact the largest collective dose of Valium ever inflicted on a population in the history of Canada. That is what we have seen, and that is what was represented in the throne speech.

That is why, as I recounted the other day, when I was at the airport and a fellow came up from the Ministry of Labour and said to me, “Mr. Rae, I just wanted to shake your hand and say hello to you,” I asked, “What is your name?” He gave me his name and he said, “I work in the Ministry of Labour.” I said, “That’s a ministry I have worked with over the years,” and he said, “I know you have.” I said, “What are you doing?” He said, “I am going on holiday for a few days, because once the accord was over we all knew we could all slow down and there was no need for us to worry as much as we had to work and worry during the life of the accord.”

I am sure that message has gone right through the bureaucracy: “Don’t worry, the process is being slowed down.” The message has gone out to the chambers of commerce and to the manufacturers’ association and to the insurance groups and to all the powers that be in the province: “There might have been a bit of a scare there for a couple of years, things might have been shaken up a while. Not to worry: It’s under control again and there’s nothing to worry about, because nothing is going to happen.”

That is the message we are getting from the speech from the throne -- very, very clearly. I think that is the message which we have to respond to and have to respond to with a sense of what needs to be done and what can be done.

I want to spend the rest of my remarks in looking at some areas that have simply not been addressed by this government, some areas that need to be looked at, and to talk as well about how these would be done.

It is one of the interesting accusations that is made about the New Democratic Party that, “Oh well, you’ve got all sorts of ideas, but you don’t know how they will happen.” I want to say that, having watched this government in action, if I may use that word in its broadest sense, for the last while, and having watched the Tories over a number of years, I have developed some quite strong views as to how the government could shake things up and how things could be delivered differently in terms of the bureaucracy. That is something it seems to me also needs to be done, as well as the programs I have talked about.

Hon. Mr. Elston: What are you planning to do for the New Democratic Party? You have had some suggestions there.

Mr. B. Rae: The Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston) who has reverted to the anonymity which he --

1610

Mrs. Grier: Which he so richly deserves.

Mr. B. Rae: Well, certainly which comes as no particular surprise to us.

Interjection.

Mr. B. Rae: If I can carry on, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about pension reforms; I want to talk about the insurance system; I want to talk about the north; I want to talk about our response to education; I want to talk about hydro; I want to talk about universal sickness and accident insurance, and I want to talk about how we would in fact begin to deal with the problems in health care, health promotion, occupational health and safety as well as environmental health and safety.

I want to suggest that one of the features of the last recession which was truly remarkable was that the government of the day went through a period of extraordinary social and economic change without introducing any major changes into what I call our social security system, our pension system. What we had was a shutting down of any sense of reform with respect to any measures dealing with income security, any measures dealing with pensions, any measures dealing with the need to help people through a period of extraordinary change.

I want to suggest that whatever may happen with respect to this debate on the trade agreement between Canada and the United States, that change continues to be a feature of our society that will not go away and that requires a response.

I want to suggest that it is not good enough for the Treasurer to say that the so-called crisis in the stock market is now one which gives second thoughts to the government’s plans to index private pensions. I also want to say that I think it is reprehensible that this government has not indicated any plans to deal with the question of the age of retirement and the rights of people to retire before the age of 65.

I find it ironic that we in this House, many of whom have just undergone a rather dramatic case of early retirement, in some cases extremely involuntary, are blessed with a pension system that is a good one and yet we, as the Legislature in Ontario, preside over a pension system which is grossly and brutally unfair for most of our workers.

In my political life and as a constituency member I have met literally hundreds of people in my office who have no private pension, who have no access to a private pension, who have never had a private pension and who are in their mid-50s, late 50s, early 60s, facing incredible odds, unable to get a job, unable to get access to training and unable to find any indication from government that it is there to help.

That is why I say that it seems to me the very least this government could do would be to indicate to the older workers of this province that it recognizes their special problem. You look at what is happening to management structures throughout this province and you are going to find management structure after management structure that has a deal for people, a golden handshake for people in their 50s, a golden handshake for senior executives, a golden handshake for people who are being forced out because of so-called downsizing and restructuring in our industry.

With this increased change in our society, as it affects every firm in this province, we can rest assured that the private contract signed between management and management is taking care of people in their 50s and early 60s. The people who are not being cared for, who are not being provided for, are the ordinary workers, many of whom have no union and have no basis for organization at all, and those are the people whom government should be stepping in and helping.

