Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I am today laying upon the table the annual report of the Provincial Auditor of Ontario, covering audits completed through 31 August 1990.

CLOSED-CAPTIONING

The Speaker: I am also pleased to inform members that all televised House proceedings are now being closed-captioned. Closed-captioning is a technique whereby a typed transcript of the spoken debates appears simultaneously with the televised pictures. This service is invaluable to the hearing-impaired, people learning to read and speak English, and of course your friends in the press gallery, who note your every word. Members should be very proud that their House is the first Legislature in the world to provide this service.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Fawcett: As our critic for women's issues, I wish to comment as we close the month designated as Wife Assault Prevention Month.

Our party has always worked towards the goal of the social, legal and economic equality and wellbeing of women. It is our belief that a woman cannot function equally if she cannot function freely in a safe and secure environment.

The Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues gave a laudable statement at the beginning of this month, but the climate changed to a depressing cold yesterday when she answered her own colleague's question. What a perfect chance she missed to give some hope and courage to abused women.

But did she tell them that they do not have to stay in abusive situations? No. Did she tell them that they and their children can have safe shelter in a transition house? No. Did she say that there are training programs to help them to self-sufficiency? No. Or that there are counsellors to listen and advise? No. Or did she say that there are more shelters coming on stream? No.

What did she say? She told them that one half of the New Democratic Party cabinet equals 11 women. When women suffering from violence needed hope and encouragement to break the silence for themselves and for their children, all they got was a lesson in fractions. Frankly, I do not think they give a darn about fractions. They want and need help and it is our duty to ensure that everyone knows there is no place for violence against women in our society.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS PERIOD

Mr Eves: When the standing orders were amended in 1986 and again in 1989, we designated a period of each day during routine proceedings for private members' statements. Leaders of each party and cabinet ministers were explicitly excluded from this period to ensure that private members were given their opportunity to make statements.

The government has at its disposal a designated time during routine proceedings to make ministerial statements, announcing government initiatives, legislation, policies and other proclamations. This time is made available to the opposition parties immediately after ministerial statements for them to respond.

We feel that private members' statements should not be used to announce any government initiatives. When the standing orders were drafted, the intent of all parties and all members was clear. Private members' statements are for individual members. Ministerial statements are for government announcements and initiatives.

Therefore, to ensure that the original intentions of the standing orders are maintained, today I will be tabling a motion to amend the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly to prohibit the announcement of any government initiative, legislation, policy or proclamation during private members' statements. That is the spirit in which all members of the Legislature drafted the change in rules and we will see that those changes are put into practice.

FAMILY VIOLENCE

Mrs MacKinnon: Mr Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment as Speaker of the House.

In conjunction with Family Violence Month, I have the privilege of announcing that on 20 November 1990 the Walpole Island first nation band established a family violence community awareness program.

The residents of Walpole Island and the Wallaceburg community are to be commended for identifying this problem and for their hard work and dedication to making this vital service a reality.

This type of support will help to assist in reducing the incidence of family violence. Native women and children are just as vulnerable as are their urban counterparts.

This funding will provide information and referral services to individuals and families. It will be in contact with other agencies in Chatham and Sarnia to share information about family violence and services available to the people involved in situations of abuse.

The funding will also be used to cover costs associated with awareness and education through public forums led by professionals in the area of family violence.

I would be remiss if I did not applaud the Minister of Community and Social Services for ensuring that the funding in the amount of $41,800 for this vital work is in place to stop the hurting and break the silence.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Curling: In listening to the throne speech and statements by the ministers of the government, it is clear the NDP is neglecting the needs and aspirations of the disabled, native people and visible minorities.

The Attorney General says he wants to increase the number of women judges. That is an honourable goal, and I support his efforts, but he completely ignores the disabled, native people and visible minorities. He says he will go outside the province to hire qualified women. As well as seeking qualified women, he should seek qualified candidates right here in Ontario from among the disabled, native people and visible minorities. What is he waiting for?

The throne speech committed the government to expanded pay equity and employment equity programs. All we are getting is promises. What we need is action.

Last May, the Premier introduced a private member's bill on employment equity, saying, "This bill is the result of a long period of discussion and consultation." If the Premier was satisfied with the consultation he conducted last spring, he should reintroduce the legislation as a government bill and put it before a committee of this House. What is he waiting for?

The government is also dragging its heels on proclaiming the sections of the Police Act which cover employment equity. The legislation introduced by the Liberal government has been debated, passed by this House and given royal assent. The government should move ahead on this issue. What is the government waiting for?

When it comes to standing up for the rights of the disabled, native people and visible minorities, this government has been invisible.

1340

LANDFILL SITE

Mr J. Wilson: My statement is directed to the Minister of the Environment. I would like the minister to rethink a decision she made recently regarding the Wasaga Beach dump. On 31 October of this year, the Minister of the Environment granted an emergency certificate on behalf of Simcoe county, which enables six north Simcoe municipalities to truck their garbage to the Wasaga Beach dump.

In her efforts to arrive at a politically expedient solution, the minister is playing brinkmanship with the environment.

This House should be aware that, first, the dump is situated on top of the Alliston aquifer and, second, recent studies indicate that the Wasaga dump is leaching. In addition, just hours before the minister granted an emergency certificate, the dump was enlarged by 30% on land that has never previously been used for landfill.

The minister obviously needs to be reminded that Wasaga's economic lifeblood flows from its tourist traffic. The creation and perception of a super dump within Wasaga Beach is tantamount to flirting with economic disaster.

Perhaps the minister would be wise to listen to officials at the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, who are aware that the Wasaga dump is nestled along the edge of the world's largest freshwater beach and who disagree with the minister's decision.

Studying the problem after the fact is unacceptable and environmentally unsound. In An Agenda for People, the minister's party promised to safeguard the environment. I am asking the minister today to live up to that promise and revoke the emergency certificate. The garbage will not disappear, so start dealing with it in a responsible fashion.

CLARENCE WILLIAMS

Mr Lessard: I rise today to pay tribute to a longstanding resident of the city of Windsor who celebrated his 79th birthday last Thursday. Clarence Williams, despite his age, has been described by the Windsor Star as a "wiry, bespectacled dynamo."

Clarence has spent his entire life fighting for the cause of democratic socialism. He was a founding member of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and has been described by some as "Tommy Douglas" because of his roots in Saskatchewan and his slight resemblance to the late legend.

He has been married to his wife, Esther, for 58 years, and has been a resident of the city of Windsor for almost 50 of those years. He has lived his life with the belief that everybody should be able to share the wealth a little bit better. He has been a union member, an unsuccessful political candidate and a persistent pest to former Liberal and Conservative governments.

Clarence is best known for his regular letters to the editor and his caustic and critical political protest banners. But it is at election time when this great-grandfather really gets his political activism into high gear.

Clarence is just one of the many unsung heroes whose dogged determination and belief that one person can make a difference led to the historic events on 6 September. It is a pleasure to pay him tribute today, and I hope, Clarence, that you can take it easy, at least for five years, on the provincial government.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr Mancini: Yesterday's announcement by the Minister of Transportation concerning the extension of commuter services represents nothing less than a sellout of the people of Brantford and Peterborough, and is another broken NDP promise.

The NDP commitment could not have been more clear. In response to a question about the extension of GO rail service in a Toronto Star survey published 25 August, the Premier put it in writing, penned by his own hand: "I am pleased to extend GO Transit services to Peterborough and Brantford."

This is what the NDP promised; it is not what the residents of Peterborough and Brantford got. Instead of full rail service, Peterborough citizens will have to make do with bus service to GO stations, not in Peterborough but out in Oshawa. Instead of full GO rail service, the people of Brantford must make do with once-a-day Via trains, costing taxpayers $200,000 and costing Brantford commuters a whopping $640 a month.

Furthermore, these decisions were imposed by the NDP government without any meaningful consultation with the affected communities.

This morning I spoke with the mayor of Brantford, who informed me that the council has passed a resolution which states that it is not happy with the NDP actions and wants to hear from this government.

ONTARIO SCIENCE CENTRE

Mr Harnick: Yesterday the member for Mississauga South asked the Minister of Culture and Communications to provide the members of this House with the details of the ongoing investigation at the Ontario Science Centre. The minister replied that yes, indeed, as the Premier had said, the matter was under investigation by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and that because of a pending lawsuit he was not able to answer any questions about the matter.

The member for Mississauga South merely asked the minister what was being investigated, as the individual who signed the original contract had already been fired, and requested that the minister table a copy of the original contract signed between the science centre and the government of Oman as well as the legal correspondence surrounding it. The minister hid behind a vague interpretation of the law and avoided answering.

I would like to presume that the minister has better legal advice than the science centre apparently did, but this does not seem to be so. The documents requested by the member for Mississauga South all precede any eventual legal action which might be taken against this government. As such, release of these documents would not be prejudicial to any such legal action.

Would but this were a question rather than a statement, I would ask the minister again, as well as the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, what are they investigating? I would presume that before the director general of the science centre was fired the issue was properly investigated. If the government is just now investigating this matter, it begs the question of what it is trying to hide and whose agenda it is responding to.

Finally, the minister yesterday offered the Premier an opportunity to answer the question of what the government is investigating. With great surprise to me and the members of my caucus, the Premier declined to answer. Shame, I say to the Premier.

VISITOR

Mr Bisson: It is my pleasure today to introduce someone who is no stranger, who sat in this House from 1967 to 1977, the honourable Reverend Bill Ferrier. I would like to draw the attention of the House over to the side to give him a round of applause.

It is appropriate that on the first occasion in this House that I get up to speak I have the opportunity to mention not only the work that other past members have done but this chance we have the opportunity to have Bill in the House himself. For your good service for the 10 years from 1967 to 1977, thank you very much, Bill, and may I live up to the record you had while you were in the House.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

Hon Mrs Boyd: You may have noticed, Mr Speaker, that the interpreter is pointing towards the gallery. We have a number of interested observers this afternoon and the interpreter has agreed to interpret for them as well.

I would like to inform members today of four important measures concerning the education of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. These measures will help make the education offered to deaf and hard-of-hearing students a more open and supportive education, one that responds to their needs as individuals and as participants in the community.

As one step towards this goal, a wider choice of communications options will be made available.

I am pleased to announce that the Ontario government is committed to recognizing American sign language and la langue des signes québécois as languages of instruction.

Within the next four years, these rich and expressive languages will be established as optional languages for learning in Ontario schools and programs.

My ministry will work with organizations and individuals interested in deaf education to achieve this goal. At the same time, we will ensure that other communications methods continue to serve the needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing students, whether they come from an English- or French-language background.

1350

I want to thank my colleague the member for York East for his untiring efforts to increase the choice available to deaf and hard-of-hearing students.

The government also intends to broaden its criteria for funding "in lieu" programs. These are the programs offered by school boards for deaf students who are eligible to attend provincial schools but are enrolled in regular schools. Under the new criteria, grants will be available to assist boards with the cost of providing interpreters and specialist teachers to teach students for a portion of the school day.

The government believes that consultation on these and other issues is essential for the continuing improvement of deaf education. I am therefore announcing the establishment, in the new year, of two minister's advisory committees on deaf education, one anglophone and one francophone. The anglophone committee will be chaired by the member for Sault Ste Marie, my parliamentary assistant. The francophone committee will be chaired by the member for Cochrane South. These committees will include representatives from the deaf and hard-of-hearing communities. There will also be representatives of parents, school boards, the provincial schools and interpreters.

The committees will advise me on a range of issues dealing with deaf education that were identified in the ministry's reviews of programs and services for deaf and hard-of-hearing students which was conducted under the last government. One of these issues will be the implementation of ASL and LSQ as languages of instruction.

Finally, the Minister of Colleges and Universities and I are pleased to announce that responsibility for training teachers of deaf and hard-of-hearing students currently undertaken at the provincial school in Belleville will be transferred to the faculty of education at York University. This transfer will take place on I July 1991. York University was selected through a competitive process that involved extensive consultation with individuals and organizations interested in deaf education.

York's program will help to meet the continuing need for qualified specialist teachers of deaf and hard-of-hearing students throughout Ontario regardless of communication method used. Teachers in this special field of education will benefit from training at a major university with its diverse resources and expertise. I am especially pleased that York University's program will include a strong commitment to affirmative action to increase the number of teachers who are deaf and hard of hearing. In the 1991-92 fiscal year, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities will provide $497,000 in funding for this program.

All of these measures reflect the government's commitment to providing Ontario's deaf and hard-of-hearing students with opportunities to participate more fully in our learning society.

I want the House to know that the interpreter will continue to interpret everyone's statements in the House as long as our special guests are here with us today.

ABORTION

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I would like to make an announcement on abortion services on behalf of this government. As Minister of Health, I am acting as spokesperson because this is consistent with our belief in the principle that abortion is a health issue, not a criminal matter. Federal Bill C-43 threatens this principle. It leaves women seeking abortions, and physicians who perform them vulnerable to criminal prosecution. This is unacceptable. It is unacceptable because it violates the basic right of women to control their bodies.

Even though this bill has not yet passed through the legislative process, we are already feeling its effects. Surveys indicate that up to 50% of physicians who currently perform abortions will stop if the bill becomes law. Already the communities of Sault Ste Marie and Brantford have lost their abortion services. Many communities in Ontario have never had them.

Let me assure the members of one thing: This government will continue to fight the passage of Bill C-43. My colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues and I will soon be appearing before a Senate committee to tell it why the bill must not be passed.

We are equally determined to make sure that women have access to safe, legal abortions in this province. As Minister of Health, I would like to announce the following preliminary measures.

Our first priority will be to speed up licensing of freestanding abortion clinics under the Independent Health Facilities Act. Although the Ministry of Health now covers a fixed amount for services at these clinics, women can pay from $200 to $1,000 in additional fees. Once they are licensed, these clinics will be funded entirely by the Ministry of Health. Women will no longer pay any fees. This will remove the financial barrier for women seeking abortions at these clinics.

Next, I would like to announce a change to the northern health travel grant program. This program currently covers travel expenses for people in northern communities who must travel to see specialists. The grants will be extended to cover women from these communities who seek abortions from general practitioners at freestanding clinics. Again, this will help remove financial barriers for women who live in northern communities where abortion services may not be available.

This government is also consulting with women's groups, provider groups and community groups to find new ways of improving access.

Our next priority will be to actively recruit and train physicians to provide abortion services. There are a number of options open to us, options that will, we hope, provide solutions to the problem of access.

I would like to make one final point: I speak on behalf of this government when I say that while we strongly respect the fundamental freedoms of the people of Ontario, illegal conduct which infringes or interferes with the decision to undergo an abortion is contrary to public policy.

In closing, I would like to re-emphasize that the measures I have announced are only the first steps towards our goal. That goal is to help overcome some of the economic and social barriers women face, a goal which will see more educational programs aimed at prevention of unwanted pregnancy and access to safe, legal abortions for all women who need them in this province.

RESPONSES

ABORTION

Mr Phillips: I would like to respond to the Minister of Health, first indicating the areas we are in support of in terms of her statement, and then raising a couple of areas we have some concerns about.

First, of course, we support access to safe and legal abortions. We are very much supportive of ensuring that it is sensitive and timely, that it is safe and secure for the women who are affected and that it offers support to those women.

I think our concern about the minister's statement would be with the focus she has put on the freestanding abortion clinics. Our party would have strongly preferred to have seen her take a more holistic approach to it. Certainly that was the approach we took, of looking at more than just abortion services: Looking at counselling, looking at family planning, looking at pregnancy testing, looking at fertility help, support for single expectant mothers and looking at counselling on alternatives. If there is a major area of concern we have with the minister's statement, it is the singleminded focus in this statement dealing with the freestanding abortion clinics.

A secondary concern, perhaps not as significant but none the less very important to us, is the matter I raised last week here in the House, that is, health services generally in the north. We are pleased to see that the grants for this program will be available, but we were very much looking forward to a more comprehensive statement on health care in the north.

So a portion of this statement we can support and a portion, as members can see, we have some concerns about. We would hope that as the minister goes forward she takes into consideration what we think is a more fundamental approach to this and takes a broader look at abortion rather than just looking at freestanding abortion clinics.

1400

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED / ÉDUCATION DES ÉLÈVES SOURDS ET MALENTENDANTS

Mr Beer: It is a pleasure to rise and commend the minister on the statement which has been made today with respect to deaf education. I would like to share with her our congratulations to our colleague the member for York East and all the work he has done. I think it is only fair to mention as well the work which the former member for Scarborough West did on this whole issue.

Our party is pleased with this statement, because when I go back and look at the statement to the Legislature of approximately a year ago, it seems to me that the system we have followed has ensured that we have met all the various points that were raised at that time by the former Minister of Education and that the key element here is that we are seeking to ensure full access for those who are hearing-impaired.

In order to do that, we want to maintain the range of options, but I think we have to recognize the cultural aspects of this whole issue, and therefore the recognition of both American sign language and langue des signes québécois as languages of instruction is clearly very important. We believe that if this goes forward it is going to provide the kind of options to students, to parents, to all of those who are involved in this area, and not make anyone feel they must follow a particular route but that indeed there is choice.

J'aimerais dire aussi que j'appuie fortement les étapes que le Ministère va entreprendre pour la communauté francophone. Des fois, c'est la communauté francophone qui ne peut pas, en effet, utiliser les programmes parce qu'on a oublié dès le départ qu'il faut aussi établir les programmes en langue française.

In closing, I also think the decision to place the training of teachers at York University is an excellent one. Again, discussions have been under way for some time, but this will mean that those who will be teaching in our schools, those who will be working with those who are hearing impaired, will have access to one of the finest universities in the country, particularly in this area.

Again, I believe there were many things the former government was taking over the course of the last few years to improve access for many who in one way or another had a handicap or were disabled. I think this is a continuation of that and frankly is an area in which all the members of this House join. So, again, congratulations.

ABORTION

Mr Eves: I am pleased to rise and reply on behalf of our caucus with respect to the statement made this afternoon by the Minister of Health. I think we all agree on the principle of equal access province-wide, regardless of where you live in the province, to women's health centres.

While I appreciate the minister's position and her government's position with respect to Bill C-43, I would suggest to the minister on behalf of her government that it would be more prudent and make more sense to wait and see what the end result of Bill C-43 in fact is going to be. As a matter of fact, she might want to confer with her colleague who is sitting almost directly behind her, the Attorney General, and see what his approach and response is going to be to Bill C-43, if and when it is passed and in what form it is passed and what the real consequences of that legislation are before she embarks upon spending taxpayers' dollars perhaps only a few months down the road to find out that she embarked down the wrong road and perhaps is going to have to change her position somewhat.

It is fine for the minister to sit there and shake her head "no," but if Bill C-43 is passed in its current form, and whether she agrees with it or not, the reality is that it will be the law in this country and will have to be adhered to not only by Ontario, but every individual in this country as well and every province as well.

Mr Harnick: To protect doctors from unwarranted prosecution and harassment, the government should require the consent of the Attorney General to the laying of any charges. In this way we could avoid the expense of setting up freestanding clinics and use our hospitals to the best extent possible.

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mrs Cunningham: It gives me pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus to compliment the Minister of Education on the statement made in support of deaf education and hard-of-hearing students in Ontario.

At the same time, I would like to take the opportunity to commend the former Liberal government for the work it did. In their announcement of 13 June, I think they made a good beginning to looking at a wider choice of communication objectives for the province.

Also, we would like to underline that we welcome the recognition of LSQ as well as ASL as a language of opportunity for hard-of-hearing students. I would also like to say that we are happy to see a four-year time frame so that programs can be implemented carefully and with consultation with school boards and parents across the province.

We commend, and we think we have said this before, the speech and the example set by the member for York East in this Legislative Assembly and we would like to complement him with his ongoing challenges and support him whenever possible.

We will take this opportunity to underline that one of the great criticisms of the former Liberal government was that when it did think up new programs we think were appropriate and necessary, it did not match the funding and the grants to go along with them. Although everyone is interested in improved programs for all of our special students, we will underline that this time we see grants available to assist boards to go along with the programs, and we compliment the minister for that.

Also, regarding the grants to go along with assisting York University as it does its training, as mentioned in this release, it is extremely important that the public know where the money is coming from when programs are defined here in this Legislative Assembly and in the ministers' offices.

We would advise the minister, as she continues with her work, that with her advisory committees on deaf education, the francophone and the anglophone, whenever she needs our assistance on this side of the House we would be most happy to be helpful. We wish her luck in this four-year plan and commend her for her initiatives.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the leader of the government on agriculture policy. As the program put forward by the New Democratic Party before the election indicated specific action by way of long-term financing and interest rate relief for farmers and the speech from the throne does not follow up on that but in fact establishes a special fact-finding group of NDP members only to approach the farm community, would the Premier explain why the speech was devoid of any response to the election promises made and why he would select only a group of NDP supporters for this review in the farm community rather than engaging the standing committee on resources development, which would involve representation of all parties in this important process.