That is why I say we need to have a comprehensive reform of private pensions in this province which provides for a pension for everybody who is retiring, and that is something we do not have. What we have is a pension reform bill that went through in the last parliament which was the minimal list the previous Conservative government could get, in agreement with all the other Conservative governments at that time and agreed to by the federal government of the day.

We do not have a province like Ontario, which is supposed to be wealthy, taking a lead and saying, “We are going to move in this area of pensions and we are going to provide for early retirement for people who are affected by the climate of layoffs and change that is going right through our industry.”

I mentioned earlier the incredible differences in our society between what happens to people when they are injured at work, what happens to people when they are injured in a car and what happens to people when they are injured at home. Again, here you have a government that has an opportunity to govern for at least three years, that has had an opportunity in the last two years to look at, understand and appreciate the anomalies in the workers’ compensation system and that knows, because of the people it sees on its doorstep, just as we do because of the people we see on our doorstep who know what the problem is, that the system that exists in Ontario today does not make any sense.

Here we have a government that is still not prepared to even contemplate or mention the words “universal sickness and accident insurance,” yet it is an idea whose time has obviously come. It is clearly an idea that will allow for the compensation and rehabilitation of people who right now are not being compensated adequately and are not being given the kind of rehabilitation, the kind of help they need. I think it is fair to say it is an idea that makes the same kind of sense as workers’ compensation itself did when a revolutionary Conservative government brought it in in 1915.

It is worth remembering that workers’ compensation is now 72 years old in Ontario and its structure has not been basically changed since that time. There have been add-ons. If you look through the statute, you will find there have been add-ons and minor changes. The odd disease is added to the schedule which lists the number of occupational diseases and there has been the odd shift in terms of the way the pension system is calculated, but let me tell the members this: The meat chart is just the same now as it was in 1915. The philosophy is just the same. There is the same minimalist philosophy with regard to what has to be done. The basic structure of the system has not been changed since that time.

We made quite a fuss in the last election campaign about car insurance and we were right. We were right when we said there was an opportunity to do something for drivers in this province, just as we did something for all the people of this province with health care in the 1960s. I believe as surely as I believe anything that the abuses we found in the car insurance system are abuses that can only really be dealt with, cured and made better by the simple, clear introduction of a driver-owned public plan that gives to drivers the benefits of a nonprofit system.

I find it curious that we have a government here that says to universities, “You can legitimately pool your risks and you can legitimately get rid of the insurance companies’ profit motive and you can legitimately pool those risks and take care of it”; that says to local school boards and municipalities, “One of the ways for you to deal with the insurance crisis in Ontario today is to get together with all the other school boards and municipalities, pool your risks and get rid of the insurance companies.” I talked to a trustee yesterday from Port Hope and he told me his board had saved $65,000 in premiums in one year.

1620

Mr. Speaker, perhaps with your wisdom you can explain to me why it is that a Liberal government can say to universities, which are powerful institutions, “You can take care of yourselves and you don’t have to deal with the insurance companies”; can say to the school boards, on which it has many friends, “You are right, you are being ripped off by the insurance companies, you don’t have to pay what you are paying”; can say to the municipalities, in which it has many friends, “You are right, you are being ripped off, you ought to pool your resources and not have to pay money to the insurance business.”

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you can answer this question: If it is good enough for the universities and it is good enough for the school boards and it is good enough for the municipalities, why in hell is it not good enough for the ordinary drivers in Ontario to have a nonprofit system that is owned and operated by them and not by the insurance companies?

We have not had an answer to that question and we will not get an answer to that question, because the Liberal Party has decided to take the insurance companies’ side in this question of what to do about the drivers. They have not taken the insurance companies’ side when it comes to the universities because they are big, powerful institutions too; they have not taken the insurance companies’ side when it comes to the municipalities because they are very powerful public institutions; and they have not taken the side of the insurance companies when it comes to school boards because they are very powerful institutions.

But when it comes to the ordinary driver whom the insurance companies in this province are milking and bilking each and every day of the week, whose side do they take? The side of the insurance companies. I think that is a disgrace and I think that is something that ought to be changed in the province. I think that is something we ought to be able to change.

But I also want to say, as I said earlier, that I do not regard it simply as a question of car insurance alone. I do think we have to deal with the question of car insurance, but I think we also have to deal, if I may say so, with this question of a universal sickness and accident plan. I think we have to look to those countries -- social democratic New Zealand, for example -- which initiated such a move a number of years ago, and ask ourselves the questions, as a province: Is that not a model that makes much more sense, in terms of rehabilitation and compensation and caring for people? Is that not a system that makes much more sense than what we are abandoning our people to today?

I say, in all bluntness, that there are people who are sick today, who cannot work, who either have no compensation at all or are undercompensated by as much as $600, $700 or $800 a month. That is the kind of plan we are talking about for the benefit of the people of the province.

I talked earlier about the question of health promotion and illness prevention. I also talked about the question of an ageing society. I want to say that I do not believe it is possible for the current structure of the Ministry of Health to deal with these questions. I do not say that out of any particular disrespect for any particular ministry. I do not have a particular grudge against one minister or one ministry as opposed to another.

But let me just deal with the question of ageing. I saw the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) yesterday and told her I was going to be talking about this. I am delighted she is here. We are all glad to see her appointed, just as we were glad to see her predecessor appointed and there for two years.

I want to suggest that when we look at this question of ageing and its relationship to health care, we are surely past the stage when we should have ministers without portfolio with very little line responsibilities in terms of the management of a ministry, when we have that structure in place where those ministers are there almost as an afterthought in the system, negotiating and bargaining and dealing with all the other ministries without the kind of power and power base and line responsibilities we think they deserve and need to have.

Let me put it another way. If we are in fact in the middle of a crisis with respect to ageing and if we are serious about the challenges of an ageing society, why do we not give the minister responsible for senior citizens’ affairs the responsibility for managing those aspects of the health care system which directly affect old people? Why do we not do that? We should have learned by now from the experience of the secretariats that we get too little back from the system itself to merit this kind of bureaucratic sideshow. Why do we have a system in Ontario where the Ministry of Community and Social Services has responsibility for homes for the aged, the Ministry of Health has responsibility for nursing homes, and two and a half years after the last election we still do not have the legislation in place which will provide for that administration together under one ministry? We still do not have it.

I want to suggest that whether you are dealing with home care, whether you are dealing with institutional care or whether you are dealing with the general needs of people who are older in our society, it seems to me to make such good sense to say to the ministries of Health and Community and Social Services, “Look, you’ve had a bureaucratic war going on in every constituency and every community, which every social worker has known about from time immemorial, and this government is finally going to deal with it and break it up and give the minister responsible for senior citizens some real responsibility.”

I say to the minister, I am not attacking her. I am asking the leader of her party and of her government to give her the kind of responsibility and the kind of power in the system which we think people who are dealing with senior citizens deserve to have, and I say that also with respect to the disabled.

Is it not an insult to the disabled and to senior citizens to say that other people will get a real ministry that has a real line responsibility, that has a deputy minister and a structure there that is going to deliver programs and be responsible for programs, but the people who are responsible for the disabled and for senior citizens are there on the side, they do not have those portfolio responsibilities?

I think that is wrong. I do not think it makes any sense. I think it is critical if we are serious about doing something about our ageing society, and critical if we are serious about doing something on behalf of people who are disabled, that we give the politicians who are responsible for arguing their case in this House and for administering programs in this House on their behalf the power to do what it is they say they are going to do. To me, it is nothing short of tokenism to say, “We’re going to make these ministries training grounds for people.”

I mean no disrespect to the new minister, but I have a sense of frustration when I know that the previous minister spent two and a half years learning the ropes, figuring out the programs, finding out what the bureaucratic wars were, finding out who was on whose side and what was going on, then suddenly he is gone into the nether world -- which is understandable; we all know that is the way of politics -- and a new minister comes along. Those of us who have been in this field for a time feel a certain sense of frustration, not on our own behalf but frankly because we are going to end up fighting the same battles in the same way and the same type over and over again, because this government is not prepared to take on the bureaucracy in Health and Community and Social Services which needs to be split up and broken up and divided up in a different way. That is what needs to be done.

I would like to mention at the same time the question of how we deal with health promotion and how we deal with occupational health and safety and how we go about enforcing the law with regard to environmental health. I happen to believe that if you are seriously going to have health promotion as an aspect of health care policy that is going to have a priority, you need a ministry that is going to give it that priority. You cannot give the ministry which is responsible for institutional care and responsible for administering institutional budgets the responsibility for public health as a kind of a sideshow.

Either you integrate public health into the middle of a ministry and give that ministry the responsibility for administering public health, health promotion, environmental health and occupational health and safety, and say, “There is a structure that makes sense that is going to put these issues as a priority,” or you continue to see them as separate sideshows.