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, if the resources committee decides it wants to look at that question as well, that is perfectly fine. We have nothing against that. I think that would be a good suggestion. We have, as many others have in the past, asked a group of caucus members to help inform the government on the question of farm finance. I think that is a good idea. If there are suggestions coming from other parties that want to go through the resources committee, that is fine as well.

I think the Leader of the Opposition will also appreciate that for the most part we are waiting until the budget before making detailed financial statements. There are some things we are able to do right away; there are other things that are going to take a little more time. I think people understand that.

When I spoke to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture yesterday morning, my sense was of reaching out to it for a partnership, of saying that the government is very sensitive to the problems facing farmers today. It is an issue that is going to be informing the Minister of Agriculture and Food when he goes to Brussels at the end of the week with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, because we think that the fate of supply management and of other issues is very critical and that it is important for Ontario to be strong in that regard.

All I can say is that the question of farm finance, interest rates and farm incomes is very close to this government. However, in terms of detailed proposals, we want to wait until the budget, because we think that is appropriate.

1410

Mr Nixon: I think the honourable Premier would be aware that by the time the Treasurer is dealing with his budget statement in the House, the farmers will be cultivating the soil and making their crop plans, if not actually undertaking the seeding.

I want to make it clear, Mr Speaker -- it is something that you would understand -- that in fact the process is not going to wait for the special group of NDP to consult with the farmers, particularly when so many of them voted NDP, to my regret. But their judgement was clear and it was on the basis of a promise for subsidized interest rates.

Now the honourable Premier indicates that this cannot be done until the time of the budget. Is he not aware that it can be done simply by the Treasurer or the Minister of Agriculture and Food making an appropriate announcement in this regard so that the farmers will have this assistance which the Premier promised in time for the next crop year?

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, my sense from talking to farmers and my sense from the meeting that I had yesterday with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture was that, quite opposed to their being opposed to our consultation, they were very enthusiastic about it because the design of programs and how they work is something that we want to discuss with people before they are done. I think that is a reasonable approach. I certainly think it has wide support within the farm community, and in fact our sense from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture was that it very much saw the setting up of the committee on farm finance as being a very important step in consultation and in living up to the commitments which we made to the people of the province in the last election campaign.

Mr Cleary: My question is to the Premier too. The previous government increased funding to agriculture by 65% between the years 1984 and 1990 and introduced over 100 new programs to address the need of Ontario farmers. Most recently, in the spring, the previous government introduced the farm income assistance program providing interest relief and protecting farmers from weak commodity prices. The program was introduced only after extensive consultations with the farm community. Could the Premier explain to the House why he is making Ontario farmers wait for his government to formulate a new plan, when extensive consultation has already been conducted? I would like to stress that Ontario farmers cannot wait until spring.

Hon Mr Rae: Again, I appreciate the question from the member for Cornwall and I appreciate his expertise and look forward to his advice, as do many other members who have far more expertise in this area than I do. I look forward to hearing from them.

Let me say to the member that unless I am very wrong -- and I could be; Lord knows it has happened before -- my sense from the members of the farm community is that they appreciate the fact that the government, through its caucus, is consulting widely, is talking with people before we simply announce a program. I think that is the best way for us to proceed. I think it is wise, I think it is prudent and I think it is a way of dealing with problems that is appreciated by the people of the province. At least, I certainly hope so.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mrs Sullivan: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. In the Oshawa Times of 8 August 1990, there was a report quoting the Premier as saying in Pickering and then in Newcastle: "All expansions of existing dumps and new sites must go through full hearings under the Environmental Assessment Act." The paper noted that this statement brought applause from people in Whitevale.

The paper also reported that the Premier said the best way to reduce the province's dependency on landfill was to reduce the number of Liberals in the Legislature. I do not know why I raise that, but earlier, in this House, the Minister of the Environment, when she was Environment critic, asked a question of the then minister in this Legislature, on 4 December 1989, saying: "Can the minister explain why now, 15 years later, as we enter the last decade of the century, he is leading us backwards, away from the Environmental Assessment Act, and putting landfill approvals under the Environmental Protection Act? Is that the kind of government we are to expect in the future from this minister?"

My question is, will the Minister of the Environment answer her own question and will she place all of the new interim landfills or expansions under a full environmental assessment?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me make it very clear to the member that it is not our intention to have an interim landfill site for the greater Toronto area. The announcement that I made in the House last week indicated that whereas the previous government had fast-tracked the approval process to reach an interim site, it is our intention to fast-track the reduction side of the equation. We are going to drive very hard to make sure, in partnership with the municipalities, that we reduce, reuse and recycle and do not need an interim site for the greater Toronto area.

Mr McClelland: The Minister of the Environment said a week ago that she was going to eliminate the need for an environmental assessment, or the exemption was being pulled for site 6 in Brampton. Site 6B happens to be in my riding. She said she was going to do that in favour of a full environmental assessment and set up her waste management program. Next day, she stated that she expects that waste management and recycling and reduction, as she indicated today, will solve all that problem, but if she has to, she will eliminate any environmental protection type of process, either environmental assessment or an Environmental Protection Act hearing, and use her emergency power and authority to use site 6B in Brampton and other interim sites.

Peel region garbage goes to Britannia. It will be full by the end of December 1991. When are we going to see the promised benefits from the minister's proposed plan in the form of a substantive reduction in waste volume? And this wonderful plan that she is talking about here today, we want to hear more about it.

We understand from her ministry that a draft regulation on the work plan will arrive within a month or two. Then we go into public consultation well into the spring; then maybe, who knows when, a final regulation. It is my understanding that once that stage is reached, some time well into the spring or beyond the summer, it goes to the private sector for six to nine months -- based on information from her ministry in terms of her plan -- on top of that, after next spring or next summer. Then we begin to deal with it.

Would the minister not agree that in the best-case scenario, we are going to be well beyond one year? If we are not, when can she tell us we are going to see the first benefit from her waste management authority?

Hon Mrs Grier: I hope that we will begin to see the benefit of this government's commitment to waste reduction immediately, because many of the programs that would allow municipalities to reduce their garbage are in place. For example, under the procedures implemented by the previous government, the regional municipality of Halton is currently diverting 23% of its waste from landfill, whereas the regional municipality of Peel, in 1990, is diverting merely 12%. I hope that I will have the full co-operation of the member for Brampton North within his own municipality in pushing it very hard to get to reduction starting today, if not last Wednesday when I made my announcement.

Mr Curling: The people in my riding, Scarborough North, are extremely confused. They are up in arms about the minister's promise to use emergency powers to open interim landfills without full environmental assessment, as she said. if the plan does not work or reduce. One of those interim sites, of course, is the proposal for the Rouge Valley, M2. Can the minister assure this House today that the Rouge Valley will not be site for one of her EA-exempted emergency sites? Will she release specific details of her waste reduction scheme to the people of Ontario? This is a cornerstone of her statements of the last week. We can only presume that a complete and detailed action plan exists. Where is it?

1420

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me say to the member that a complete and detailed action plan for waste reduction will be available and will be announced much more quickly than the previous speaker indicated with his time line of a year.

I would hope that in addition to the programs which are currently in place, and which I hope all municipalities across the province will begin to take advantage of immediately, there will be additional indications in consultation with the municipalities with which I have been discussing the kind of regulations and assistance they will require. I hope within the next couple of months to be able to lay out the kind of action plan that the member is seeking and I hope his municipality will be fully co-operating in the partnership that will be established to implement that plan.

PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier. On page 96 of the auditor's report released today, we learn that 15 residents at one of the agencies for the developmentally handicapped had died between January 1988 and December 1989. The report indicates that the mortality rate in this facility was three times higher than in other agencies and that it represented 15% of the agency's residents. Because the Provincial Auditor has refrained from naming this institution -- that is a role, he pointed out today, that belongs to the Legislature, the minister, the Premier and the government -- will the Premier now inform this House and the people of the province of the name of this facility?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to make sure I have got the name correct and I am frankly trying to find the exact note. I am familiar, obviously, with the auditor's report and I will get the answer directly to the leader of the third party as soon as I have it, but the information that is contained in the auditor's report is of great concern to me and to this government. As soon as I was informed with respect to what I would regard as the breakdown in appropriate enforcement with respect to nursing homes, I was very concerned about it. I can assure the member that steps were already taken under the previous administration to deal directly with problems of nutrition and appropriate care in this facility.

I think that all members of the House would share a profound concern on my part, which I certainly have, and I have been up on my feet long enough to be able to tell the member, and I have no hesitation in revealing the information to the leader, as I am sure he would appreciate, it is the Brantwood Residential Development Centre in Brantford.

Mr Harris: I wonder if the Premier can tell us, since he is familiar with this situation, why it took the Provincial Auditor to uncover this situation; why there is no inspection of adult facilities or facilities where some 550 adults across this province live in some 10 agency-operated institutions; why there is no inspection by the ministry and it took the auditor to uncover this, fortunately or unfortunately, so that it came to light. I wonder if the Premier can tell me this: Why was the facility not named for the benefit of those members of families of the residents of this facility, both existing and future, at the time in January when it was reported to the ministry, and not made public but indeed covered up, and why did the Premier and his government not release this information as soon as he had it?

Hon Mr Rae: With respect to the last point, let me say to the leader that I am sharing all the information that I have. I thought it was appropriate to wait for the Provincial Auditor's report. There has certainly been no effort or instruction or anything of that kind on my part not to share information. Any information that I have, I will share.

Further information that I will share with the member is that the coroner's office was informed of the deaths that did occur over a two-year period within the population of 110 people at the centre, that a team review was struck and began its work in April 1990 and that as soon as the auditor's advice or review was with the government, to be fair -- and I want to be fair to everybody -- a review was undertaken to find out what was happening and to make sure that quality of care was improved. The board and staff of the centre have been fully co-operative in dealing with what I am sure the member will appreciate is a very difficult situation.

He says, "How is it allowed this way?" I will give him one answer, and that is that all the recommendations that have been made, not just for the last five years but, if I may say so, for the last 10 or 15 years with respect to advocacy, with respect to the need for independent review and inspection and advocacy on behalf of the most vulnerable citizens in this province, have been shelved by previous governments, which is why we said in our throne speech just a few short days ago that we were going to take those reports off the shelf and deal with the issue of advocacy on behalf of the most vulnerable citizens of the province, which is precisely what we are going to do.

Mr Harris: What the Premier is telling me is that it is bogged down in bureaucracy, has been and still will be. I would suggest to the Premier that yes, there have been investigations ongoing, as we now find out thanks to the auditor. Why is it this House did not know that? Why did the public not know that? Perhaps if all this had not been covered up, we would have been moving a lot more quickly on it.

Yes, I appreciate that the Premier has been forthright in answering the questions once he is asked. I would ask him this: Why do we have to wait for the auditor's report for a question to be asked before this information is shared with this House and with the public of this province?

Second, the auditor points out that adult-only residences are not included in the ministry's inspection process. This presumably has been known since January. Can the Premier tell us if this has been the case as of last January, when it was made known to the former government, or is it now the case since it has become known to him?

Finally, the auditor suggests that a final report was to be completed by September of this year. Will the Premier tell us the status of that report? Was it completed on time? If so, where is it?

Hon Mr Rae: First, let me say to the leader of the third party that I am sharing the information I have. As soon as I am assured it is reliable information, I am making it as public as I possibly can, because I think the public has a right to know. I also think the public and parents and everyone have a right to the finest level of care that is possible within this province, whether it is in a home setting, whether it is in an institutional setting, whatever the setting may be. That is the standard this government requires. I can say to the leader that I am profoundly troubled by what has happened. I am sure I speak for all members of the House when I say that.

I believe that the notion of advocacy which we are presenting to the House is precisely a way of breaking through the kind of bureaucracy which he has talked about.

It seems to me that we have to have a system of independent advocacy and of independent inspection which ensures that there is constantly another way of breaking through where care is not being appropriately provided. I can also assure him that as soon as I have the detailed answers to his questions with respect to further reports and further information, I will provide them to him.

Mr Harris: If the Premier knows where it is, I would like to see it. If that report exists -- I accept the word of the Premier that if it does, he will table it, and if it does not, he will give us an update on when it is going to be available.

1430

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Harris: My second question is for the Premier as well. During the election the Premier made a promise to small business to introduce a program of reduced interest loans for startup costs and to refinance existing high interest loans at no cost to the taxpayer. That was his agenda.

Last week I asked the Premier, in view of the fact that he had backtracked on a number of commitments of his people's agenda and indicated that they were no longer possible as he had found out since assuming the reins of power, if he would share with this House what other election commitments he is now unwilling or unable to keep, and he asked me for specifics. He said he would prefer to respond to them one at a time individually.

Will the Premier specifically tell this House today if the promise that he made to small business during the election is a commitment that he is going to keep, and if so, when?

Hon Mr Rae: I think I also indicated in an answer to the Leader of the Opposition earlier on -- and I know this will disappoint the leader of the third party, but I have to be very blunt with him -- that we have made one major announcement with respect to the $700-million investment that we are making in the future of the province, which we think will help small business, small contractors, a whole range of people.

With respect to the interest rate proposal, that is something which is still being studied and it is something which frankly we are not in a position to announce at this time.

Mr Harris: A spokesman for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is quoted as saying, "A major tax epidemic in Ontario is literally helping American businesses put their neighbours out of business." Ontario really does have no equal when it comes to imposing taxes on business. They are leaving this province in great numbers to the east and the west and the south. They are taking with them thousands of jobs and, quite frankly, who can blame them?

During the election the Premier said he had a plan. He said the plan would be at no cost to the taxpayers, so I do not know what the big problem is -- consulting with the Treasurer. We like the ones that are no cost to the taxpayer.

The Premier said specifically that he was going to introduce a program to reduce interest loans for startup costs and to refinance all the loans that they had at no cost to the taxpayer. Now he tells us he is studying it.

Could the Premier tell us if this was a goal that he had, not really a promise, and now he has found out it is not achievable or, if in fact in the campaign when he made this promise or he made this commitment, what has changed? What has changed between when he made this promise and today?

I can tell him that small business needs help more today than it did even back in August.

Hon Mr Rae: The leader of the third party asks -- and he is not asking in a rhetorical way; I am sure he is asking in a very direct way -- what has changed. I can only say to him that what has changed is that we have to set priorities with respect to what we can do in the first days and weeks of this government. That, it seems to me, is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

I want to say to the leader of the third party that if we were to have introduced An Agenda for People on I October and said "regardless of the consequences, regardless of the economy, regardless of anything else," he would have been the first person, I believe. to stand up and say what an irresponsible thing that was to do.

I think that what we are doing is perfectly sound. We are saying to the people of the province that we are here to govern, not for two weeks or for two days, but for a term.

I have met with the small business community and the main thing the small business community has said to me is that it wants to consult. They do not want to go back to the days when there was an edict coming out of Queen's Park or an edict coming out of Ottawa with respect to the GST, where they were not consulted and not involved. They want to be involved.

That is what the Fair Tax Commission is designed to do and that is what our process of consultation is designed to do. That is what our budget consultation process is designed to do and that is exactly what we are going to do before we take action.

Mr Harris: I would suggest to the Premier that if he just carries on and waits until next spring, the consultation process will be a lot easier because there will not be very many of them left.

More than 300 businesses in Ontario declared bankruptcy last month alone. The small business people I have been talking to tell me they are concerned about the costs of raising the minimum wage; they are concerned about having to bear the total costs themselves of government-mandated programs such as employment and pay equity; they are concerned about what the employer health tax has done to their operating costs. They know that Ontario's present tax burden unquestionably contributes to this province's unacceptably high bankruptcy rate.

I do not know what there is to consult about or what the delay is on this one. The Premier said there is no cost to the taxpayer to bring in this program. If there is no cost to the taxpayer, why does he have to wait to put it on a priority list? Surely small businesses going bankrupt in record numbers. leaving the province in record numbers need help now. If it is at no cost, why does he not do it now?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, the leader of the third party knows full well that there is no free lunch, and that statement has to be made. I think the people of Ontario understand that. I think the small business community understands that.

All I can say to the leader of the third party is that the economic situation is difficult right now; there is no question about it. There is no need, however, to be quite so gloomy and quite so pessimistic about what is going on in the province today.

We are going to work with all the elements of the community, in the face of very difficult circumstances -- part of which are, if I may say so, the product of policies which come from another place, people he is far more familiar with than I am -- in trying to deal with the situation. It is in precisely that spirit that we intend to act.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr Offer: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister will be aware that An Agenda for People promised that the minimum wage would be 60% of the average industrial wage over four years, and the recent throne speech somewhat reiterated that position by stating that the government will increase the minimum wage to 60% of the average industrial wage over five years.

The average industrial wage in this province in March of this year was $12.54, 60% of which is approximately $7.20 per hour. However, if one assumes a modest 5% rate of inflation per year over the next five years, the AIW will be approximately $15.23 per hour, 60% of which is $9.14 per hour.

I believe this question to be important not only to the workers of this province but indeed to all employers and in fact potential investors. Is it the position of the minister's government for the minimum wage after five years to be 60% of the current AIW, $7.20, or 60% of the projected AIW, $9.14 per hour?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am sure the member knows that we do not know for sure what inflation will be or what the value will be. But let me tell him very clearly that the position and policy of our government is that we will raise the minimum wage to 60% of the average industrial average over five years.

Mr Offer: I am somewhat surprised by the answer, because there were very specific promises made in An Agenda for People, which stated, "Over four years we would increase the minimum wage to 60% of the average industrial wage." And again in the throne speech it was stated, "Over its five-year mandate, my government will increase the minimum wage to 60% of the average industrial wage."

I had some other questions in supplementary, based on a much more specific response by the Minister of Labour. The question to the minister is simply this: at the end of the five years, at the end of this particular promise which his government made, is the minimum wage for the workers of this province going to be 60% of the average industrial wage today, $7.20, or 60% of the projected average industrial wage, $9.14? What is the minister's position?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: To begin with, we do not know what the figures will be, as I said before. But is the member suggesting that we should only raise the minimum wage to what the current average is, which means we would be giving smaller increases than both his government and the Conservative governments gave over the last 10 years?

Mr Offer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It would be very much appreciated if the minister is aware that I on this side will ask the questions and I would very much appreciate if the minister would respond to the questions as opposed to posing questions.

1440

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Villeneuve: I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Could the minister tell this House why his government refuses to accept the Ontario Federation of Agriculture as the general farm organization in this province which is badly needed?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I am glad to answer that question. As the member well knows, there have been studies under way for several years by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, working towards bringing the farmers together. Farmers have been trying over the years to get their act together and get a common voice for farmers across this province.

To that end, committees had been working on proposals and trying to pull things together, but in recent months the different groups that were working on that, the National Farmers Union and the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, have withdrawn at least partially or fully their support for the program being put forward by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

One of the principal elements that the OFA proposal suggests is stable funding for farmers, that farmers contribute to a farmers' organization. That is a very basic principle, and it is a principle that we endorsed last night and yesterday at the OFA banquet. We intend to pursue the concept of giving farmers a voice. We intend to listen to farmers and farm organizations in the future and consult with them, unlike some governments in the past.

Mr Villeneuve: Farmers do have their act together. An excellent presentation was put forth and it had input from the Christian Farmers and of course from the federation. The minister missed the boat yesterday because he told them that he was not ready to provide them with approval for stable funding. With the Christian Farmers and the NFU having less than one tenth the membership of the OFA, how in the world can the minister avoid naming the OFA as the general farm organization?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I have consulted across the province with various farmers and groups other than the federation of agriculture. I have talked to different commodity groups and I have talked to farmers individually, and the sense I was getting from my consultations is that we were not yet prepared to name just one organization for the province. There are still some groups out there that are not in agreement with the proposal that is there.

I am willing to look towards one farmer organization, and we intend to consult with the Christian Farmers and the NFU to see if we can pull it together. I am interested in having a strong voice for farmers and farm groups in this province. If we can pull it together, we will.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr White: My question is for the Solicitor General. At present, hundreds of thousands of Ontarians work on

Sunday or are faced with the threat of Sunday work and have no common pause day for their families. When can the retailers and workers of Ontario expect to have new legislation in place to implement a common pause day?