The proportion of money that we spend on public health in this province is minuscule in comparison with the amount of money that is spent on institutional care and on doctors’ fees. It is minuscule. Well over 90 per cent of the budget of the Ministry of Health is spent on two things: institutional care and the salaries of doctors, the fees we pay to professionals in the system.

1630

To suggest it is that ministry that is going to be responsible for health promotion is to misunderstand completely the realities of the bureaucratic world, a bureaucracy that for its entire existence has had as its real goal and responsibility the administration of institutions. We cannot all of a sudden, by virtue of one throne speech, be expected to say, “And now we are going to ask you to turn all your mandate on its head and take as your priority the question of promotion of public health.” It will not happen. I guarantee that until this function of public health is split from the Ministry of Health and given a ministry of its own, it will not happen.

If on the other hand we have a ministry that is specifically responsible for the promotion of environmental health, occupational health and public health, then we will have a structure where a minister will have the power to move in and make these things happen. That is why I say that if they are going to announce a program, it is not enough to say, “We are going to have a health council over here and we are going to have a technological council over here, but the vast majority of the bureaucracy is going to remain entirely intact and the way it was before.” I am not in the government but I am an observer of how these governments have worked, and unless it changes that structure, I guarantee it will not happen.

Finally, I want to deal with the question of the economy. I happen to believe that we have no doubt in the last five years, if you compare the state of the economy -- I was looking through a number of throne speeches and responses to throne speeches in thinking about what I was going to be saying today, and yes, it is quite remarkable how there have been some constants in terms of what governments have said, but we have also benefited tremendously from an economy that is changing, from an economy with which in the last few years Ontario has done exceptionally well in comparison with other provinces.

Yet it is interesting to notice that the government’s own priorities in terms of its investments and spending in the economy have not taken advantage of this prosperity we have seen. It is not just that, like the United States and like Canada itself, we have not been able to reduce the deficit even in a time of unprecedented economic growth. It is really quite remarkable in strict Keynesian terms that we have not been able to do more to balance the budget in a real sense. That is not the only question. What is interesting is that private investment and public investment have not grown to the extent that private profit and public revenues have. What that means is that when we face the next down-cycle, we will not necessarily be any better placed to deal with it than we were in dealing with the last one.

Perhaps I can suggest to the members that we face a prosperity in southern Ontario that is almost exclusively the result of our public and private investments and job growth in services and in the automobile sector. If across the way they look at the numbers and statistics, they will see that has been the basis of this prosperity. The growth has not been diversified and intelligently planned. In a sense it has been almost accidental. We have been very lucky. This has been a very lucky government.

I think it is fair to say it is a government that has benefited enormously from growth in the economy for which I do not think it can be held responsible, because one can hardly point to policies that are dramatically different from anything practised by the previous government that would say it is because of this particular measure or that one that Ontario is in the good position it is in.

What is troubling about the structure we now have is that the prosperity we have built is simply not solid. We continue to underinvest in people. We continue to underinvest in training and skills and education. We continue to underinvest in the people of this province, who are the most important vehicles, if I can put it that way, the most important agents of what it is that makes this province tick and what it is that makes it grow.

At the same time as we have seen an extraordinary growth -- even mentioned in the paper today -- in the profits of a number of private companies, we do not see those same companies reinvesting to the same extent in research and development, in education, in skills training and in the future. We suffer the same kind of problem with respect to the development of investment today as we faced earlier.

I want to suggest that what we are looking at now is a prosperity which is no doubt beneficial to a great many people, which is not widely shared. We have not seen the structural changes in government programs which should produce a better sharing on behalf of people and a prosperity which I believe is directly threatened, first of all, by the free trade agreement which is being negotiated between Canada and the United States, and threatened as well by potential changes in world economic conditions which may well develop over the next year.

I want to say this about free trade. I do not want to spend an entire afternoon on a subject on which we have already spent a considerable time debating in the House and on which my views are by now well known.

I do want to say this to the government. I do not care what Martin Goldfarb tells it. I do not care what advice it is getting from its pollsters on how well it is convincing the people of the province that it is still keeping the mandate. I know why, and all of us know why, a great many people in this province voted for the Liberal Party in the last election. They voted for the Liberal Party in the last election because they sincerely believed that the Premier of this province was personally committed to vetoing a free trade deal that was not in the best interests of Ontario. That is why they voted for him.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That is the bottom line.

Mr. B. Rae: That is the bottom line. I say to the government this day that I do not care what Martin Goldfarb says, as time unfolds it is going to become clearer to the people of this province that the Premier has betrayed his word and the word of his party, and of his government with respect to an issue that is crucial to the future of this province, and that is the question of a trade agreement between Canada and the United States. He has broken his word as clearly as I have ever seen somebody break his word in my personal history in politics.

I say this quite sincerely. I have seen the Premier say that he would veto a deal. I have seen him say that if the auto pact was on the table he would veto the deal. I have heard him say to farmers that if they were on the table it was a deal that would not go through. I have seen him hold out to group after group in this province the commitment and the clear understanding that if the deal was not the one he wanted, expected and desired to have, that deal would not happen; the Premier would save the people of the province from the free trade agreement.

Now he gets up and says, “It is all very complicated and very complex.” He says, “There is nothing I can do.” He says, “The auto pact is a matter of federal jurisdiction.” Does he honestly believe it was a matter of federal jurisdiction today but it was not a matter of federal jurisdiction a year ago, a year and a half ago or two years ago, when he got up and said, “I have a veto”?

We are looking at a government that has broken its word. That is not the first time it has happened in politics. Many cynical observers of the political scene would say, “That is what happens in politics.”

Do not forget that the New Democratic Party went through another period in the election of 1974. Does the House remember Pierre Trudeau? I do not know whether he is now regarded as a millstone, or what his status is now in the provincial Liberal Party. Do the members remember Pierre Trudeau in Timmins, Ontario, in the election of 1974 where he talked about wage and price controls? He said, “Never.” He made fun of Robert Stanfield and said: “What are they going to do with the prices of things? Are they going to say, ‘Zap, they are frozen’?” He said, “The Liberal Party needs to be elected in order to fight the wage-and-price control plan of Robert Stanfield.” One year later, Pierre Trudeau was introducing wage and price controls in Canada.

1640

What we are seeing is exactly the same movie, exactly the same pattern being repeated over and over again. We are seeing a government that was specifically elected by the people of this province because of a commitment on free trade, and we see a government that is not living up to that commitment on free trade.

I read with interest the comments of observers and others who say: “The Premier is playing it cagey, he is playing it cute and he is playing it very carefully. His pollsters are telling him that he is doing just fine.” Let me say this: I think the Premier has blown it completely.

Let me say why. This is the same government that told us when we were sitting a few seats down, that said to the New Democratic Party: “Do not worry. This is not the time for us to be getting out of the free trade negotiations or for us to be trying to exercise our veto, before the negotiations.” The Premier of the province said to me: “Do not worry, Bob. There will be lots of time to veto that decision and that agreement after it has been made. Do not be so premature. We have the matter well in hand. We know exactly how this thing is going to unfold and we have the approach that we think is the best for the people of Canada.”

Time after time we said to the Premier, “Look, my friend, if you are opposed to free trade, the time to veto that agreement was before it even started. The time to be having a fight with Don Getty and Grant Devine, if that is what it takes, the time to be having a fight with Brian Mulroney, if that is what it takes, was two and a half years ago when this thing was getting started.” Once a deal is signed with the United States of America, can you imagine the bargaining that is going to take place with the American President, whoever he or she may be, and the American Congress a year, a year and a half and two years down the road?

It is all very well for people to say, “It can be signed and then we can decide in a year or two whether or not Canada is going to live up to the agreement.” Do not think you can go back so easily. Do not think it is going to be that easy or painless to undo what the federal government is trying to do.

That is why I say the time to stop this deal is now, not in a year’s time. The time to stop it was two years ago. Now is even time enough to get started on stopping it. That is why we are insisting that if Ontario has the power or capacity to do anything to stop this deal, now is the time for Ontario to be acting, not five years down the road when it is going to be too late. This is what the people of Ontario want and this is why they voted for the government on September 10. Now is the time to act on free trade. That is the point that has to be made.

This government was elected saying it would do something. This government was not elected saying that it would continue to speak. The Premier did not need a mandate in order to give a speech to the Canadian Club; the Premier did not need a mandate to do any of those things. The Premier said he needed a mandate in order to deal with the issues.

I want to suggest an alternative scenario. I want to ask members of this House to reflect for a moment on what this place would have been like if there had been no election. Some of the members would not be here, but apart from that I am asking them to reflect for a moment on what the position of the Premier of Ontario would have had to be in order to deal with this question of free trade in a minority House.