Hon Mr Farnan: I have some good news and some bad news for the member. The good news is that we have a Premier who has very clearly publicly stated that he is committed to a common pause day. In addition to that, we have a government that is also committed to a common pause day, and indeed this concept was enshrined in the throne speech.

The bad news, of course, is that this issue is presently before the Ontario Court of Appeal. We have to wait for a decision from that court. We do not know when the decision will be handed down, but certainly we will look to that decision to help us to define the legislation that we will put into place and we will act swiftly to put that legislation into place at the appropriate time.

Mr White: Can we expect the government to put any actions in place pending either new legislation or the determination of the Supreme Court ruling?

Hon Mr Farnan: The reality of the matter is this: There is at the moment a situation where this issue is before the courts. As long as it is before the courts, we cannot take any action. When the decision is handed down, there will be language in that decision which will help us to define the kinds of legislation that we will bring forward. It is very clear that we will bring forward strong legislation, provincial legislation, that will enshrine a common pause day.

One thing I can say to the member and to all the members of this House is, I am going to try something novel. In the past, there has been a tendency on the part of the government to draw up the legislation and then consult. I shall be consulting and then drawing up the legislation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Why do we not all try something novel, like listening to the member for Ottawa West, quietly?

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Chiarelli: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. Yesterday the minister refused to provide the people of Ontario with any details as to the nature of the NDP's proposed auto insurance legislation. Will the minister alleviate at least some of the uncertainty which his government has created by giving us a direct answer to the question I am asking today?

Affordability of auto insurance premiums has always been a major goal of auto insurance reform. The previous government's Bill 68 provided average 0% increases outside the greater Toronto area and 8% within the greater Toronto area. The Premier now refuses to confirm his party's promise that state-run auto insurance will provide lower rates for the Ontario consumer. He is on record; the quotes are there. Why will the minister not confirm that auto insurance rates will be decreased under his plan?

1450

Hon Mr Kormos: Let me tell members what is going to happen. The throne speech last week made it quite clear that legislation creating a public, driver-owned, nonprofit auto insurance system is going to be presented to this assembly come spring of 1991.

In the interim, we are talking to people who have an interest in that legislation. This includes the victims who are not being compensated -- the victims who are not being compensated because the last Liberal government took away from those innocent people the right to be compensated for pain and suffering. We are talking to the insurance companies that were quite pleased with the Liberal legislation, the same insurance companies which now want to have some stake in the public system that is going to be presented by way of legislation in the spring.

If the critic for the Liberal Party wants to talk to me about his proposals for public auto insurance, I would be pleased to have him engaged in that process as well.

Mr Chiarelli: If I could see under the desk of the minister, I am sure I would see that he has affixed a pair of skate blades to his cowboy boots, because he is doing a good job of skating around the issue. In opposition he was a great defender. Now that he is in government he is the great pretender. The people in Ontario want to know that his plan is going to lower automobile premiums, and he will not tell them.

In opposition the NDP was extremely clear about its position on auto insurance. Even in April 1987 his leader, now Premier, and his adviser, Mel Swart, said, and I quote, "We believe that accident victims should retain their right to sue where they think losses exceed benefit levels...nor do we consider it necessary to impose any kind of threshold requirement." The Premier now refuses to confirm that the NDP's auto insurance legislation will allow all accident victims access to the courts. He is on record, the quotes are there.

Will the minister today confirm his government's commitment to eliminate any threshold and to extend the right to sue to accident victims?

Hon Mr Kormos: People are watching this now, banging their foreheads and saying: "I don't believe this guy. How can he do this?" After he and his party spent so much time stripping away from innocent victims the right to be compensated, after the Liberals took away from victims the right to use the courts, after they poked their heads out of the back pockets of the insurance industry just long enough to ram their legislation through the Legislature, how dare he?

Interjections.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the speeches on both sides of the House, but perhaps members would like to recognize a former long-standing member of this assembly, Fred Young, who is seated in the members' gallery.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Runciman: My question is to my old friend -- perhaps soon to be a former friend -- the Minister of Financial Institutions. I want to take a different tack in respect to automobile insurance. We have now had the Liberal plan in effect for something like five months. We all know that the minister in his former role was very vocal indeed, as I was. His party took as strong a position in opposition to the no-fault plan as we did. He expressed great concern about innocent accident victims. He has reiterated that today here.

I would like to know why this minister has not acted. He has been in office for two months now and he has not done one single, solitary thing for innocent accident victims. When is he going to act?

Hon Mr Kormos: Give me a break. We have been talking to insurance companies, we have been talking to victims, we have been talking to friends of the member for Leeds-Grenville, because we appreciate the urgency with which this matter has to be responded to. The last government created a crisis here in the province of Ontario when it comes to availability of insurance and the types of benefits that were being denied innocent victims. We are working as promptly as we can to address that. That is why there is a timetable. That is why the throne speech indicated that legislation is going to be presented here in this assembly, legislation to create a public nonprofit auto insurance system, one that is going to provide fair coverage, one that is going to ensure that victims are adequately compensated.

Once again, if the member for Leeds-Grenville has got opinions that he wants to express to me about public auto insurance, we are ready to listen.

Mr Runciman: This minister knows my views and my party's views on public auto insurance. I want to say that we are not talking about public auto insurance; we are talking about innocent accident victims. This member stood in this House for 17 hours and conducted a filibuster expressing concerns about innocent accident victims over and over, hour after hour.

I do not think it is too much to be standing in this House today and asking him why the devil does he not get off his duff and do something if he cares about them? Why does he not introduce some interim measures to address the concerns of those people? There are accident victims out there today; they were there yesterday; they are going to be there tomorrow, and he is not doing anything about it. He should get off his duff and do something.

Hon Mr Kormos: That is exactly why we are proceeding with such urgency to consult, to listen to people in communities across Ontario, to hear what their opinions are and to ensure that the legislation that we present here come spring is going to be the best possible solution to the insurance crisis that the last government created and about which the Conservative Party has had no real solutions. That is why we are proceeding with such urgency. It is for those very reasons, and I appreciate the member raising that. We are going to respond; we are going to respond promptly.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr Martin: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Those of us who have worked in the trenches with people who are suffering for the last few years and now find ourselves in the halls of power are constantly miffed by the process of good New Democratic Party policy taken by the government of the day and misconstrued in its application.

We discovered through the recent difficult strike in our city that many folks, many women and children, who wanted to access help because they were in difficulty could not because of the social services legislation supported by the Liberal government. We were all excited by the fact that the strike was settled, only to find that now many of the workers who will not be called back to work cannot collect unemployment insurance because the federal Conservative government has legislation that speaks to their not being able to access that money.

What is the Ontario government able to do, if anything, in light of this injustice?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The member raises a very serious question. The federal legislation requires that 85% of the workers be back at work before the rest can qualify for their UI benefits. That, unfortunately, is federal legislation. How much influence we will have with the federal Minister of Labour I am not sure, but we will be talking to him on this matter.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

Mr Bradley: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. As the minister may be aware, employment levels at Port Weller Dry Docks in St Catharines, which is the largest shipbuilding facility in the province of Ontario, have fallen from some 800 down to approximately 60 at the present time. He will be aware as well that Port Weller Dry Docks has assembled a large number of individuals who are very capable of doing the job, who are skilled employees and who are willing to work.

In light of this and in light of the economic situation that faces the province at the present time, would the minister assure the House that he will proceed with the decision of the previous government to enter into an agreement with Canadian Shipbuilding and Engineering of St Catharines to have the much-needed Pelee Island ferry boat constructed at the Port Weller Dry Docks facility and thereby get willing and able employees back to work?

1500

Hon Mr Philip: I know of the former minister's concern for the unemployment rate in his area. I can tell him that no final decision had been made by the previous government, that in fact there were three companies in the running for that particular contract, that I am reviewing these various contracts and the recommendations of my staff, that I have assured another member of his party that I would look at some other aspects of the problem, and that a decision will very soon be made and a recommendation will be going to Management Board in the next two to three weeks maximum. I would be pleased to share that decision with him as soon as that decision has been made.

Mr Bradley: I will not use the same supplementary I was going to. I appreciate the minister's evaluation of the project. The minister may be aware that the Port Weller facility operated by Canadian Shipbuilding and Engineering of St Catharines has a union there and that it is unionized establishment that has very capable workers. He will recognize as well that the Canadian shipbuilding industry, at least in the province of Ontario, is probably what one might consider to be in dire straits and that in previous years governments at both the federal and provincial levels have consolidated operations at just a couple of places.

Is the minister prepared to report at the very earliest opportunity, because it is my understanding that it was simply a matter of crossing the t's and dotting the i's? I hope that is the case anyway. Would he give an assurance that in fact the Port Weller Dry Docks facility, which needs the work so badly, will be able to construct the much-needed Pelee Island ferry and get those people back to work? I know they would appreciate hearing from him at the very earliest opportunity before more of the extremely skilled people leave to go to other parts of the country or other parts of the world.

Hon Mr Philip: I can inform the former minister that our concern is twofold. One is to get value for money and get the best possible ferry for the people of Pelee Island at the best possible cost. In this regard, since some of the residents and particularly some of the farmers on that location have expressed some concerns, we have taken the initiative of having my parliamentary assistant, the member for Windsor-Sandwich, meet with these people this week to ensure that the product we are going to purchase will in fact be the best product to service their needs.

There are a number of needs for the people on that island. One is a reliable ferry service in terms of the tourist trade which my government and the previous government were interested in promoting in that area. The second is the service to the farmers and the movement of farm goods. We want to ensure that whatever option we take will service both of those needs, and I can assure the former minister that I am very anxious to proceed with this as quickly as possible for all of the reasons he has mentioned.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. As the Minister of Health is undoubtedly aware, the Ontario Hospital Association has requested additional funding because of initiatives that the provincial government has imposed upon the hospitals, such as pay equity and the employer health tax.

In light of the fact that in the past year over 2,000 beds have been closed in Metropolitan Toronto alone, and according to the president of the OHA some 4,000 beds province-wide, with hundreds more likely to close between now and the end of the fiscal year, what are the minister's immediate plans to cope with this problem?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: In answer to the Conservative Health critic, I do not know what he is indicating is a problem. If he says that a bed closed is necessarily a problem, I am sure that is not what he means to imply. What we have been seeing over the last several months and in fact over the last couple of years is a willingness by the Ministry of Health and the hospitals of Ontario to sit down together, look at their financial problems together and work out adequate ways of financing the services that the hospitals need to be providing.

As the member is aware, special formulas have been developed so that each hospital that feels it is in financial difficulties can consult with the Ministry of Health, can in fact have taken into account in terms of its financial needs what kinds of equalization payments should be made to bring it up to the kind of level of funding that it requires. It is taken into account what the cases are in that particular hospital, the nature of the cases and what kinds of special life support programs a hospital may be running.

It is also the case that no hospital has closed beds in Ontario since last April without checking with the ministry to make sure that it was not affecting any specialized tertiary programs, emergency programs, critical care programs or schedule I mental health facilities. It has been a requirement since April that if hospitals ran into difficulties in providing those kinds of services, they would have to get approvals from the Ministry of Health. There have been no approvals sought or given.

I think we have to say that we are entering a new period of negotiations for new funding. There are still funding accounts to be met within the 1990-91 funding period. Each and every hospital will have its needs considered in that process.

Mr Eves: The minister is very well aware that there are approximately 80 hospitals in this province projecting deficits for this fiscal year, not next fiscal year, of some $60.8 million. A large portion of those deficits is directly attributable to programs which the province of Ontario imposed on those public hospitals. Nobody is arguing about the merits of those programs. What we are talking about here, what we are asking the minister about, what her Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition, asked the government of the day to do, is to fund those programs.

Will the minister now do for the public hospitals what her Premier asked the government of the day to do, and is she standing in this House saying that the fact that 4,000 hospital beds in this province have been closed, when she has people dying on waiting lists for cancer and cardiovascular surgery, to name two examples, is not a problem? Is that what I understood her to say, that the closing of 4,000 beds is not a problem? It is not a problem if you are not dying of cancer, I guess.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I do not know which of the member's questions to address myself to first. Let me ask the member if he is aware that within the 1990-91 funding year hospitals which still have deficits and which have presented to the ministry explanations of the services they are providing and the kinds of cases they are bearing and the kinds of specialty care that they provide -- all these things will be taken into account as we are entering the period when those accounts will be finalized with the Ministry of Health.

Mr Eves: Does the minister think the closing of 4,000 beds in a year is appropriate? That was the question. Is the minister going to answer it or not?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The member cannot seem to make up his mind what his question was. I have done my best to answer the question.

1510

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Offer: Mr Speaker, I would like to give you notice that I am very dissatisfied with what I believe was a very specific question to the Minister of Labour on a very specific promise and I want to register my notice of dissatisfaction with his attempted response.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 33, the member for Essex South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Transportation concerning trailers on Ontario highways. This matter will be debated at 6 pm today.

Mr Chiarelli: Pursuant to standing order 33(a), I am not satisfied with the answers to my questions made by the Minister of Financial Institutions and I will raise the subject matter of the question on the adjournment of the House. I will provide written notice before 4 pm.

PETITIONS

ELEVATORS

Mr Harris: I have a petition signed by approximately 360 residents of North Bay and area which reads in part -- as per your request to us the other day, Mr Speaker -- as follows:

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

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

"We, the tenants of various senior citizen apartments, wish to express serious concern about the lack of qualified elevator technicians and elevator inspectors of North Bay, and probably the province. We are constantly faced with serious elevator breakdowns, which means elderly persons, with or without parcels, are sometimes required to walk up 11 flights of stairs. We believe something should be done before serious injuries happen."

I too have signed this petition.

SANDWICH WEST WOODLOT

Mr Dadamo: I am presenting a petition today on behalf of 790 of my constituents, and I wish to add my name as well. The petition, in protest of the development of the Sandwich West woodlot, reads as follows, even though it is in the past:

"To all members of the Ontario Legislature:

"On Saturday 27 October 1990 youth and environmental groups across Canada will be responding to the Environmental Youth Alliance rally for the Earth Day. The Environmental Youth Alliance is against further development in forested areas and has appealed to Canadians to voice their opinions locally as part of World Rain Forest Week.

"In Essex county there is less than 2% forested land remaining and the situation here is absolutely unacceptable. The development of the Sandwich West woodlot would be a disaster. We believe that the province should prevent this tragic loss of natural habitat and we are asking that this area should be preserved for the future of Ontario."

POLICE SERVICES

Mrs Mathyssen: I have a petition signed by 767 residents of the town of Parkhill to keep the Ontario Provincial Police in the town of Parkhill. I have signed my name to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ORATORY OF SAINT PHILIP NERI-TORONTO ACT, 1990

Mr Mammoliti moved first reading of Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the Oratory of Saint Philip Neri-Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

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

Mr Curling: Yesterday, in an address on the comments of the throne speech, I was talking about the multicultural society as expressed in the throne speech. As we know and hear very often from members of this House, Ontario is a diverse multicultural and also a multilingual society. Scarborough North, for instance, the riding I represent -- I am very proud and honoured to know that it has returned me to this House to represent it -- is a microcosm of what Ontario represents.

There are tremendous benefits for Ontario's having a multicultural society, but this society continues to show bigotry, continues to show increased racism, continues to show intolerance for visible minorities and we have seen, over the last few years, unrest between the police and the black community.

I applaud the previous government for moving on getting the Police Services Act addressed after it had been neglected for the last 40 years, without any amendments. As an elected member and the member for Scarborough North, I will be vigilant that these injustices and inequities are addressed. I will be actively monitoring the legislation and the actions of this government in making sure that not only lipservice is delivered. The Police Services Act must be proclaimed and the regulations drafted and, as was often said by the now government when it was in opposition, these regulations must have public input. I am extremely disappointed that, after months of being the government, it has not brought forward or indicated one aspect of when these regulations will be ready, but we stand prepared on this side of the House to have input and to get public input in the Police Services Act regulations when they come forward.

As I said earlier on, previously in this statement, the employment equity legislation is needed now -- not tomorrow, not next year -- employment equity legislation including not only women, who have been neglected for years, but all people who have been deprived of access and participation in society.

In closing, I would like to tell all members here that I am prepared to work very closely with them to make this province a better place, and in closing I would like to welcome all new members and returning members to the House. I look forward in the coming four years, unless the Premier decides to have a quick election, to working on the side of the government and the opposition to make this place a better place for our children and our elders and for myself to live in.

Mr Harris: I very briefly want to comment, since I know we want to get as many members as possible an opportunity to speak in the throne speech debate, on the member's remarks and suggest to him that I and my party share a number of the concerns that he has and has had, in a nonpartisan way. He had many partisan concerns when he was a minister we disagreed quite strongly with. He had a number of directions he wished to move in that we disagreed quite strongly with as well.

However, on the issue of multiculturalism and the very diverse nature of our province and the obligations on us to lead the way, to be sensitive to ways in which government can intervene and to ways in which government in fact causes problems when it intervenes if it intervenes in the wrong way, in making sure we have a responsive, pluralistic society where all can have the opportunity to achieve their potential, I believe that is what we are looking for.

Finally, the member indicated how pleased he was to have been re-elected. Normally it is for others you like to comment on that. I do not believe the member was fishing, but since he alluded to it, I want to say that I congratulate him on his re-election. He beat our party and our candidate and all others fair and square, and I congratulate him on his re-election and return to the House.

1520

Mr Curling: Just a quick comment: the multicultural society needs no surrogate, and I am very proud of the members in the House here who at times, when they speak on behalf of the multicultural society, I feel speak earnestly and sincerely. I have worked with the honourable member who made those comments for the last five years, and I know his dedication and his interest, and that his heart is in the right place.

Mr B. Murdoch: I am delighted to be able to address this House today by replying to the speech from the throne. I would like to thank the people of Grey and Owen Sound who elected me to represent them and who have given me the privilege of participating in this debate.

I represent the riding of Grey. I follow in the footsteps of Eddie Sargent, who represented us in the Legislature for many years and who served his constituency well. I hope to be able to serve the people in Grey in the same caring manner.

Grey is a diverse riding, with Owen Sound as its largest urban centre. We also have the towns of Hanover, Durham, Meaford and Thornbury. There is a small manufacturing sector in the riding, but we would like to increase our tax base with the influx of clean industry.

Most of our riding's revenue, however, comes from tourism and agriculture, both of which were ignored in last week's speech from the throne. I know that the NDP power base in the past has not come from either of these two communities, but I say to the Premier and his cabinet that they cannot be overlooked. These two industries are vital to the wellbeing of much of the province, not just of my riding, and their needs must be addressed.

In Grey, our agriculture community consists mainly of dairy, beef, pork and sheep farmers. We also have a healthy apple industry which produces some of the finest fruit in Ontario.

Our tourist attractions are second to none. We have a four-season tourist area which attracts visitors all year to enjoy great skiing, beautiful walking trails, clean water and beaches and good fishing. I urge all members to see for themselves the fine recreational features my riding offers.

One of the loveliest areas in the province is the land in the Niagara Escarpment, and I feel very strongly that we should preserve its beauty for future generations. Its awesome beauty is there for all to admire and I trust nothing will change that.

There is, however, land in my riding which is marginal at best and my goal is to achieve a sensitive balance between conservation and development in these areas. This is difficult at present because my constituents cannot fully realize all the land has to offer, because of the lack of democracy shown by the Niagara Escarpment Commission. In my view, the commission has taken the decision-making away from the people who own the land, and this is not right. The land is theirs and they should have a say in its future.

Because the previous government offered few new initiatives to agriculture in the last five years, farmers have been forced to sell off parcels of land to survive. Unfortunately, this government does not appear as yet to rectify the situation. Some say that Grey leads the province in severances, but I challenge these figures. Even if they are true, however, I do not feel it is important, because we do have the needed land for sustainable and affordable development.

The contour of the land and tree cover is such that many building lots could be created and never noticed. It would not change the natural environment at all and would provide prime locations for people who wish to live there.

The issue of local autonomy comes up again in the government's treatment of municipalities across the province. I have been a long-time observer of the relations between the two levels of government and an active participant in the process. As a past member of the executive of AMO, as a local reeve and county warden, and as my party's critic for Municipal Affairs, I would urge this government not to intrude further into the lives of its people.

Because of my experience, I understand the importance of our municipal governments in the effective functioning of our province. They want and deserve a co-operative and consultative relationship with the province, rather than a dependent controlling one, in order that they may be responsive to the people who elect them. This level of government is closer to the people and more respectful of them than any other.

I feel it is incumbent on this government to listen to what people have to say rather than to lobby groups that often do not even live in the community but think they know what is best for the people who do.

In the last five years, we in Ontario have lost the partnership that had been built between Queen's Park and our municipalities. I urge this government to ensure not only that the relationship does not deteriorate further, but to consult with local governments to determine what can be done to correct some of the problems.

I am hopeful that the $700 million mentioned in the throne speech will be divided fairly across the province to assist in achieving that goal. So much needs to be done. The population of the province outside Toronto is growing quickly and smaller centres do not have, and cannot afford, the infrastructure to support this growth.

If the province is going to take the view that these centres must expand, then money is desperately needed. Water and sewer facilities must be expanded and highways must be upgraded. The roads in my riding are fast becoming very dangerous and I can only hope that this government will address the problem.

No mention was made of how or where this money will be spent. I hope, if it has not all been allocated as yet, that the minister and the Treasurer will try to understand the present plight of these small communities.

As members know, the previous government excelled in announcing initiatives which sounded wonderful, but upon examination came up with no funding to put them in place. This left the people of the province with high expectations and then greater disappointment when their local governments could not afford to deliver without huge municipal tax increases. This also was not fair and I hope this new government will not continue to place these burdens on our local councils.

Some of the smaller urban centres in the province now have very fragile economies and cannot afford to lose what industry they have. I was disappointed to note that there was nothing in the throne speech to address this issue and I hope the government will give its attention to this matter as quickly as possible.

I am afraid that measures such as the proposed environmental bill of rights will indeed have the reverse effect and serve to drive industry away. I hope this is not the case, but I will examine the legislation closely and with the interests of smaller businesses in mind.

In closing, let me say once again how honoured I am to represent the voters of Grey and Owen Sound. I pledge to represent them to the best of my ability. I will be watching this government to ensure that my people's interests are addressed and I will work with them in order to meet Grey's and Owen Sound's goals and aspirations.

Ms Haeck: I have a question for the honourable member in relation to his comments on the Niagara Escarpment Commission. If I may point out at this point, the NEC was in fact a creature of a previous Progressive Conservative government and I am somewhat concerned that he does not recognize the important function of the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

I am wondering how he proposes to protect the natural beauty of a county like Grey -- as I also have represented in the riding of St Catharines-Brock -- and also the tourism that he mentions, and the clean water, without having a commission such as the Niagara Escarpment Commission to protect the interests of tourism, of the residents who live there and the natural beauty, all of which are part and parcel of the statement that he made.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission, I believe the honourable member for Grey will recognize, plays an important function. I wish him to comment on what he believes to be the true function of this commission.

1530

Mr McLean: I would just like to take a couple of minutes and compliment the member for Grey on the observations he made with regard to the riding and to the comments he made with regard to his past experience. I know he is going to be a great asset to this assembly and I want to compliment him on the contents of his remarks and wish him well in this assembly.

Mr B. Murdoch: I have a comment on what the honourable member mentioned across the floor. The Niagara Escarpment Commission is probably one of the most undemocratic commissions ever put in place in Ontario government. Unfortunately, it is there. What I had to say about it is that I think it should be disbanded. The people of Grey county and our area can look after our own resources and keep it beautiful as we have done for the past 100 years, so I do not think we need interference from someone else.

Mr Wood: Last week when I rose in the House, I neglected to congratulate the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker on their election to the chair. I want to do that today. I also want to congratulate all the other new members who were elected to the House as well as the older members who were re-elected.

I also want to thank the people of Cochrane North for giving me the opportunity to serve as their representative here. It is an honour for me to be able to participate in the legislative process. I can assure them that I will work hard for their needs at Queen's Park and in the riding.

At this time I want to pay tribute to my three previous predecessors in Cochrane North. René Brunelle represented the riding for close to a quarter of a century. René Piché followed in his footsteps and represented the riding for five years and was followed by René Fontaine who also represented the riding of Cochrane North for five years.

Cochrane North is one of the biggest ridings in northern Ontario. It covers thousands of square miles in size and is characterized by many small towns which are single-industry towns. Mostly sawmills and pulp and paper mills make up the area of Cochrane North. It also has a number of powerhouse operations located along the Missinaibi, Abitibi and Mattagami river systems. Its scenery is magnificent. Countless square kilometres of forest, lakes, rivers and streams dot the landscape. I invite all the members to come and visit my riding and experience the vastness and meet the friendly people.

Being a former millwright at Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co, I am pleased by the many initiatives regarding labour that the government has planned for the north. We will be ensuring that workers have the right to freely exercise their right to organize. Also, we will be establishing a wage protection fund for employees which will secure some income to families that have lost jobs due to these tough economic times. Raising the minimum wage to 60% of the industrial wage will help these people to have a better standard of living as well as create a better economic base.

This throne speech is about being fair to people. We want to work with people to establish better living standards and rights for all. We want to encourage people who were left out of other governments so that everyone is heard. That is why we will work with the local governments to create strong partnerships in all areas.

Cochrane North has one of the highest percentages of francophone population. In Cochrane North, 63% of the people speak French. I am proud that this government is working with the francophone community to ensure its rights. I might add that my three constituency assistants in Cochrane North are bilingual, and I myself am working with a tutor to improve my French as a second language. I am looking forward to being able to address the assembly here in my second language.

The government is also committed to looking at and devising a new tax system. We will set up a commission called the Fair Tax Commission to make sure there is a more equitable tax system for the people of the north.

I am proud to be a part of this government that is aiming at fairness for the people in Ontario and especially for the people of Cochrane North in northern Ontario. I thank members for the opportunity to express my views.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased you remembered the riding. Thank you very much for that introduction.

It is truly my pleasure to rise in this House once again. I have not had the opportunity since that fateful day of 6 September when many of us -- none of us here; some of the members opposite, I guess, but none of us -- received a surprise about the outcome in our own ridings. It is a pleasure indeed to be back and to address the House on the throne speech and perhaps some other issues that might be of some interest.

I want to make a comment, though. I was talking to the member for Durham East, the MPP for Sam Cureatz's old riding. I was talking to him about his predecessor, who I am sure he would like to speak to. When he spoke in the House on very many occasions, he would address what he called "the great Liberal back bench over there," and he referred to us as trained seals because we were trained to applaud whenever a minister stood up and said the slightest thing, however inconsequential it was.

I just want to tell the members opposite that they have gone to new heights. They make us look like pikers when it comes to -- all of it, really. I am deeply impressed. The timing is excellent and I must give the credit to my counterpart, the whip for the NDP, who obviously is truly the iron lady and who obviously has all of the members opposite trained. They have their notes down and I am truly impressed, I really am. I say that with sincerity, because I was told, and it is obviously untrue, that the first time the bells rang in this House, half of the members opposite would leave for recess and the other half would think it was a coffee truck. But that is obviously not the case. They have obviously done their homework and they have studied this. I am particularly interested in how they are reacting.

I would also, though, just caution the members opposite, as our dearly-departed-from-this-place friend Sam would do. That is that while they are sitting up there in those seats, where on a clear day they can see the Speaker, while they are way up there they really want to be down here in this little row over here with the big guys, $27,000 a year more over here. But as they are sitting there, they are going to feel a little frustrated. They are going to be frustrated because of documents like the throne speech, which do not address the doctrine, or the dogma, depending upon your point of view. that socialists and the NDP have espoused for many years. They are going to get upset when they see their Premier standing up there and looking like David Peterson or, God forbid, Bill Davis. Already I see it. His hair is getting a little greyer. I do not know if that is by design. I am expecting a red tie any day. He has an $800 doublebreasted suit and he looks the part. He is perfect. Maybe it is the chair in the corner office of the Pink Palace that creates that sort of ambience, I am not sure.

Members will also notice, by the way, that question period is not answer period. I do not know if members have noticed that yet, but we do not get answers to any of our questions and the little lobs that the members opposite throw over, "Dear Mr Minister, can you tell me what wonderful things you have done for the people of this province in the past seven days?" -- tough, tough questions. Those little lobs that members throw over are not going to get answers they can take back to the folks who are the real left-wingers who elected those guys. Remember that. Because anything they do in this Legislature is not going to help them. What is going to help them is what they do on the ground back home.

1540

I have a unique perspective of the position they are in because of my upbringing. You see, I grew up in a very socialist family. My dad was a labour leader of some note. if not some notoriety, and I grew up with a number of very fascinating people around me. As a matter of fact, I must tell members that when I was a young, somewhat heavily influenced teenager at high school --

Mr Curling: Younger.

Mr Mahoney: Younger, as my colleague has said -- I actually ran in a high school election as Tommy Douglas. Guess what? It was in a pretty well-to-do community in Etobicoke and I won, much to the chagrin of the bourgeoisie parents who were there. I was quite proud of that. but I have to say that the way I won is that I sort of promised certain liquid refreshments and company to my constituents to get together the odd time with each other. It was in a very similar way -- not based on any solid platforms, but rather on some little tricks.

Now I am seeing exactly the same thing happening. I grew up with people -- Tommy Douglas was at my wedding 21 years ago. David Lewis was an extremely good friend of the family, and he was around all the time. Even a socialist who finally got smart was around from time to time, a guy by the name of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. So I grew up with this background of all these socialist hordes invading my rather large family. Tremendous labour movement people like Johnny Barker from Sault Ste Marie, a wonderful trade union guy, terrific solid guy; Ivan and Ollie Campbell, great friends of my family, of my mum and dad; Larry Sefton, members all know Larry. They are all taking orders from Leo now. Well, Larry used to give the orders to the party in those days. Lynn Williams, we all known Lynn, the president down in good old Pittsburgh. Well, he used to be right here; he used to be district 6 director.

I grew up with all of these folks. A number of these people are no longer with us, unfortunately. They have gone on to that great labour union in the sky. They are in the blast furnace or they are up in the clouds having a good time. They would roll over in their graves if they saw how this supposed traditional CCF/NDP socialist government has put together an agenda. The Agenda for People laid it out. The Agenda for People said what they would do. The then Leader of the Opposition was right over here, standing up, saying what he would do if he were Premier. Now he has just leaped across the floor and all of the friends of my family would roll over in their graves, because what have they done? What they have actually done, amazingly enough, is transformed themselves, believe it or not, into Liberals.

I am upsetting my colleagues on this side of the House. I am upsetting my colleagues on this side of the House by suggesting that these folks are Liberals, but the reality is, the left wing over here and the left wing over there, they think they are part of a socialist movement, but what have we heard in the first week of getting back to work in this place?

Mr Tilson: They're really Liberals.

Mr Mahoney: Of course they are. There are even some Tory little lines that come down. I heard the honourable Minister of Transportation, who I thought was a wonderful guy over here with all his hard-hitting questions and his points of view, stand up and announce -- and this is for the Tories in the room -- that he was actually going to set aside a transportation corridor on Highway 403. I could not believe it.

When Highway 403 opened in my city, I was a member of city council. Guess who the minister was? It was Jim Snow, and there was already a transportation corridor along Highway 403. As my honourable colleague the member for St Catharines said, "We should give Ed Philip a third hand so he can pat himself on the back a little bit for making all of these announcements that even go so far back as the Conservatives." I find it hard to admit that they did some things well, but they truly did, and Highway 403 is one of the solid things done by that administration when it was in power under Jim Snow as the Minister of Transportation.

Take a look at some of the other things that the Minister of Transportation has announced. He is going on about all of the promises our government put in place with the $5 billion we announced in spending in the greater Toronto area for transportation, and yet he is trying to pretend once again -- it may not bother him right now, but when the member has to go back to Oxford -- by the way, I would have loved to have seen the new member for Oxford debating with Charlie Tatham on a platform; that must have been a hoot; that must have been absolute entertainment.

Mr Curling: What about the accident? The accident of Peter Kormos. What about him?

Mr Mahoney: Oh, never mind Peter. Peter, have a seat. Nice to see you here. Good to see you come, good to see you go. Peter, if you ever pass by here again we would appreciate it.

He will know that when he has to go back to Oxford to some of his group homes or his homes for battered women -- we heard a great litany of comments from the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues announcing everything the Liberal government had done. This is a bit of a strategy and a ploy that I see on the part of the Premier, where his party wants to be nice. I see him over there even applauding some of our members' statements. The camera does not pick that up, but the Premier sits there and says, "Oh, that was a wonderful statement." I do not know when all of this nonsense is going to stop and his party will start to realize that what in fact is happening in the leadership, in the little group -- how many are there in the apocalypse now? We are not sure. Are there still only four? There were four in ours; there were four guys who ran it.

Let me tell members something else, by the way. What they really have to do if they want to move down into the front benches is lose the next election. I am proof positive. I was way up there, way up where the member for Oxford is, okay? We sort of lost the election, you might have noticed, and now I am getting closer to the front. You never know, when we go out and win the next election I might even be down in there or down in there. I do not know. I think it could be close; right down in there. So that is the strategy members have to adopt.

What I want members opposite to do is look to their right and then look to their left and recognize that the people on either side of them will not be back here after the next election. Cureatz used to tell us that. I looked to my right and there was Gino, and he is gone, and I looked to my left and there was Keith, and he is gone. So Sam must have known, surprisingly enough, what he was talking about. He must have known. But in the case of those guys, I would also recommend they go look in the mirror, because they might find out there is somebody in there who may not be back here next time, especially when they have to go back to their constituents and tell them that this great leader of the left, this great demagogue of social democracy, is in fact a Liberal in disguise. Oh, it is obvious.

Let me tell members that people like Larry Sefton, if he were here, would tell them that. He would not kowtow like Leo and Bob and the boys. He would not do that. He would get up and he would tell the straight goods, that this man is not following his doctrine and he is leading members down the path to ruin. He is leading members to the point where they will be defeated without a doubt in their next election. So let them enjoy paradise, if this is what they think it is, while they are here.

On some of the really interesting issues, the one area where I noted there was a departure from good Liberalism -- and it bothered me because it is such an important area, if I could be serious just for a moment -- is education funding. When we came into power -- well, five years ago, those guys and we got together and made a deal, but the real true power we came into started three years ago -- we had to face the fact that in the final year of the Tory regime there was $72 million granted throughout the entire province of Ontario for capital for school funding. We increased that to $300 million a year for five years, $1.5 billion for school capital.

1550

I get the sense from the minister that her people had simply said, "Well, the Liberals did enough in that, so you don't need to do any more." I would ask the minister to look very closely at that, because frankly we even admitted when we were in government that it was not enough, that we needed to do more in that area, particularly in the high-growth areas.

As a matter of fact, the best Minister of Education, with respect, that the New Democratic Party never had was Richard Johnston. Richard would tell members that during our deliberations in the select committee on education, of which I had the privilege of being vice-chair for a number of years in the former government, we recommended a number of things to increase capital for school funding. The backbenchers are the ones, you see. It was us on the back benches who came to our Treasurer, to our Premier, to our Minister of Education and said, "Look, we think that you have to do something about this." We showed them and documented for them why it needed to be done, and they listened.

Now, if the minister wants to hear consulting, which some of her buddies over here are talking about, she should see if they consult with her. That is going to be the real test, whether or not they do. So I would ask the minister to read very carefully the reports of the select committee on education, particularly the report on financing. I would ask her to address the issue of capital school funding; I would ask her to address the issue of funding for the fixing up of older schools.

Hon Mr Kormos: Are people taking the member seriously? Where is your caucus?

Mr Mahoney: The Minister of Cowboy Boots had his 17 hours. Why does he not just relax and let some of us go, before he makes me go to a 17-hour filibuster.

Hon Mr Kormos: Do it. Come on, show us.

Mr Mahoney: Any time, pal, any time.

But I want to tell the members that the education matter is something that was not addressed in the throne speech. Very clearly there are issues that need to be addressed to give some direction from the minister's party, to put her agenda on the table. What the government has effectively done is recycled old Liberal promises. Let me tell members something: We were accused of recycling issues when we were in government but, by God, at least they were ours to recycle. What the government is doing is recycling Tory promises and Liberal promises.

Obviously, I am not in support of the throne speech. I would encourage the government and all the ministers to stand up and put their agenda forward so that we and the people of Ontario can understand where this socialist New Democratic Party wants to take this province.

Mrs Mathyssen: I would like to thank the honourable member for Mississauga West for his kind remarks regarding our youth and enthusiasm and commitment to representing the working people of Ontario who have created the prosperity in this province.

I would also like to comment on his use of the S-word. He has called us socialist. Now, if he means by socialist that we are committed to caring for seniors, providing help for the disadvantaged, promoting a universal health care system and providing proper education funding, then yes, we are guilty, we are socialists.

Mrs Cunningham: It is not our usual position to stand and make response to comments, except when we are personally singled out from time to time. So it gives me a great deal of pleasure today to respond to the member for Mississauga West in his pointed comments with regard to when our government was in power.

I think basically what we should be talking about in this House when it comes to education is what is right for young people. I will say that there was some criticism mentioned today about some $70 million being set aside for capital funding five years ago and that this was not enough money. That may be so, but I will remind the member for Mississauga West that during those times many of us sat on school boards and we were looking at accommodation of young people that would not only meet their needs but meet the numbers of dollars that school boards had, and that the government of Ontario had, in accommodating young people.

They were very difficult times of declining enrolment. There was not the need, because we were trying to utilize empty space within schools and within buildings. It was an efficient use of government money. I will take the opportunity to say today that in spite of the vast amount of money that was spent in the last five years, it simply has not been enough to accommodate the increased enrolment of young people across Ontario. Most of us heard that in our ridings during the election.

Also, the auditor said today -- and I will point this out -- that closer monitoring of underutilized schools is needed. Therefore, I am saying, for the sake of efficiency, this government and certainly the previous government have the responsibility to enforce their own programs. The regions made no attempt to ensure that boards were complying with their closure policies or to monitor school utilization rates. That is bad management and bad government. We expect new schools where they are needed, but buildings to be utilized as efficiently as they can be. That is what our government did, and I will take the opportunity to say so.

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haslam): Before we go on, I have been asked to make two announcements.

Pursuant to standing order 33, the member for Mississauga North has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Labour concerning the minimum wage. This matter will be debated at 6 pm.

Pursuant to standing order 33, the member for Ottawa West has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Financial Institutions concerning automobile insurance. This matter will be debated at 6 pm.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mr Mahoney: I am sorry that I struck such a sensitive chord in the third party. If I offended, it was purely by reciting the facts. I did not really intend it to be on a personal basis. We know what the contribution was to capital.

But I am also interested in the refusal of members of the opposition to say "socialist." Maybe we should have a class and all say it together, because in reality the government has told the people of this province that it has a socialist, democratic platform to put forward. If it wants to call it the S-word, well, let it go right ahead and hide behind that. If the government wants to continue to be a wolf in sheep's clothing, God bless: it can go right ahead and do that. What I am telling it is that the throne speech is an opportunity for any government to put forward in clear, concise terms what it is that it is going to do and where it is going to lead this province for the balance of this term, or at least until its next throne speech.

I am suggesting to the government, and I think the facts are clear, that what it has done is recycle the former government's programs, and even some of the former, former government's programs, rather than come up with directions that are going to satisfy the concerns of the constituents who it represents. The government should remember who it represents. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe what they did, when they voted was they went "uh-uh," like that on the ballot. Maybe it was an accident that the government got here, I do not know. But the reality is that it has to go back without the coattails of its Premier -- and believe me, I know what that is like -- to its constituents and defend a throne speech that is totally lacking in social democratic policies.

Mr J. Wilson: I would like to thank all members in the House for extending to me the courtesy of letting me deliver my maiden address in response to the speech from the throne. It is both an honour and a privilege to be surrounded by individuals of such quality and distinction who have helped me in easing my transition as a new member here at Queen's Park. These individuals are found not in just one party but throughout all three parties in the Legislature. I am pleased that we are all able to join together in the task of governing this great province.

As I rise to make my comments, I am struck by the largeness of the task I face. Following in the footsteps of the former Simcoe West MPP, George McCague, can be formidable, but I find comfort in the behavioural model he provided, a model of action which daily emphasized his commitment to his constituents and an undying loyalty to this province. For 15 years, George McCague showed us all that politics can be both honest and effective. He is truly a gentleman, a man of honour and integrity, and I know all members would join with me in extending our best wishes to George for continued success in all his future endeavours.

1600

As I look around the Legislature at the myriad of faces, some, like me, are here for the first time. Others have been here before and are more familiar with the nuances of governing and opposition. As I cast that glance, I am struck by the overwhelming responsibility that we all share.

The public has grown weary of a system that continually falls short. None of us in this House needs to be reminded of this; we heard it at almost every door during the election campaign and we hear it every day with calls of complaints from citizens who have been taxed both physically and mentally by a political system that is out of date and ineffectual.

In the context of the current political climate, I feel the need to remind all members to bring to the Legislature a sincere belief that today they begin the process of re-establishing public trust in Ontario's political system. A new age in politics has dawned, and those who adhere to old practices will not find themselves recycled in four years but, instead, buried amid the landfill of broken promises where the former Liberal Premier currently resides.

While at Queen's Park we must not lose sight of the needs and aspirations of the people who have placed their trust in us. All honourable members are here because we entered into what philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau called "a social contract." That contract contains much of the emotional and moral commitment that we find in the institution of marriage, but I am afraid that the contract has been left in a precarious state. The public has become separated from the politicians they trusted to lead. The stakes are high but, with sensitivity and foresight, we can prevent social divorce.

As Rousseau said, "The wise lawgiver begins not by laying down laws good in themselves but by finding out whether the people for whom the laws are intended are able to support them."

We have to renew our vows of commitment to the sacred truth of government for the people. How do we go about renewing those vows? The answer is much simpler than most politicians let on. We have to get back to basics in representative government and keep first and foremost in our minds that we are elected to represent the people. We are not entrusted to represent Queen's Park to the people, but the people must speak through us to this Legislature.

The early actions of this government, as outlined in the throne speech, have done little to mitigate public uneasiness, and the timing could not be worse. At few points in Ontario's history has public outcry echoed more profoundly for a sensitive, commonsense approach to governing. While the throne speech is now fully digested, I am led to wonder if that outcry has fallen on deaf ears. Although the throne speech was sprinkled with lofty intentions, it lacked specifics. There were only vague references to policies, the timing of which remains a mystery.

The Premier has shown himself to be adept at the politics of deferral. In the face of a deepening recession, the socialist Premier seems to be asking Ontario residents to fend for themselves. Many of the people who voted for change on 6 September were looking to immediately cash in on that electoral dividend. Instead, they find themselves encountering "Please do not disturb" signs above cabinet ministers' doors. The government is buying time as it tries to reconcile the Utopia it promised during the election with the cold, hard reality it faces in government.

The politics of deferral will not suffice. There was nothing in the throne speech that suggested the government is prepared to combat the current recession. There was a $700-million commitment to rebuild provincial infrastructure, but what does it entail and how and where will it be implemented? Already, the seeds of cynicism are being sown in my riding of Simcoe West. I wonder how comforting the throne speech was to the residents of Collingwood, whose workforce has been decimated by the recession. People in Collingwood were hopeful that the throne speech would provide some glimmer of hope in their time of despair. But there was no strategy for job creation; no plan of action to create wealth and no industrial strategy to help offset mounting layoffs.

What the Premier is telling my constituents, who are suddenly jobless, is that he has no master plan to help better their lives, but he is committing himself to ensure that many others will join those who have been hard hit by the recession. The Premier is saying that in the absence of any job and/or wealth creation strategy, there is always the welfare system. Clearly, this is an unacceptable response on two counts. First, there is no greater dignity for a human being than the dignity of work. Second, in the absence of a job, people have to rely on a welfare system that demeans their sense of worth and contribution to society. People want to work. My constituents want to work. They need the government to focus less on handouts and more on creating an economic climate that provides the opportunity for meaningful employment.

Has the Premier ever lost his best friend? If he wants to know how it feels, he should just ask environmental groups in my area, who are curious to know the whereabouts of the NDP's commitment to safeguard the environment. The wide range of promises articulated by the NDP in the recent election campaign have been reduced and recycled, with the final product significantly watered down. Residents in the town of Wasaga Beach are scratching their heads, wondering when the government is going to come clean with its environmental pledges.

In her first real decision since coming to office, the Minister of the Environment elevated political expediency above social and environmental concerns by issuing an emergency certificate which permits six north Simcoe municipalities to truck their garbage to the Wasaga Beach dump. With just this one decision alone, the minister mortgaged her credibility as a friend of the environment.

Fact: The Wasaga Beach dump is nestled along the edge of the world's largest freshwater beach, and it sits on top of the Alliston aquifer, which provides water to over 90% of my riding. Fact: Recent studies show that the site does have a significant leaching problem. Fact: Just hours before the emergency certificate was granted, the dump's area was increased by 30%, on land which had never before been used for landfill. In fact, the creation and perception of a superdump in Wasaga Beach threatens the town's economic lifeblood, namely, tourism and recreation.

Recently I met with this government's officials at the town of Wasaga Beach, and they made it very clear that the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is opposed to the extension of this landfill site and to the issuance of the emergency certificate because this site sits within metres, as I say, of the world's largest freshwater beach. I think the government has clearly made the wrong decision in this case and I would ask the minister to review her decision, as I have done every day since coming to this Legislature.

While environmentalists wonder about the whereabouts of their friend the Minister of the Environment, the public chalks it up to just one more politician and one more government which has distanced itself from the will of the people. If the throne speech is a true indicator, then the much-talked-about crisis in health care has all been a mirage.

Let me lay the government's wishful thinking to rest, because there is certainly a health care crisis in my riding. The hospital in Alliston is carrying a deficit for one of the first times in its history. Why? Because costs for providing programs such as pay equity and the employer health tax have been imposed by the government without any funds to facilitate their implementation. The Collingwood General and Marine Hospital, portions of which were constructed in 1895, is desperate for redevelopment. Local residents have raised some $4 million in startup money, and what they need now is a government green light to begin and a commitment from the ministry to help finance this project.

They have raised $4 million from a population of 12,500 people. It is astounding, and I think the government, unlike the previous government, should look to the people of Collingwood as people who take a great deal of pride in their local health care system and in their hospital. They are willing to put their money where their mouths are, and I look to this government to bring in the redevelopment that is required in that hospital. There is an entire wing at that hospital which, as I say, was built in 1895, and in which the wiring is unsafe. It is very, very hot in the summertime, it is cold in the wintertime and we have no choice. We have some 37,000 hospital visits per year. That is just less than what Toronto General emergency room receives.

1610

In Collingwood, because of the ski and recreational activity up there, I have heard from constituents time and time again that it is not uncommon to wait five, six, seven, eight hours in the emergency room, behind a number of skiers who have broken their legs. It is time that this government addressed this problem, and I ask this government in all sincerity to do so. Health care accounts for one third of the government's operating budget, and a throwaway line in the throne speech is not acceptable to combat a problem that is racing out of control towards more cuts in services and jobs.

What of agriculture and tourism, two vital sectors to my riding's economy, not to mention the province's? Both seem to be secondary interests where this government is concerned. In its Agenda for People that was dragged out during the campaign, the NDP committed itself to an interest rate relief program and to preserving farm land. Yet when it comes to the throne speech, it is fair to say that farmers encountered a bleak harvest. The commitment to agriculture was condensed to one line: "We will improve our programs to stabilize farm incomes." I can only ask the Premier where and when.

In the throne speech the obvious is regurgitated, notably that central Ontario's tourism industry is hurting. But what is the government prepared to do about it? The federal government recently released a study which documents that the crisis in Canada's tourism industry is focused in Ontario. Misplaced and ineffective marketing and an uncompetitive tax structure are putting Ontario's tourism operators at a disadvantage. Compounding the problem is the Ontario tourism ministry's failure to consult with tourism operators, and correcting this lag in communications would be an important first step for this government.

I am not sure that all members of this House realize how important tourism is to the province of Ontario. If the throne speech is any reflection on the government's commitment, I do not think it realized how serious it is. It is the second-largest industry in Canada and the third largest in Ontario, generating some $11.7 billion in revenues per year. In my riding, like almost every other riding in Ontario, one in three citizens depends on the tourism industry for his employment. It is difficult to understand why in the throne speech there is practically no mention of it. There is only a throwaway line on tourism.

The other point I would make on this one is that having spent the last several weeks visiting with tourism operators, I am shocked to hear that marketing people from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation have never been in my riding. They have never been up to consult with probably one of the largest tourism associations in Ontario, which is the Georgian Triangle Tourist Association and Convention Bureau, which forms part of the Georgian Lakelands Travel Association. I am absolutely shocked that when marketing strategies are prepared here at Queen's Park, the marketing people, the bureaucrats, do not venture outside of Queen's Park.

I would bring that point to the minister's attention and hope that as a first step he would at least get his people out into the field to actually talk to the operators, so that we will not have reports like the independent study that came down last week from the federal government, which indicated, as I said earlier, that the problem with Canada's tourism is centred in Ontario, its misdirected tourism dollars, misdirected marketing dollars. I hope that this minister and this government will take a serious look at that and that all members of this House will realize the importance of tourism, not only to my riding but to their own ridings.

I would ask the Premier whether his government is serving all of the people, as he suggested in An Agenda for People. Is his government's integrity well served by a Minister of the Environment who fails to consult and ignores countless pleas for a meeting with my constituents? Since day two of being elected, I have been pressing the government -- and then when the minister was appointed -- to meet with the people of Wasaga Beach about our landfill problem.

To date, the minister has not even extended to the council and mayor of Wasaga Beach the courtesy of an interim reply. It is extremely disheartening, and I cannot really express how strongly the people of Wasaga Beach feel. I feel that the minister has perhaps been misled, misinformed by her bureaucrats, and that she has made the wrong decision, and once again I challenge her to reverse that decision and to come clean with the people of Wasaga Beach.

Will the Premier's government gain the respect and trust of all Ontarians when his Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology reneges on a commitment to meet with the people of Collingwood when their hour of need is greatest? The mayor of Collingwood, labour representatives from Collingwood and a number of other municipal representatives were extended the courtesy by the federal government of meeting with the Prime Minister and seven or eight senior cabinet ministers in the last few weeks. They did that to ensure that the federal government was aware at first hand of the severe economic recession that we are experiencing in Collingwood.

To date, we have had no response from Ontario's industry minister. I did have a response from the Premier, who indicated he was too busy to meet, but no response from the industry minister or any of the other ministers of the crown in response to the pleas not just from municipal people, but also from labour representatives in Collingwood, that they may have the opportunity to come to Queen's Park to meet with ministers and senior government officials to explain at first hand the problems that we are encountering in Collingwood. Again, I urge the government to extend that courtesy to the people of my riding.

In conclusion, as we stand at the crossroads of our political future, we must all share in the responsibility of charting the direction of this province. This can only occur if the government consults and is responsive to the needs of all Ontarians. The public did not vote on 6 September for a reshuffling of desks in this chamber. They voted for change, change in the manner by which government responds to their needs and requests. This government would be foolish to lose sight of that.

My commitment to the people of Simcoe West remains as firm today as when I first set out on the road to public service. I, together with my colleagues in the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, will continue to work day in and day out to bring credibility and honesty back to this esteemed House.

In the words of Winston Churchill, now all we have to offer is blood, toil, sweat and tears. This I offer today, tomorrow and every hour of my public service. To sit in this Legislature is first and foremost a privilege and not a God-given right, and all of us here must never lose sight of the dreams, hopes and aspirations of those, our constituents, who have given us their trust.

Mr Ferguson: In response to the comments of the member for Simcoe East, and I think most of us were sitting here waiting very patiently and listening very intently to his comments, I appreciate his offer to work day in and day out on behalf of the people of his riding.

Perhaps he can start working on behalf of the people of his riding day in and day out by himself and convince his colleagues in the Conservative Party to contact the federal Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister and talk to them about their high interest rate policy, talk to them about the overvalued dollar and talk to them about their free trade policy, which are leaving thousands of victims in the wake of what is an economically disastrous policy, as I think everybody in this House would agree.

Mrs Cunningham: I listened with care to that comment. Yesterday we sat in this House and listened to what we thought was a very good first speech by the member for Oxford and we would not have pretended to criticize by passing the buck either to former members or former governments. We respected what he was saying.

I know some days we have fun in this House, but on behalf of our member who made his first statement with the sincerity that he presented to the public in order to be in this House and represent the citizens of Simcoe West, and certainly on behalf of our caucus, I would just like to say we will deal with any issues that have to do with the federal government as we did in our campaigns ourselves.

But I think all of us are in this House right now to make decisions, make policies and make action that will help citizens across the province of Ontario, and none of us can afford to pass those responsibilities to another level of government.

1620

Mr Hope: First of all, I do compliment the member on his first address, as this is my first time in this Legislature.

Mrs Cunningham: We'll compliment you.

Mr Hope: Thank you, Dianne. I knew you would.

The part that the member raised about the issues about job losses, the issues about what is faced in his community -- and I guess I respect what he has to say, because most of us today sitting on this side of the government are faced with the same situations that he was faced with and that is why we are here today representing the government.

But I must not forget that it is through probably the same education course that he went through that I went through, that of our previous government, the Liberal government, which always stated that its doors were open and the lights were on. The only problem we had is that nobody was ever home. Now we see today as the opposition government the lights are on but unfortunately nobody is sitting in the seats to listen to these addresses.

But what I do have to commend the member on is the way he has put it out. He has put it out crystal-clear, and I guess most of us on this side of the government share some of the same concerns he does, dealing with job losses.

As coming from my previous life, I was a president of a local union of the Canadian Auto Workers, little Bob White, and I was also the president of the Canadian Labour Congress and of the Chatham District Labour Council. I was very proud to hold those positions. That is where I gained the ability to be able to get political knowledge, because the unfortunate part is that our school system failed us, we did not learn about Canadian politics, we do not understand.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired.

Mr Sutherland: I want to respond to the comments made by the member for London North. I do not think my colleague the member for Kitchener was trying to imply that we were taking exception to the speech. I think what he was implying was that we all do share a common concern and part of the reason that his riding is being affected so much and is having so many economic difficulties has to do with the federal government's interest rate policy and other things.

All we were asking and the member was asking is that since the federal government does not seem to be listening to the people of this country and certainly does not seem to be listening to us, then maybe, just maybe, the federal Conservative Party and the government would listen to members from the provincial Conservative Party. We are hoping, certainly hoping, that maybe they would have a little more success than we are able to and than the rest of the people in this country seem to be having with the federal government.

The member is quite right that we all do share a common interest and we all do want a healthy economy, whether it is for his riding or for all of our ridings. I think that is all the member was trying to say here and I do not think the exception that seemed to be taken by the member for London North needed to be. He was sharing a common concern. We are not trying to pass the buck. The main concern is the federal government's high interest rate policy.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member for Simcoe West wish to reply? Is there one more? I am sorry. I apologize.

Mr J. Wilson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. No offence taken from the --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I made a mistake.

Mr Mammoliti: I just want to close that statement, my colleague's statement, by saying that a Tory is a Tory is a Tory. Thank you.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We will start your two minutes again. The member for Simcoe West.

Mr J. Wilson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now surely to goodness all members when they were campaigning in the last election got it at the doors. The people were tired of old rhetorical politics and they wanted a change. Clearly they voted for a change and that expression came out in those people being on the government side.

I think the point to be made is that we do not need any more of this rhetoric of a Tory is a Tory is a Tory. It is rhetoric. Those people are now responsible; they are the government. We will be as patient as we must be to give them time to bring in programs and to address issues, but they have been in government for quite a while and they did set out a very specific agenda during the campaign.

I have attended three union rallies in my area in the past couple of months and I keep hearing the same old rhetoric from members of the governing party. I think it is time for them to stop the rhetoric, sharpen their pencils and get down and do some work about job creation and creating economic prosperity for this province. They should not think they are going to be able to shove the problems off to another level of government because we will make it clear, as I am sure our other friends in opposition will make it clear, to the people of Ontario that the members opposite are now responsible for an economic strategy, for instance, which we have heard nothing of from their government, on how to get this province moving again and out of this recession.

My remarks simply are that the people of Collingwood cannot afford to wait for great lengths of time while the government gets off the 20-year rhetoric it has been on for years and sits down to address the issues. So if there is anything I can suggest to make members' lives easier, it is to sharpen the pencils, sit down and start to address the real economic problems of this province.

Mr Frankford: I want to take the opportunity of congratulating the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere on his appointment to Speaker. I am delighted that the voters of Scarborough returned him to the Legislature and that the members of this House will have the benefit of his experience and ready wit. I personally have the honour of having been elected for Scarborough East, a riding adjacent to his. This is the first time that our party has been elected in Scarborough East and it is a role that I accept with humility.

Until this election, as members are aware, I had been working as a physician. I have enjoyed providing medical care to people in Scarborough and the east end of Toronto since 1968. Like a few of my colleagues on this side of the House, I did not anticipate being on the government benches when I agreed to stand for election. It was only as the campaign developed that we began to sense the surge of support for the message that our party was giving.

I recall that there have been other physician-members of this House who have represented different parties with distinction. The member for Etobicoke-Humber, from the Liberal Party, has returned to this House and I assume that the presence of a psychiatrist will continue to be of benefit here. Dr Bette Stephenson, Dr Bob Elgie, Dr Morton Shulman, Dr Jan Dukszta and Dr Charles Godfrey are colleagues who have served here within my memory. I believe they are all recognized as having made valuable contributions.

I believe that the experience of family practice is a useful qualification for this House. You deal with a wide range of problems and get an understanding of people's needs. You become familiar with the health and social service system. You learn the extent of society's resources and do your best to allocate appropriately. You have to do this with tact and diplomacy.

Scarborough East is a large riding that is part of the greater Toronto area. It is a largely residential riding with very little industry. It contains some of the most affluent communities of the city of Scarborough as well as some of the more socially disadvantaged. There is a mix of housing types: single-family homes, high-rise apartments and several non-profit co-operative ventures. I am pleased to represent all constituents of my riding equally.

Our riding is bounded to the north by Highway 401. The rail line passes through it and we actually have two GO stations, Guildwood and Rouge Hill. There is considerable traffic through the riding on the major arteries. Although we are adjacent to Pickering, there are few direct traffic links because of the presence of the environmentally sensitive Rouge Valley.

I very much welcomed yesterday's announcement by the Minister of Transportation about improving the links among the various transit systems serving both our riding and those that abut it. Any move towards a greater use of public transit will have many desirable effects, including diminished use of non-renewable resources and less demand for capital expenditure on new roads.

One approach that the World Health Organization is encouraging is what it calls a healthy public policy. In other words, we should be looking at the health implications of all decisions we make. Transportation policy, for instance, can make a difference to such things as access to medical care, the risks of traffic accidents, global warming and the greenhouse effect.

1630

Members may have seen an article in last Saturday's Toronto Star quoting the renowned urban theorist Jane Jacobs, to my mind one of the most important thinkers alive in our province. She points out the vital importance of snow removal for the health and wellbeing of seniors. A healthy public policy requires a co-ordinated approach by all levels of government and awareness of the health impact of decisions.

I am pleased that the speech from the throne states that our health and social services must be the best we can afford. I am glad that I came to live and practise in a country with one universal health care system. We can look south of the border to see that a non-system is both more expensive and fails to give necessary coverage to many of the most vulnerable. Various initiatives already exist to reallocate health spending.

I welcome the opportunity to work with professionals, community organizations, workers and consumers to achieve effective, rationally planned health care delivery. We have had a number of reports in recent years advocating new approaches to health. I share the belief that we can find ways of providing better services after examining the results of our spending.

My riding contains one of the three campuses of the University of Toronto as well as part of Centennial College. The throne speech's commitment to strong, publicly funded educational institutions will find strong support with us. We must ensure that there are no barriers to access to higher education, financial or otherwise.

Scarborough East is bounded to the south by Lake Ontario and to the east by the Rouge River. This makes our population particularly sensitive to preservation of the environment. They are, for instance, concerned about issues of contamination of water and soil. They are looking to this government for initiatives about water quality. The natural beauties of the lakefront and the Rouge Valley must be preserved by us for present and future generations.

When I was asked to be the candidate for Scarborough East, it was pointed out that I would feel comfortable running there because the census indicated it had one of the most British populations in Metropolitan Toronto. However, I am sure that changes in the population are occurring in Scarborough East, as they are elsewhere. There is a co-op building housing native people. There are people of many more nationalities than is generally realized. They are home owners, renters, and some are refugees living in temporary accommodation. I welcome the emphasis given in the throne speech to issues of multiculturalism and to the multiracial diversity that is becoming more evident in my riding.

I very much appreciate the opportunity of being here and responding to the speech from the throne. I do not believe that we have to make unacceptable choices between social justice and social expenditures. Many of the countries with the highest living standards are those with social democratic governments or those built on social democratic values. I am encouraged by the strong intent of our government to develop a partnership in all sectors of society. I believe that this co-operative approach is fundamental to the kind of government we will provide.

Mr Henderson: I would like to extend a welcome to the member for Scarborough East. As a medical colleague, I noticed that he was not the only physician who happened to be carrying the banner for his party last September. The gentleman who ran against me in my riding also was a doctor and I must say that if one or other had to be elected, I am very pleased that it was the member for Scarborough East, not him.

Being a physician in this Legislative Assembly has gotten to be a little lonely at times. Although we are on opposite sides of the House, I want to say that it is very refreshing to have a colleague around, and I hope that we will be able to agree at least some of the time on directions in the health care system.

The helpfulness of being a doctor in this assembly is something I am not so terribly sure about. I found it lonely at times and very stressful at times. I published a paper in the Ontario Medical Review a few years ago talking about the differences in mental set and the differences of style between physicians and legislators that some of my medical colleagues have enjoyed and perhaps the member would also. I once asked Stuart Smith about that, and Stuart said it was of no use at all to be a doctor around here. He had to simply set that aside when he became a legislator and start all over again learning how to do it.

One point I wanted to ask the member about has to do with the health care system. Physicians, as he knows, are very keen to have binding arbitration to address the discrepancy in fees that they have experienced over the last few years, and our government did not agree to that. His leader indicated shortly before the election that he supported it. Does he agree with him? When does the process get under way? When will the arbitrator be appointed?

Mr Beer: I too would like to welcome the new member to the House and note that a number of years ago I had the privilege of running in Scarborough East, although regrettably for me I did not have the opportunity, as he has had, to actually serve the constituents in this assembly, but I have some sense of the area, the concerns and the issues, a number of which he mentioned, particularly around the environment.

One issue I would like to put before the member, again using the comments our colleague has just made around the fact that we have several physicians in the House, is that he would use his influence within his party and within the government to ensure that the initiatives go forward that have been taken in the area of long-term care. I think we were concerned not to hear more specifically what steps the new government was going to take to ensure that in fact that does go forward.

I think we all recognize that we cannot depend solely on hospitals, on institutions, to meet our medical needs, and I believe there was a consensus within this House around the various measures that were going to ensure greater community participation in providing health care support services for seniors and for the disabled. I think it is an important point that all members want to work together on to ensure that we put in place a system of long-term care that will in fact be unrivalled not only in Canada but, I think, in the world. I would hope the member would lend his voice to that.

Mr Elston: To the new member for Scarborough East, first, welcome, and second, I noted with great pleasure his election because I know of his great commitment, not only in the medical field, but I know he has been quite active in community activities. In fact, at one time or another he used to come and see a former Minister of Health in his office and we used to have some great conversations about the things that could be done in the Health ministry.

Now that he is parliamentary assistant, I hope he will carry on his traditions of local and close work in the community. It is a very important part of members' roles here to represent their own constituents well, but as a parliamentary assistant he has a much broader role to play.

I might also note that one reason I rose today to give a couple of lines of congratulations and welcome to the new member is that when he last opened his first new community office, I was invited to participate in that opening. I would hope that when he opens his new community office as member for Scarborough East, he would extend me a cordial invitation to at least cut the ribbon to this new community office, as he extended me the courtesy of doing somewhere in about 1986.

I am quite available. I am relatively free to attend on short notice so that if he would care to, I would just love to give the opening address to his constituents and others as I did to his new-rostered patients at that community clinic. Might I say we are looking forward to his contribution in a very interesting forum, a new forum for him, but not highly different from some of the political activities that he was involved in even in those earlier days when I knew him as a community physician.

Mr Bisson: I regret to inform the member for Bruce that I will be going over to open that office for him, so he cannot have two; I am just letting him know.

1640

Mr Frankford: I would like to thank all the members opposite for their very kind remarks. The member for Etobicoke-Humber asked about the future for some settlement in arbitration with the profession. I am not privy to details of what the government and the profession have agreed on up to this point. I think it is clear that it is very much in everyone's interest to come to some contract sooner rather than later so there can be predictability in health costs and some stability in the lives of my colleagues in the profession.

I would like to thank the member for Bruce very much. I well remember his coming to the clinic, which I think was during the physicians' strike when we certainly kept open. I hope that it had provided him a little relief from some of the pressures he must have been under at the time. I would like to thank the members opposite for their very friendly remarks.

Mr Cordiano: Mr Speaker, first of all let me congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker, and the Speaker as well on his victory, and also let me congratulate all those new members who were elected to the House for the first time, and the returning members. Obviously, some are my colleagues and others we will get to know as this session of Parliament continues and brings new legislation forward, and new commitments, and we develop new relationships.

The last campaign was indeed very interesting and no doubt will be reflected upon for many years to come by a wide variety of pundits. On I October, when the new government was sworn in, I sat beside my wife in the hospital as she was delivering a new addition to our family, my daughter Lara Marie.

[Applause]

Mr Cordiano: I thank the members. So it was not all gloom that day for a Liberal, at least not in our family.

I must say that as we mark this event with the throne speech, the government coming in and setting out its new agenda -- I know members opposite will not like what they are going to hear soon -- I think it is fair enough to say that the throne speech marked really a reversal, a transformation, a new phenomenon.

The ushering in of this government on I October held a great promise for those people in the province, from a wide variety of sectors and all walks of life, for a great wave of reform that was to continue that wave of reform which started, I believe, in 1985 with the assistance of the New Democratic Party, in the famous accord that we signed between 1985 and 1987.

I stand here and I know some of the members opposite were elected at that time. I know the Speaker was present as a member in this House, sitting as a member in this House, between 1985 and 1987. He is not here today, but I say to him and those members opposite who are veteran members returning to this Legislature that we ushered in a wave of reform during that period of time and there was a great agenda.

Mr Christopherson: Yes, our accord.

Mr Cordiano: Well, we shared that. I do not want to say for a moment that it was one or the other. I would say that we had a good partnership. It lasted as long as it lasted. Those were happy times for both of us, I think.

Mr Christopherson: More for you.

Mr Cordiano: Probably more for us, but I must say that those were reform days which saw a change unlike anything that has been accomplished before.

I was saddened when the throne speech was read on 20 November of this year. I am sure a great shudder went throughout the province for those people who heard what the Lieutenant Governor had to say about the new agenda. I must say that An Agenda for People, which the Premier talked about during the election, went out the window. It vanished. It disappeared. Where is the great cutting edge of reform? Where was that? We did not see it in this throne speech and I am sure there is a great lament throughout this province about the lack of initiative in terms of a reform agenda.

We used to think of the New Democratic Party as being the avant-garde of reform, of social change, bringing things forward in terms of reform. A great deal was accomplished with their help, as I have said, between 1985 and 1987. I give them credit for that, but I cannot stand here and honestly say that this will take place in the future as a result of this throne speech.

I know that the Premier, the then Leader of the Opposition, used to talk about and used to chide the former member for Guelph, used to call him a Tory with a red tie. That was a criticism he levelled against the former member for Guelph. I say to the Premier today that I look across the floor and I look at what has happened, the great transformation, the new phenomenon over there in the NDP, and I see a Premier, a socialist -- oh, excuse me, that is not an acceptable word for the people on that side, the government members. Please pardon me. I will use the new term, "social democrat." I will not call them socialists any more. I will call them social democrats. If that is more acceptable, that is what I am going to use.

It is interesting to note that the Premier has become, I think, in the words of one of the articles that was written lately, a "conservative progressive." Is that not an interesting phrase to coin? I am sure that my friends in the third party are kind of shuddering in their boots wondering what sort of confusion this leads to. Where do we identify the three parties? A conservative progressive? My goodness.

I look at the Premier. He is a social democrat in a blue suit with a blue tie. I hope he has not lost his reformist zeal. I know that we were criticized as a government, no doubt about that, for losing our reformist zeal. But it took us five years. It took this new government only a month and a half to lose its reformist zeal, the end of an era and the beginning of one that is as yet unidentifiable with the reform agenda.

The throne speech, as I say, transforms the New Democratic Party, those great social democrats, if I could use that term loosely, into a new identity, one that is not recognizable as far as I am concerned. We see that through the throne speech. Instead of An Agenda for People, what we have is an agenda for power, how to deal with power, an agenda that says: "Let's take things really slow. We do not want to offend who will be offended by this new government. Let's do things very slowly. Let's be vague."

All those great promises and all those great expectations that were talked about so valiantly throughout the last election are no longer there. Take waste management, for example. No new tough measures were introduced in the throne speech with respect to specifics. Where is the imposition of taxes on excess packaging? It is not there. There is some vague mention in the throne speech about how we are going to reduce, reuse and recycle. Yes, those are all great statements to make. We use them. Previous governments used them. I am saying to the government that this throne speech gave it an opportunity to move forward with that reformist agenda.

It did not happen on waste management. On auto insurance, what did this government do? It announced a six-month delay and a period of consultation with interested parties. The Minister of Financial Institutions was in the House. He is not here now. But I say to him that he was as clear as could be in the last parliamentary session about where his party stood on this issue. In fact, we fought two elections on this issue, not just the one.

As far as people far and wide could tell, the governing party was as clear as could be. Its agenda was very clear. There was no equivocating in its agenda. It said it wanted a government-run insurance scheme. We had three years of discussion and debate in this House and in many other forums. We do not see that. Lo and behold, it is gone -- six months of delay.

1650

Affordable housing: There was some vague token support to help the supply of affordable housing. That is the only mention affordable housing got. Where was the commitment to build 10,000 non-profit units and in addition to that 10,000 more subsidized spaces that were talked about in An Agenda for People? No longer An Agenda for People; it is not there in the throne speech.

On child care, they promised 10,000 new, non-profit child care spaces and to subsidize 10,000 more. Where is the commitment to do that in the throne speech? No mention of any details in the plan. They are going to consult. The great wave of this government will be to consult and consult and consult. Now, we were criticized for that as well, so let me give a word of advice: Do not take too long to consult. The government knows where it stands on these issues.

These are the social issues that are of importance to Ontarians. These are the issues that make a difference in people's lives. These are the issues that make a difference to the average person in Ontario. I say that they have been telling us, and they told us as well. We did what we thought was right at the time, we increased day care spaces at an unheard-of level, at a rate which was phenomenal by any standard right across this country. We are proud of that record. But I say to this government: Continue with that reform agenda. This is not the time to stop. A great many people out there are waiting for those child care spaces.

On social assistance, I say we indeed have a very proud record. We introduced measures culminating in the Social Assistance Review Committee report. The recommendations that came out of that were introduced by the previous Liberal government. We are proud of that record. I think it behooves this government to remember that a reformist agenda calls for action, not words.

Nuclear energy is the biggest flip-flop of all. In the last election, the NDP called for a phase-out of existing nuclear reactors. What do we get in the throne speech? We get talk of an Environmental Assessment Board hearing, which will proceed. We do not get talk of plans to kill nuclear energy to come on stream. We do not get that stop-in-your-tracks kind of initiative which people were expecting. I think a great many people out there are really concerned about that. Now, I am not saying for a moment that that is not the right way to go, but they are concerned because they supported that party in the last election thinking that was what they were going to get. They certainly did not get that in the throne speech.

I do not want to be too unkind to the new government. I want to give them their due. I think there is mention of a variety of programs. What I am trying to say to the members opposite, those who are here today, is to remember those commitments. Remember them. Heed those words that were put forward during the last campaign. They should put forward the commitment and the initiative of the promises they made, because people out there really want to see a reform agenda.

My last point with respect to the throne speech is the fact that -- this is perhaps the greatest indictment of this government -- this is where Liberals and New Democrats part company. I know there was confusion and rhetoric talked about earlier in discussion here with respect to "a Tory is a Tory and a Liberal is a Liberal." Well, I have to say there is a great deal of difference between us. There is a great deal of difference and there is a choice.

Now the people have spoken and they have indicated their choice. I am not going to doubt that for a moment. That choice is clear. But we part company with respect to the vision of the future, which says to people, "We are going to expand the economic pie for those people who are unfortunately facing a grim reality right now in a deepening recession, with very few prospects to enhance their economic life, to enhance their own personal situations." There is no talk about that in the throne speech. There is no vision of that future. There is no vision about how to enhance that economic pie, how to make it bigger so people have an equal opportunity to share in the wealth, to share by their own initiatives.

If the government does not create that, if it fails to lead in that regard, this government will be doomed to failure. I will give them this much -- I want to be kind -- there are measures in the throne speech to talk about redistributing wealth, wage protection, better severance packages. Those are all good things. But I must say that is half the equation. The other half is how to create additional wealth and how to create greater economic activity so that people have a share and people have an equal opportunity in that economic activity. Those are the measures. This is where we part company with the NDP. We share our quest for social equity and for social reform, but I think the people on that side of the House have to realize that that cannot come about unless the government creates the additional wealth. That pie has to get bigger. You cannot keep sharing a pie that is shrinking. There is not enough to go around if that pie keeps shrinking.

So I say to the members of the other side to remember their commitments, remember their ideals and remember that, in this place, it is easy to become cynical when they have power. We learned that lesson, I hope. I am sure that most of my colleagues share in that view. We learned that lesson. It was not so much that we forgot how to govern, it was not so much that we were not true to our ideals. Perhaps the failure on our part was to communicate what we were doing, for the most part. In fact, we did a lot and probably too much and that got us into trouble. But I say to the members opposite not to forget their ideals, not to forget why they were elected to be in this House.

Mr Hansen: I am glad it was not the throne speech, because it was all negative. I can say one thing: With our throne speech it was all positive. What I promised to the riding of Lincoln was preserving the farm lands and preserving the farmer down there. I did not hear that in the member's criticism. I guess that is one area where we have not gone wrong yet.

But auto insurance, this is going to be a big fix. The government will now have to fix up what the Liberals have put in. I have had letters coming in left and right, from both parties, left and right and centre, on auto insurance.

On the environment, I think members are going to see our government change how we think about cleaning up the environment. Cleaning up the environment is not only recycling but cutting packaging, as the Minister of the Environment has already mentioned. We are going to go back to the cause of the problem, not correct the problem at the end of the pipe. The same thing with toxic waste: We are going to go back to the beginning to see whether we can change it there, not at the end.

Mr Bisson: The point I want to raise is that we are elected to this Legislature in order to govern for the benefit of the people of this province, in order to make this province a better place to live, somewhere where we can raise our families in a way that is equitable to all. The one thing that amazes me is that we sit here on the one hand and the opposition criticizes because we do not spend too much. They will criticize if we spend, they will criticize if we do this. It does not matter what the government announced.

Let us look at auto insurance. When the past government put in place the present no-fault insurance system we have today, there was no public consultation in order to allow the people of this province to have a say on what auto insurance should be in this province. Instead, what it did was pass it through in legislation. It did not listen to the people and now we, as a government, are set with the problem of having to fix this mess. The member across the floor says, "You haven't done anything in the two months you have been here." It took a while to get to the way it is. We need a little bit of time to fix it up. It is as simple as that.

1700

But the important part of the process is that the people of this province need to be consulted, the people in the end who are going to be using that system. We need to get the input from them so we can put together an auto insurance system within this province that reflects the 1990s, not go out and arbitrarily do something as a government and not listen to the people of this province. Instead, we have to turn around and we have to listen to what the people are saying, and put in place a program that is going to reflect what the needs of the drivers are today in the 1990s.

Mr Cordiano: I just want to say to the members who responded to my speech that we can talk about halfway measures, halting steps. That is all good; that is all fine. The NDP is in government now. It has the opportunity to make those decisions very clear. It has the power and it has a majority of seats in this House. I am not saying or suggesting for a moment that it should not consult, but what I am saying is that on those issues which were clearly discussed and debated for a number of years, it has to make clearer to people where it stands.

What I am saying about the throne speech is not so much about its vagueness. I am not criticizing its vagueness or its lack of clarity in definition with precise details. But it is not even close to being clear in terms of its direction. That is what I am saying. The direction is not there. There is no vision. There is a lack of vision. It is rudderless, directionless. The ship is afloat in a storm and there is no leadership there.

I say to the Premier to give the kind of leadership he was elected to give, because if it is not there, well, he is not elected, he is not here. The weight is on my friend's shoulders. Enjoy it while it lasts, because it might not be here for ever.

Mr McLean: First, Mr Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment as Speaker of this Legislature. I would also like to welcome all the new members to the Legislature and welcome back those who were re-elected. It is a great opportunity to serve the people of this province, and members have that opportunity through this Legislature.

I appreciate having this opportunity to say a few words about the throne speech that was unveiled recently by Ontario's first socialist government. The only certainty in the vague report on 20 November, the throne speech, is that this government chose to beat a hasty retreat from the Agenda for People it promoted during the September election campaign, while trying to show just barely enough movement on a few issues to satisfy its traditional labour supporters. In short, this throne speech is a failed attempt at striking a fine balance between the heated NDP rhetoric of the election campaign and the hard realities of actually governing the province of Ontario.

The throne speech, the NDP's blueprint for Ontario, tries to be all things to all people. It contained a few interesting features and an equal number of interesting omissions. Some of those highlights include a study of all aspects of taxation, including a minimum tax on corporations, and increasing the minimum wage to 60% of the average industrial wage over the next five years. Whether it is based on 60% of today's wage or based on the 60% in five years, the minister today did not appear to have the answer. It also contains a proposal to introduce a publicly owned automobile insurance system in the spring. Indications were that it would be brought in immediately.

I sat in this Legislature and have seen the lists that the member had passed on to him for hours and hours, indicating the concerns that were raised, and he would act on it immediately, but I do not see that happening.

It mentions the introduction of a common pause day pending the outcome of the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling on Sunday shopping. They also had an environmental bill of rights which would allow people to sue environmental offenders, and are developing conflict-of-interest guidelines for municipal and provincial politicians.

While there were some interesting highlights in the throne speech, I must say that I have some very real concerns about its failure to address some of the crucial issues facing the people of Simcoe East. I would like to spend just a few moments to outline the issues of concern to the people of my riding.

As my party's critic for Natural Resources, and as a representative of a riding which contains a unique water system that is popular for recreation and tourism, I was dismayed that the throne speech failed to address some of the important issues in the environment, with regard to the Ministry of Natural Resources, which would pertain to the very serious problem we have in the spread of zebra mussels, which damage boats, fishing equipment, reduce the amount of food available to the young of many fish species and decrease the survival rate of fish eggs. They also destroy our marine heritage by corroding historically important shipwrecks. They attack and destroy municipal power plants and industrial water intake pipes.

The new government had an ideal opportunity to use the throne speech to declare war on zebra mussels through the Ministry of the Environment, and unfortunately it missed the boat. Action must be taken now to rid Ontario's waterways of this shellfish and prevent its spread to Lake Couchiching, Lake Simcoe and the Trent-Severn waterway. It is my understanding that it will be easier, and it is easier, to control the initial attachment of the larvae than to try to dislodge the shellfish once it is established.

There was also no mention of this government's interest in establishing through the Ministry of Natural Resources -- I have not seen any program yet -- a more equitable method of allocating adult moose tags without causing a decline in Ontario's moose population. Perhaps the government should give serious consideration to allocating one adult moose validation tag per licensed hunt camp in the province, with the rest distributed in a more equitable and fairer draw system than exists today.

As well, the throne speech contained no mention of revamping of the existing fishing licence system to ensure that the revenues are used for what they were originally intended, which was for conservation and restocking our lakes and waters to put more fish back into the system. As members know, it was the previous administration that established fishing licensing fees. Like this province's anglers, I said I would live with this system as long as the revenues were used for conservation purposes and restocking. But the money generated from the sale of fishing licences was dumped into general revenues, and some was even used to buy trucks -- totally unacceptable. The throne speech should have mentioned that the fishing licence system would be cleaned up. This is another example of a missed opportunity, and I am sure the new minister will be wanting to address some of those issues.

The people of Simcoe East are worried that the throne speech skirted the issue with regard to transfer of payments to municipalities, like the city of Orillia, the town of Penetanguishene, the villages of Coldwater and Elmvale, or the townships of Oro, Mara, Orillia, Flos, Tiny, Rama or Medonte. Does this mean that the current government will continue its predecessor's policy of transferring responsibility for providing services from the provincial to the municipal level without the necessary funding to pay for these services? The policy of offloading provincial programs is breaking the backs of our municipalities and should not be allowed to continue.

It was also interesting to note that the throne speech failed to address the restructuring of county government in Ontario. It is interesting because during the September election campaign the leader of the New Democratic Party came to Simcoe East -- as a matter of fact, he was there two or three times -- and said that there should be no restructuring without the voices of the people being heard on this very important issue. Personally, I am not so sure that Simcoe county needs to be restructured, but I do know that the entire process involved in the restructuring of county governments in Ontario has been flawed from the very beginning.

1710

The most serious flaw is that the former government restricted the membership of the restructuring committee, and the committee studying the restructuring of north Simcoe is made up of municipal officials mostly from south Simcoe, which has already been restructured by a bill in this Legislature this spring. So where are the elected representatives of the people of the townships of Medonte, Tiny, Oro, Orillia, Rama and Mara? None of them are on the restructuring committee, and these are the municipalities that will be directly affected by restructuring, but they are not on the restructuring committee. It is my understanding that the elected representatives of these municipalities have been denied information, or even observer status. The people of these municipalities have been disfranchised by the existing restructuring process. It is my hope that the restructuring process will be revamped, even though it was not mentioned in the recent throne speech.

I must say I was pleased that the new government has decided to proceed with the relocation of the Ontario Provincial Police headquarters to the city of Orillia. It was the logical and right thing to do.

I would like to point out to this government that in the past I have also suggested that the existing Huronia Regional Centre, which is scheduled to be phased out over the coming years, could be used for the care and treatment of Alzheimer's patients or the care and treatment of chronic care patients or as a Workers' Compensation Board facility for the rehabilitation and therapy of those suffering from work-related injuries. Again, none of these ideas was mentioned in the throne speech, but they are suggestions that should be given serious consideration by the government.

Since I am talking about health-care-related issues, I would like to know if the new government intends to honour the previous government's commitment to provide $30 million for the redevelopment of Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital and the commitment to build a new Oak Ridge facility at the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre. It is interesting today to note that the former Minister of Health, who came to Orillia to make that great announcement, is with us here today, and the $30 million is growing with interest. I am sure the new Minister of Health is going to see that this commitment that the former minister made will be fulfilled in due course.

I was dismayed that Ontario's farmers were virtually ignored by the throne speech. This government must realize that it becomes a responsibility of any society to collaborate with its farming community and to ensure productivity and fair distribution. This implies that we do our bit to ensure that the inheritors of the good earth in this country can stay on it, work it profitably and preserve it for future generations. Any modern province like Ontario that fails to protect and promote its farming community is heading for trouble, and a province that cannot be reasonably self-sufficient and secure in its production of food risks losing a precious measure of independence, security and prosperity.

My great hope is that this socialist government will wake up and become more aware of existing poverty, not just the urban poverty that this government tends to focus on but also rural poverty. About 30% of Ontario's farmers live in financially strained circumstances. The government must be made to realize that poverty is just as rural as it is urban. Farmers may not be unemployed but no matter how hard or how long they work they just cannot make ends meet and so they fall into debt and lose hope. Our farmers earn less than the minimum wage, even though they produce what we simply cannot live without. Our cheap food policy is neither kind nor just to Ontario's farmers. It was my hope that the throne speech would have addressed this imbalance, but I am sorry to say that it did not.

The throne speech promised "an ambitious pace of change" for Ontario, and a senior NDP government official promised there would be a "blizzard" of legislation by Christmas. We can only hope that this blizzard will contain legislation aimed at addressing the crucial and very real issues that face the people of Simcoe East and this province. The people of Simcoe East want a blizzard of legislation that addresses the hard realities of government, and not just another snow job.

We have talked about the Ministry of the Environment here today. I have had municipalities requesting meetings with the Ministry of the Environment. To date, we have not had a letter back recognizing that fact. I feel that government and its people, when they are dealing with local municipalities, have to have the decency to respond and explain why, if they are not going to do it.

I was also interested yesterday to see the Minister of Transportation, my good friend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, who I have sat on committees with for many years --

Mr Elston: I remember when you called him something else.

Mr McLean: The member for Bruce knows me, that I am always very friendly and just. I do not take up some of the rhetoric that I hear some members speak about.

I was speaking about the previous government's commitment with regard to GO service to Orillia. I am sure that it is still on the books, that as I heard yesterday, the promise and the commitment will be fulfilled. But I do hope that it is one of those commitments that will be looked at and studied, and if it is determined that it is feasible and right, then I would expect that the minister would see fit to see that the commitment is fulfilled.

I have heard the Premier on many occasions talk about patronage and many of the issues that relate to patronage. I have noticed that many of the members of the government side, friends who were not elected to this Legislature, now a majority of them have jobs with other members or with ministers. If that is not patronage, I do not really know what it is.

But I do want to say that many members who were elected to this Legislature were not elected because of government policies; they were not elected because it was the person who the voters felt was the most appropriate. Many people elected to this Legislature were elected and voted for because the voters wanted to vote a government out. So I do not want those members to forget that what they do for their communities and their constituents will determine whether they will be re-elected, and if their Premier continues to renege on the promises that he made, very few will be re-elected.

I happen to realize commitments that people make and I happen to believe in integrity. I do not happen to be one who would like to make a promise and not fulfil it. Somebody said to me the other day, "You know, there was a politician on the road and there was a skunk on the road. What would be the difference?" I said, "It would probably be the skid marks in front of the skunk." That is what they seemed to agree with. That is where politicians stand in the eyes of people. So I am here today to say a few remarks with regard to the throne speech. I thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for that opportunity.

Mr White: I want to thank my friend opposite for his very generous words of welcome and those of many of the members to the right of him who equally had very generous comments. The member brought up a number of very important items -- the issue of moose tags, reform of fishing licences and zebra mussels and their possible entry into Lake Couchiching, all of which were absent indeed from the throne speech. It is very difficult to include all items in the throne speech at one time and I understand that the throne speech was an exercise in some brevity. We were able to accomplish it, I think, in somewhat less than an hour, and it hinted at the issues that will be coming to the fore in the course of our government. It did not encyclopaedically list them all, but indicated the direction of our government.

As the member indicated, in terms of the environmental bill of rights, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the thrust of our government, I think, is very clear. While some members opposite seem to think that there may be some difficulty with calling ourselves social democrats or democratic socialists, I am proud of, and I think all members of our caucus are proud of and confident in, the direction of our government. I want to again thank the member opposite for his generous welcome.

1720

Mr Klopp: Mr Speaker, I would like to congratulate you and the Deputy Speaker on your election.

I would like to make a comment, if I may, and some thoughts on the previous statements of the member across the floor with regard to agriculture. As a farmer, I have known for many years that agriculture has had many, many problems. I have seen many times where politicians have fallen into that area where they make lots of announcements, and it is good for the politician. By the time it got sifted down through to the farmers, we got very little.

The previous government needed an election gimmick for us, the farmers. It came to $40 million in the one for drought relief. That made the great papers all around Ontario, but when it came to reality it was $5.80. Now, $5.80 for most of us, if you know anything about farming, does not even barely pay for one cultivation in the field. It made me so cross that I ran. It made many farmers all over Ontario so cross that they voted for New Democrats.

I know the member's frustration. While he said it never got mentioned in the throne speech, it did get mentioned a little bit, but it does not really matter to me. I did not run as a politician. I have enough work at home. I ran because I thought I could do a little bit to make something concrete. As I mentioned to the Minister of Agriculture and Food the other day, "Jeepers, it would be nice to make an announcement," but I did not run for that.

I do not think farmers expect that. They want us to build a firm foundation. Do a couple of things right; do not make a whole lot of machine gun announcements. I share the member's frustration. I am glad he brought it up, but I think he is going to notice in this government that we are not just going to run fast. We are going to walk slow. We are going to do it right. I thank him for his concerns.

I know the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry is very much concerned about agriculture. I hope he keeps peppering us to remind us to do those good things, because we are all in this together. But I assure members, we are not going to be like the Liberals and Conservatives, who were just trying to make announcements for the paper. We are trying to do our job, what we are getting paid to do, and I truly believe that the people of Ontario are quite interested in that.

Mr Frankford: I was interested in the comments of the previous speaker and his reference to the Huronia Regional Centre. I would certainly like to increase my knowledge of what goes on there. I think that this government, as previous governments, has been looking very much at the balance between institutional and community care. To my knowledge, this is a good example of where we have to have a real opportunity of changing things. I just briefly would like to say that I would very much like to learn more and to see what are the alternatives there.

Mr McLean: I would like to respond to the last speaker first. I am certainly pleased to hear that. I certainly have raised this issue over the past 10 years in this Legislature, some 10 years almost, with regard to the Huronia Regional Centre, and I continue to do it. I look forward to the co-operation from the member with regard to that.

I would like to comment to my friend with regard to the zebra mussel. It is something that has been in the works for a couple of years and it is something that, if we can get a hold of now and try to prevent, it would be the most reasonable way for everybody, for fish habitat and for all concerned; not only that, but the sewers and the intakes of all our municipalities that are involved with regard to the acid they are using to try to get rid of them and kill them. So it is a very major concern of mine.

I would like to respond to the member for Huron. Maybe I should inform him that I have probably forgotten more about farming than he will ever know. I have been farming since 1959. I was burned out in 1964. I still have a dairy farm and my son runs it. My good friend there in the back row, his former secretary is my son's wife and they have three beautiful children. We have a very successful dairy farm and it is through good management that this happened.

I have been looking at the relief for farmers. An Agenda for People said that up to $100 million would be made available at no cost to the taxpayer. I would like to see that commitment fulfilled; I am sure all farmers would.

I just want to thank the members for their comments and look forward to working with them all for the betterment of the province of Ontario.

Mr Martin: Mr Speaker, I would first like to congratulate you and the Deputy Speaker in your new roles and wish you well as we move through this time together.

I also want to share with the House today how excited and happy I am to be here representing the good people of Sault Ste Marie and how excited I was at the swearing in of this new government, the new New Democratic Party government, and also how elated I was with my own appointment as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education.

But I want to say to the House that the anticipation and excitement that I felt at all of those occasions in the just-distant past did not come anywhere close to the anticipation and excitement built up in me as I waited and participated in discussions about and preparation of the speech from the throne, to which I will now speak. Having heard the speech from the throne, I was equally happy that I would then be more involved in the actual fleshing out of it, being consulted by the cabinet and Premier to make sure that I would have some intimate and direct contribution to make to those things that were put in place to speak to the needs of the people of Ontario, and that contribution would be invited.

I speak today to the speech from the throne as a person who has worked for a long time with people in need at the community level. I worked, as sometimes is said, in the trenches. As a social worker, as a pastoral worker, as a community development professional, a person who has spent most of his professional life working with people, one of the things that I did with my time that will help me most in my role as a member of this House was the development and co-ordination of a soup kitchen to meet some of the needs of the people in our community who are not being assisted by some of the programs that were put in place by previous governments.

In looking at the speech from the throne, I think we must put it into some context or else we miss the point here, we miss the exercise. The context into which I would like very briefly to put this speech today, so that others might understand, is threefold.

First of all, I think we have to look at the situation in our province today and realize that there are still people out there -- and I speak from my own experience of having lived in Sault Ste Marie for the last 10 years of my life -- who are reeling from the recession of the early 1980s, who have yet to recover. What I am saying is that the Band-Aid effort of the previous government to take care of some of the victims of the recession of the early 1980s has not in fact worked.

Also, in the context of the situation that we find our province in at this point, I think we have to look at the failure of the Liberal government to implement a blueprint which had in it all of the seeds of some long term resolution to some of the poverty issues in this province. A report, the Social Assistance Review Committee report, which was participated in very widely by people from all sectors of our province and which came out with some excellent recommendations which were initially presented and then backed off from.

1730

Those of us who are out there helping people looked at the implementation of the SARC report as an answer. We were excited about it and then very greatly disappointed. I think it is important here, in looking at the speech from the throne, that we realize that it is much more damaging to set people up for disappointment than it is to actually throw money at problems that are not going to have long-term impacts. So we, in the speech from the throne, have chosen to take our time and put in place policies and practices that will make some sense and offer some hope into the future for the folks that I have, on a daily basis, come in contact with in my community.

The second thing that I think we have to look at as we look at the speech from the throne is the fact that we as a party have been waiting a long time to be here. It behooves us to take our time, to be responsible. to do it right, to think it out and to consult, and after having done that, then to come out with more of the specifics as to how we see this province evolving.

The third and I think most important context within which this throne speech is couched and which all members should be cognizant of is the fact that we as a party represent, more than any other party elected to govern this province, a cross-section of sectors in the things that we did before we arrived here. We therefore can speak, I think, more honestly and with more integrity on their behalf and hopefully put in place things that will speak to helping the situation that they find themselves in in a more prolonged, long-term way.

I myself, as I have already told members, before arriving here, ran a soup kitchen. I was also a trustee with the separate school board in Sault Ste Marie and had a small business that I ran. The important thing here is the fact that I ran a soup kitchen. Over the last couple of months, I have had the honour and pleasure of spending some time with my colleagues and have discovered a number of things about them that make them particularly qualified to be here representing the folks of Ontario. It gives me reason for hope on what we will produce as the future unfolds.

Frances Lankin was a founding member of the Ontario Coalition for Better Childcare; Randy Hope worked with the United Way in Chatham; Tony Silipo fought for heritage language programs, adequate child care and equal education opportunities for working-class and immigrant families. As a matter of fact, one of the most moving moments of my time to date in the city of Toronto was an evening I spent with Tony and Rosario Marchese as the Toronto Board of Education thanked them for the work that they did. At that meeting, we had representatives from all of the various ethnic groups in this city and, as the various leaders of those groups got up to thank Rosario and Tony, I was at times brought to tears because it spoke to me of the kind of people that I would be working with in the effort to make Ontario a better place for all of us to live. An exciting moment.

Elaine Ziemba, executive director of Meals on Wheels; Marion Boyd, director of the London Battered Women's Advocacy Clinic, active on issues of family violence, day care and housing; David Winninger, active with Amnesty International, Neighbourhood Legal Services and community health; Zanana Akande worked with the Ministry of Community and Social Services on children's services, the Elizabeth Fry Society and Women's Habitat; Dennis Drainville, active in social and economic justice issues and actually wrote in 1985 a book called Poverty in Canada; Richard Allen played a key role in assembling the largest anti-poverty coalition in Ontario's history, instigated dramatic marches in 1989 and was instrumental in bringing forward the Thomson report, or the SARC report as it is known: Pat Hayes, from the Essex-Windsor Campaign Against Poverty and chairman of the United Way there.

I think that if one looks at the throne speech as an opportunity for us as a party to finally get in writing as the government of this province the things that we hope for most for the people we represent and we plunk it in the middle of the kinds of people who are in the caucus of our party, and one looks at it in the context of what is happening out there today to the people in regard to the recession and that sort of thing, we cannot help, all of us, but be excited and hopeful just waiting for this government to unfold.

The Speaker: Before we entertain questions or comments regarding the member's speech, I would like to take this opportunity to remind members that it would be very much appreciated if we would refer to members of the assembly by the names of their ridings or by the position they hold, if they happen to be in the cabinet or the Leader of the Opposition etc.

Mr Beer: First of all, I wish to congratulate the member on his election and to his appointment as parliamentary assistant. I have often thought that the best job around this place is to be a parliamentary assistant, because that way you still serve on all the committees, you can spend time here, you can do a lot of things, and yet you still do not have all that weight that the minister sometimes has to drag around. Also having been in the position the member is in now, it can be tremendously enjoyable. Even if perhaps I would have to say I hope he does not enjoy it for too long, I hope that none the less he enjoys it.

I would just like to make a couple of comments with respect to the social assistance reforms. We all understand that in the rhetoric of this place we sometimes talk about what is going forward and what is not going forward. But what I really would want to stress to all honourable members, in going back and looking at the program which the Minister of Community and Social Services before myself, John Sweeney, initially brought in and then which I had the privilege of working with as minister, is that in fact there are a tremendous amount of things that are going forward.

The kinds of problems that I think governments run into, that frankly I think the member will run into as well, are trying to find your way around getting the resources that you would like to attack on a very broad front and recognizing that within that particular ministry there are so many issues that you are trying to deal with -- long term care, with all kinds of support for a variety of groups -- and yet still deal very specifically with the poverty issue, which I think is certainly one that we all recognize is most difficult.

I think the member can still build on a tremendous amount that was done. It is there. I think that he will find that there is support in the House to continue to build on the SARC report.

Mr Martin: I wish to thank the member for his kind words and assure him that our intention is certainly to build on what has already been put in place, to assess it, and certainly to listen to the former Minister of Community and Social Services speak about an interministerial approach to this whole thing, because, as the member says, it is a much more complicated task, which I am discovering every day as I dig into the issues surrounding poverty in my position here. I appreciate what he had to say, and certainly our efforts will be to do just that and hopefully involve the member, invite him to participate in whatever way is appropriate as we do them.

1740

Mrs McLeod: A great many people were wondering what this throne speech would contain. This was, after all, the first significant presentation of this new government, the first major statement from a leader who had created great expectations that a province led by an NDP government would be a vastly different place, a place where hopes and dreams would be fulfilled, a place where the reality of people's pain could be eased and where the reality of fiscal constraint could somehow be escaped.

We might well ask, where are those hopes and expectations now just a few short weeks into the mandate of this supposedly vastly different government? What should we have sought to find in this throne speech?

We might have begun to realize even now that we would not be hearing from the visionary leader promising to fast-track Ontario to a new millennium. We have seen repeatedly over the last weeks how fast indeed this new government has been to retreat from the promises, how quickly it has acted to dampen the expectations.

If this sudden retreat from commitment seems surprising, it is even more surprising that we have seen at different moments in the past month a leader who may be more concerned with sending messages than with actually consulting and carefully weighing alternatives.

It is strange, I think, when a professed visionary retreats from promises apparently on the ground that he never thought to have to deliver on them. It is more strange again when decisions are suddenly made without even the consultation that would have been expected of a government committed to openness simply in order to send messages: a message, for example. to the business community in approving the sale of Consumers' Gas before considering the full range of options, discarding within a matter of hours 25 years of fundamental New Democratic principles of economic nationalism.

To make up to New Democratic constituent groups, however, another message was quickly sent in saying no to the ballet-opera house, this time without even the courtesy of signalling what was to come to people who have held this dream as their own and have worked towards it for many years. Let alone taking time to understand the implications of the decision being made.

The decisions we have seen made to date have no consistency, no guarantee of commitment to past statements or policies or promises. There was no basis for predicting what we might find in the throne speech because there has been no predictability in what we have seen since this government assumed the responsibility of governing.

The need to send messages, however, was very apparent again in the throne speech statement about the so-called nuclear moratorium. Surely no one believed that such carefully crafted double talk would lead people to believe that this government could commit itself to both a nuclear freeze and an independent environmental assessment.

We might at least have expected, however, that we would have seen some recommitment to specific promises made earlier, some indication that An Agenda for People was indeed the agenda of this government. We are all certainly aware of the new Premier's belief that people do not want politicians to make promises that cannot be kept. It now seems that making promises that cannot be kept is supposed to be forgiven if you were not expecting to win. A very different message indeed.

In so many areas where specific commitments have been made in the past, we have now only vague indications of intent, statements as infuriatingly condescending as, "We cannot assume that spending more and more money will mean better services"; or "Strong, publicly funded institutions are crucial to lifelong learning"; or the remarkable statement, whether it has been offered as a discovery or as a warning -- I am not sure which -- that, "Saying yes to some concerns means saying no to others." Welcome to government in the real world. In the real world, choices will indeed have to be made and we have no sense from this throne speech of what those choices will be.

We know that the Premier and the members of his government must have understood the need to give some indication of intent, some evidence of continued commitment. How could they not want to offer people the hope of adequate wages, pensions or support so that they can seek to live in dignity? How can the desire to ensure equity be denied? Who can now be unaware of the need for accessible, affordable day care? Who would not want to deal with the environmental problems that will otherwise alter the quality of life in the world that our children will inherit?

No one can quarrel with good intent in areas of policy which all of us care about. It is, after all, the desire to effect change, the will to reform that brings all of us here. After this throne speech, we might well ask when that intent will become real action.

During the last election we watched the electorate respond with enthusiasm to promises, promises that there would be under an NDP government a response to concerns never found in government before. Those of us who were then in government shook our heads at all of this and maybe, to be very honest, wished that we could make those promises too. But we knew that when you have the responsibility of governing you must work with all the pieces of the puzzle. You must do what you can but you can only do what is possible.

There will be many people who have reason to be disappointed that the promises made to them are not going to be implemented as quickly or as surely as they had expected. The members of this new government must also be disappointed, because I suspect that they too believed that much more would be possible. They wanted to feel the satisfaction of being part of a truly reformist government and the excitement of having taken giant steps towards a brave new world.

I understand that feeling. I have had the experience of hearing the previous Minister of Community and Social Services speak with passion and conviction of what we must do to change the myths of social assistance and free people from the welfare trap. I know the sense of commitment felt by all of us in our caucus, believing that implementation of social assistance reforms would be one of the most significant achievements of our term as legislators. We knew, when we were able to implement those first reforms, what it was like to be part of a truly reformist government.

I remember my sense of excitement when our plans for a new approach to long-term care were presented. All of the concerns about how to address the changing needs of our older population, all the knowledge about what needed to be done and all the ideas for moving in new directions came together in a pattern, a pattern for action. Again, there was the satisfaction of being part of a truly reformist government.

We experienced this sense of satisfaction on so many occasions with so much cause by responding to so many issues of real concern; day care, housing, the homemaker program, environmental protection, pay equity and education. I was glad to have been a part of a government which not only believed that education was the foundation of our future, but acted on that belief by introducing unprecedented new programs in areas from high-technology research to the earliest elementary education. I shared something of the pride when our Minister of the Environment received international recognition for achievements in recycling. Let me tell the members of the NDP caucus that it is exciting and satisfying to be part of a truly reformist government.

Now we can all acknowledge that this is a different day. Times are difficult and decisions about priorities are going to be even tougher to make than they were in better times. But let us recognize too that the needs continue to be real and they must somehow be met. Let us recognize very clearly that the decisions this government makes will determine whether people and communities survive and whether indeed the times will get better.

This throne speech is silent on too many pressing issues. There are too many unanswered questions that demand an immediate response. As a representative of northern Ontario, I am deeply offended that the throne speech offers only seven words that state one small part of the only too obvious. Single-industry towns are vulnerable. As a former Minister of Natural Resources, knowing the critical issues that have to be addressed in that area, I am dismayed that all the throne speech provides is the platitudinous observation that our forests must be regenerated.

The leader of the new government promised before he was Premier that ways could be found to protect both the jobs and the environment. What decisions will now be made about the future of our resource-based industries? Can that balance be found? There is surely no doubt that the resource-based industries must survive. Diversification in northern Ontario is easy to talk about and much more difficult to achieve.

All of us know that the issues are complex. There is no question that setting the right alternatives and setting priorities will be a very difficult task. We will just have to trust for the moment that this new government will take the time to understand each issue in its full complexity. As the opposition, we can and must ask if this government will truly consult, will talk to all Ontarians, will understand their very perspectives and the legitimacy of their very different needs.

At this point, all that we can do is ask because we have no assurance after these early weeks that there will be true consultation or consistency in decision-making. We have no sense that we can expect commitment to a vision or even to keeping promises made. We can ask and keep asking and we, with the rest of Ontario, will just have to wait and see.

1750

Mr B. Ward: First, I would like to make a quiet observation that, if the election did nothing else, at least it got rid of the bad habit that the opposition had of wearing those gaudy red ties. I notice around there that the ties seem to have disappeared, so I think that is good news.

The previous member's comments mentioned a reformist agenda that the previous government had implemented. I give credit where credit is due. The Liberal Party acted as a reformist party during the years 1985-87 when it was forced to adopt the New Democratic Party agenda at that time. As soon as they lost the support of the NDP, that reformist mode seemed to disappear.

Once again, I think that part of the reason for the defeat of the previous government was that it lost touch with the people of Ontario. They failed to listen and consult. They are going to get sick of hearing that from us, because I firmly believe that we were elected because we are a party that listens to the people of Ontario. Granted, the throne speech sets a good direction on economic and social policies, but the fact that we are willing to listen to the people is something they want.

Again, reference has been made that we have lost touch, or we have broken our promises. What I am hearing in Brantford, because I listen to the people, is that the people of Brantford have said we are setting the right direction and they are with us.

Mr Bisson: Again, I rise to the occasion. The members sit in opposition and say we are not moving quickly enough on this and that we are not moving quickly enough on that, that the throne speech is somehow vague. Those people were on this side of the House for some five years. The member for Brantford makes mention -- I think it is a good mention -- that a lot of the policy that was instituted in the time and some of the good reforms that were put in were put in from 1985 to 1987. There is no question about that.

The thing is that they had the opportunity from 1987 to 1990 to be able to implement some of the things they are trying to criticize us on now. I think the people of Ontario will recognize that you cannot change the makeup of this province in a matter of two months. This government is elected over a period of some four to five years, and it will take some time to be able to solve some of the problems this province now faces today. The problems, I think people will recognize, are vast. It is a question of the economy, a question of how some of the members sitting in the federal House are not instituting programs and not following the will of the people, such things as -- I will say the bad words -- the goods and services tax.

There is the question of some of the legislation that has been passed in this Legislature in the time they sat on this side of the House that affects the everyday people of the province. So it is going to take some time. It is not going to be done overnight.

We want and we ask, and we say to the opposition: Listen, the opposition as the NDP was there for a number of years. This is the first time we have been here. We understand how frustrating it could be on the other side at times. We made the offer at the very beginning, and the Premier repeats it over and over again, that if members have something to say, if there is something members want to consult us on, if there is something they want to have input on, they have to be able to talk to us. But to sit there and to criticize for the sake of criticizing does not benefit the people of this province.

We say to the opposition: We are listening, but let's work together on this thing. Do not sit there and say we are going to solve it in two months, because they know very well it is going to take a year, it is going to take two years, it is going to take four years to solve some problems.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I would certainly like to give credit where credit is due. The member for Fort William has stated very explicitly that there is a great deal of silence in this speech from the throne. There is silence on such things as economic development. She has pointed to her area of the province, which is the north. There are seven words in this speech, about eastern Ontario as well. The seven words about eastern Ontario are that the "industrial and agricultural base are being battered," and then we go on to another subject.

There has been much begun in eastern Ontario, much in the way of economic development. In fact, an economic development conference that was planned for this month in this province, in that part of the province I am speaking about, has been postponed indefinitely. That is the kind of thing that is worrisome.

Everything in this province at this moment, particularly in eastern Ontario, and seemingly also in the north, is on hold. How long can these people in the parts of the province that are in the direst need be on hold? I certainly feel that new insights have been brought to the floor of this Legislature today by the member for Fort William.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: What is the time limit? There are a number of limitations to these two-minute interjections, I understand.

The Deputy Speaker: It is two minutes, for a total of eight minutes, and the person who addressed or debated the throne speech has two minutes to reply, for a total of 10 minutes. Does that answer your question?

Mrs Marland: Yes, it does answer my question. It has become a very unfair process for all the members in the House, I would suggest, at this point, because if everybody took their 10 minutes we could get more speakers on. I thought there had been an informal agreement to waive the two-minute interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: That is the rule of the House.

Ms Haslam: The member for Fort William mentioned that we dampened the expectations. I will tell her what dampened the expectations. It was opening the balance sheet when we opened the books. That is what dampened our expectations for bringing in some of our policies.

She also mentioned 25 years of social democratic policies. Can you imagine the screaming if we had brought in all of our policies in the last two months? It is a situation of darned if you do and darned if you don't. I am pleased that our government is showing excellent leadership, making sound fiscal judgements. Who is not interested in poverty and social issues? Obviously the Liberals, or they would be on this side of the House and not us.

I agree with the member for Brantford that the best legislation the House saw and the Liberals introduced was as a result of the accord with the New Democrats.

I agree with the member for Cochrane South. Our programs will go forth. The throne speech has set a direction for us, a direction I look forward to.

Mrs McLeod: I am not going to take a lot of time to go over the record of this government from 1987 to 1990, although I would welcome the opportunity for that. I will simply say that at some point perhaps we will leave the rhetoric behind and begin to look at the record. The record will show that we did such things as the members opposite have commented on, such as the social assistance reforms and long-term care, in that period of time, along with introducing a great many other initiatives, even as we struggled with some of the reality of the expectations that were there, which we wanted to meet, and our knowledge that if you cannot have fiscal accountability, you cannot support the social reforms that we all believe in and all want to see come into place.

I want to use the time I have in this brief two minutes to come back to the issue of the promises, and the expectations that relate specifically to the promises that were made in An Agenda for People, because the honourable members across the floor will know that those promises were not only made; those promises were costed. The Premier made a point of stressing that it would be irresponsible not to cost the promises and not to tell the people of Ontario what to expect.

I want to suggest that the recession should not come as a surprise and should not create new ground that this government has to respond to, because the recession is in fact referenced in An Agenda for People. They were well aware that we were in a recessionary period.

The comment that they found a different balance sheet should also not catch those who have been a part of this House and of budgeting processes in the past. All of them will know that a balanced budget is achieved at the end of a fiscal year and a projected balanced budget is introduced at the beginning of the next fiscal year. But I can in fact understand that if people are not familiar with balanced budgets, it is because the member for Brant-Haldimand brought in the first one the province had seen in 20 years.

I am not going to go on with further references to the throne speech, other than to simply say that the Premier has called for this to be a kinder and gentler place. I think what we want to do is concentrate on discussing the issues in true parliamentary manner. We will debate the measures, not the man or the woman, but we will be tough and firm on the issues because our goal is to hold this government accountable.

Mrs Marland: I have prepared a very worthwhile response speech here on the not-so-worthwhile throne speech of last week. In light of the time, and I am observing the clock, I will move adjournment of this debate and look forward to presenting my speech tomorrow.

On motion by Mrs Marland, the debate was adjourned.

1800

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 33(b), the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made. The member for Essex South has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given yesterday by the Minister of Transportation on trailers on Ontario highways. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter and the minister may reply for up to five minutes.

Mr Mancini: I have asked the Minister of Transportation to return here this evening to the Legislature to discuss once again his policy announcement which negated an announcement which had been made by the previous government to allow 53-foot trailers on Ontario highways. I gave the minister an opportunity in the Legislature yesterday on two separate occasions, both in my original question and in my supplementary question, to explain to the House how he came to the conclusion that he should in fact reverse an earlier policy decision which had been made by the previous government. I wanted to know the process the minister went through. I wanted to know whom he had consulted. I wanted to know whether he had talked to trade unions. I wanted to know whether he had spoken to individuals. I wanted to know whether he had spoken to the industry or industry associations. I wanted to know whether he had discussed it with the NDP caucus or with his cabinet colleagues, or was he told by the Premier that this is an action he should undertake?

The honourable minister, while trying to defend the actions of the government, refused to tell the Legislature in any way whom he had consulted and on whose advice he took this action. The minister told the media that he made this decision based on an incorrect public perception. That is the truth. He did not say, "I made the policy change because I have received studies, I have talked with the industry, I have received representations, and there is a dangerous situation going on out there." None of that whatsoever. These are the minister's own words: Based on incorrect public perception, he changes a policy announcement which had been put in place.

What does this change do? Does it better the industry? Does it make the industry more economical? Does it prepare the industry for the battle it is in for market share? Is there an environmental reason for doing this? On all counts, the answer is no.

The Roads and Transportation Association of Canada spent $3 million doing an intense study and survey of highway safety and of regulatory principles for interprovincial heavy vehicle weights and dimensions. On page 24 of their brief -- this is not my perception or the incorrect perception of the public, as stated by the minister, but detailed information gathered over the course of a period of time that has been published and not refuted -- it states:

"Overall vehicle length: The maximum overall length of any combination vehicle will be 53 feet. Other dimensional constraints may preclude some vehicle types from achieving this overall length."

Then there is the section on commentary:

"The overall length of vehicle combinations affects the capacity and level in service provided by the highway system, particularly two-lane, two-way rural highways. Research has also demonstrated that the inherent stability of articulated vehicle combinations improves as the wheel bases of the tractor and semi-trailers increases. Consequently, we recommend overall vehicle length of 53 feet, and this is viewed as providing an opportunity to improve vehicle stability without unduly degrading the highway system."

We need uniformity. We are in competition with our sister provinces and the states which surround Ontario. The old provision which was negated by the minister without consultation with the Legislature, with the industry and with his colleagues --

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. Thank you.

Hon Mr Philip: The announcement I made last week to the Ontario Trucking Association indicated that I am not prepared at this time to introduce the legislation permitting longer trucks and longer trailers. That was what Bill 96 did. It was not just an extension of the trailers; it was an extension of the trucks. There were two elements in that bill. My honourable critic in the Liberal Party fails to mention that. I said, in the text of a speech I made to the Ontario Trucking Association. that unfortunately the public sees the trucking industry as a major problem in terms of safety. I showed the figures in that speech, that that was not the case but there was a public concern.

I also pointed out that our own studies we have done recently showed there was a major problem in terms of brakes. It was in that safety context that I said we are not prepared to proceed with Bill 96 at this time. The member seems to indicate that somehow we have caused anarchy in the trucking industry and in the trailer-building industry because we are not proceeding with Bill 96. Bill 96 was so important to that government that instead of proclaiming it, it decided to call an unnecessary election. That is how important that legislation was to them.

The Liberal critic is suggesting that my saying we are not prepared at this time to proceed with a bill we voted against in opposition is causing anarchy in the trucking industry. The fact is that his government caused that anarchy in the trucking industry through its deregulation legislation that he supported. Indeed, there we had, in the previous election, David Peterson saying he was going to bring the federal government to its knees, that he was so much against free trade. What did he do after he got his majority? He introduced free trade legislation, deregulation legislation, and that is what has caused the anarchy in the trucking industry. That is what has caused the problem.

Where was the member then, who is so critical now? He was there with his little American flag, waving all the American trucks into Canada. That is where he was, at the border.

We pointed out over and over again, as did the Ontario Trucking Association and the industry, that there would be major problems, that if you deregulated you had to make sure the Americans were deregulating. We know that the major concern now of the Ontario Trucking Association and of the industry is the fact that we are not on a level playing field. That is why my ministry, not the previous Liberal government, has started an important study to find out exactly what the facts are concerning the competition with our friends in the United States. I have not seen the member from Windsor even crossing the bridge to talk to some of his counterparts in Michigan to say, "If we're going to have your American trucks with access to our roads, we want reciprocity with you." I can tell the member that I, as a minister, will be doing that and I will be doing that not just with Michigan, which he is neighbour of, but also with New York state and all the other states.

I have had representations from many groups expressing anxiety about the public sharing the road with larger vehicles. I happen to take these concerns seriously, the automobile associations and the various other groups that have come forward. I recognize that there is a technical report which he refers to on Bill 96. Where was his government sending the report out to have public input on the report, an analysis of the report so that people would see exactly what the research was and satisfy themselves that if this was a good idea then we should proceed.

1810

Specifically, if we look at the issues of that report, it did not deal with driver behaviour, it did not deal with the very vital area of truck driver or other driver education. The report does not deal with the infrastructure of Ontario roads. Maybe there are certain roads where certain types of trucks are safe and other types of roads where other types of trucks are safe.

One of the first things I did after being sworn into office as the Minister of Transportation was to tell my staff that we are preparing a major paper on highway safety, that this major paper will have widespread circulation and input and that we will be developing safety programs that will guarantee that people are safer on our highways, not the kind of thing --

The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired.

MINIMUM WAGE

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 33(b), the member for Mississauga North has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Labour concerning the minimum wage. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter and the minister may reply for up to five minutes.

Mr Offer: I do not know that I will be using all the time available to me. The premise of my question was based on two very specific promises made by the now government of Ontario. First, in An Agenda for People, it was stated very clearly that over four years they would increase the minimum wage to 60% of the average industrial wage. This particular promise, very clear in its wording, was carried forward in the recent throne speech where it was stated: "Over its five-year mandate, my government will increase the minimum wage to 60% of the average industrial wage."

Mr Speaker, I think you will be aware that this type of promise is very important, not only to the workers of this province but indeed to all the employers and as well to all those who are potentially investing in this province. I think very legitimately they want to know in very clear and concise terms what the New Democratic government is going to be doing with respect to minimum wage for every employee in this province. It was on that basis that I posed the question.

I posed the question because I found it to be unclear in one aspect. What average industrial wage was being referred to in the promises? Clearly, if one is talking about 60% of the average industrial wage as it now is in the province, then we are looking over the next five years at an increase in the minimum wage to approximately $7.20. However, if one takes into account a very conservative estimation of inflation, in five years' time that 60% figure will be in the area of $9.14 per hour.

I know the minister is very well aware of the impact of minimum wage across this province and I know the Minister of Labour would want to use this opportunity to be very specific as to what his plans and his government's plans are on a very specific promise.

I have had occasion to look back at the history of the member, and I can see that on 27 November 1989 the member, now the minister, introduced Bill 82, which called for the increase of the minimum wage to, at that point, 65% of the average industrial wage, and that that would be changed each and every year. Not only did the Minister of Labour introduce that bill, but he introduced a further bill, Bill 156, on 13 June 1988, calling for the same type of legislation. That particular bill was fully debated in this Legislature.

I believe it is important for the workers, for employers and for potential investors of this province to know the position of the NDP government. Is it that the minimum wage for the workers of this province will be 60% of the average industrial wage as it now is, being $7.20, or will it be more in the area of $9 or $10, depending upon the rate of inflation? The people have a right to know, and as a result as I posed this question earlier.

I must express surprise that in the minister's response he was not clear. It was a simple question and I expected, I must say, a very concrete and specific answer. I am dissatisfied with the response tendered earlier by the Minister of Labour, and it was on that basis that I indicated my dissatisfaction. I have used this time, used the rules of this House, so that now we can ask the Minister of Labour what in fact the position of his party is.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am a little bit surprised, maybe even slightly hurt, that the member for Mississauga North would ask the question that he did, that he would not have trusted my commitment to 60% of the average wage, which has been very clear in every bill I have moved in this House and in every argument I have made. That he would think I would play games with an issue like this is a little bit hurting.

The member should be aware, very clearly, that over its five-year mandate the government will increase the minimum wage to 60% of the average wage in the province. He should also understand why we are doing it, and I think that should be clear too. Significant benefits will accrue to women since two thirds of the low-wage earners in this province are women. According to the 1987 data -- we have no reason to think it has changed very much -- 20% of workers earning at or near the minimum wage are heads of a household. One third of low-wage workers are over age 24. Low-wage earners will buy everything with the money they get coming in. They will add to the purchasing power in our society. We will be assisting the less well-off in our society: women, workers, heads of households.

We have the Social Assistance Review Committee, which just recently brought in its report and said that one of the real problems in the province of Ontario was that we needed a substantial increase in the minimum wage.

With all of this background, why would the member for Mississauga North think that I would play games with our commitment to an increase in the minimum wage?

Mr Offer: Answer the question.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Well, I have. I answered in my first answer to the member's question. Our intent is 60%, and if I followed the member's argument that somehow or other we are going to end up with $7.20 at the end of that four or five years, does the member for Mississauga North realize we would be giving minimum wage increases over the next five years of considerably less than the increases these two governments have given in the last 5 or 10 years? It does not make any sense. Surely the member should have never doubted my commitment and my honesty in terms of our commitment to 60% of the average wage in the province of Ontario. It really is a little bit hard to take that he would think I would come in here and play games with him like that.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 33, the member for Ottawa West has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Financial Institutions concerning automobile insurance. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter, and the minister, in this case the parliamentary assistant, may reply for up to five minutes.

Mr Chiarelli: I asked the Minister of Financial Institutions two very simple questions: One, why will he not confirm that auto insurance rates will be decreased under his plan, and two, will the minister today confirm his government's commitment to eliminate any threshold and extend the right to sue to accident victims?

His answer to the first question said basically to wait for the legislation in the spring.

His answer to the second question I will quote from Instant Hansard. He said, "People are watching this now, banging their foreheads and saying, 'I don't believe this guy. How can he do this?' After he and his party spent so much time stripping away from innocent victims the right to be compensated, after the Liberals took away from victims the right to use the courts, after they poked their heads out of the back pockets of the insurance industry just long enough to ram their legislation through the Legislature, how dare he?"

Will the minister please say he is going to restore the right to sue? Yes or no. It is very simple.

1820

Yesterday, I asked the question and the minister refused to provide the people of Ontario with any details as to the nature of the NDP's proposed auto insurance legislation. Today I asked the minister to alleviate at least some of the uncertainty which his government has created by giving us a direct answer to the questions which I am asking today. Affordability of auto insurance premiums has always been a major goal of auto insurance reform. The previous government's Bill 68 provided average 0% increases outside of the greater Toronto area and 8% within the greater Toronto area.

As all members here know, there are research officers available to the members. I requested a research report and I am going to quote from it. "I contacted the three largest auto insurance companies in Ontario, Co-operators Insurance Co, Royal Insurance Co and Economical Mutual Insurance Co and asked if those companies were able to comply with the so-called 0% and 8% guidelines." I am quoting from the researcher. "All of the above insurance companies stated that they were able to comply with those guidelines." Would the minister please indicate whether he disagrees with that? Affordability is important. The Premier now refuses to confirm his party's promise that state-run auto insurance will provide lower rates for the Ontario consumer. So today I asked the minister why he will not confirm that auto insurance rates will be decreased under his plan.

My supplementary to the minister said: "In opposition, the NDP was extremely clear about its position on auto insurance. Even in April 1987, his Premier and his adviser, Mel Swart