I want to suggest it would have been very clear. The Premier would have had to choose between two positions: the position of this party or the position of the third party. Either he would have had to seek the support of our party on a motion of confidence dealing with his position or he would have had to seek the support of the Conservative Party on his position. He would have had to make up his mind. He would have had to face up to the choice and he would then have had to decide how and when he was going to speak on behalf of the people of Ontario.

Instead of doing that, I suggest that when the Premier said to the people of the province in August 1987, “I need a mandate to speak out on free trade,” that is not what he was really asking for. What he was asking for was a majority so he would not need to say what the people of the province wanted him to say. That is one of the ironies of the democratic process. You cannot look at this last election and look at what has taken place without regarding it as one of the great ironies of our time.

Here is a man who was elected because he held out to the people of Ontario that he was going to be the saviour against free trade and who, as soon as he is elected, admits there is nothing he can do. That is what this House is all about.

We have started out on a strange note and on a strange basis. We have started out on the basis of a Premier who said he was going to do something and has turned around and not done it. It started out on the basis of a government saying it needed a mandate to do something and has chosen very directly not to do it. It started out on the basis of a government which, 95 members strong, had all the opportunities to state clearly what it was going to do with respect to this question of free trade and then to move in the areas where governments have been expected to move, instead of which we have, as I said earlier, an approach that says it is not going to be even business as usual; it is going to be less than usual.

In conclusion, one cannot help but think that there are many people today who, as time unfolds -- and I have no idea whether that time will be this week or in three weeks, 10 weeks, two months, five months or 10 months -- will have a sense of betrayal. Northerners who heard the words of the Premier expected him to do more for them, to invest on their behalf, to do more to diversify their economy. We have a northern Ontario heritage fund which still has not been invested or dealt with or taken seriously at all. We have a major environmental crisis going on in the Temagami area and we have no response from the government one way or the other with respect to what it is going to do.

We have a two-headed Ministry of Northern Development and Ministry of Mines, which has two ministers and one deputy minister. There are very few examples I can think of -- why are there two ministers of Northern Development and Mines -- a Minister of Mines (Mr. Conway) and a Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) -- but one department? Has anybody ever reflected on that for a moment: one deputy and one department? What a brilliant -- it is like René and his bodyguard. That is what it is, René and his bodyguard. That is the government that is there. It is the most curious structure one can imagine. There are many examples of ministries that have two separate deputies, but this is a new one on us. I find it curious that the Minister of Mines has been given a portfolio but has not been given a department. He has a driver, but he has nowhere to go. It is a sad change in the life of the former Minister of Education, but there it is.

The treatment of the people of the north is but one example of the sense of frustration -- I do not think “betrayal” is too strong a word -- which I believe people in this province are going to begin to feel more and more towards a government which, Lord knows, has succeeded in the world of public relations. It has certainly succeeded in the area of looking good; has indeed, on many issues, succeeded in the area of sounding good, appearing to sound good; but I say that is not the test we apply to government. We apply the test to governments of governments that do well and do something, and that is the test that this government has not met.

Therefore, I move, seconded by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) that the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne be amended.

1650

Mr. Speaker: Mr. B. Rae moves that the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne be amended by adding the following words:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: I believe this matter will be dealt with at a further time. Would someone care to adjourn the debate?

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

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call on the House leader, pursuant to standing order 30, the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) concerning her statements made in the Globe and Mail on Wednesday, November 4, 1987. This matter will be debated at 6 p.m. next Tuesday.

Also pursuant to the same standing order, the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson). This matter will also be debated at 6 p.m. next Tuesday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Noting that members are speeding away, I simply want to draw everyone’s attention to the fact that next week, the week of November 16, the entire week will be given over to the throne speech debate. In preparation for that, I wish everyone a good trip home tonight.

The House adjourned at 4:57 p.m.

November 10, 1987

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

REMEMBRANCE DAY

MISSISSAUGA CITY BOARD OF TRADE

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

ANNUAL REPORT, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REMEMBRANCE DAY

CHILDREN’S HEALTH SERVICES

REMEMBRANCE DAY

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

RESPONSES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ORAL QUESTIONS

WINE INDUSTRY

INCINERATORS

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

RENT REGULATION

HOURS OF WORK

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

RENT REGULATION

HOUSING ALLOCATIONS

MINISTRY BUDGETS

DENTAL CARE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITION

DIALYSIS UNIT

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

MOTION

ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BARRISTERS AMENDMENT ACT

CLEAN WATER ACT

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

NUCLEAR WEAPONS ECONOMIC CONVERSION ACT

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE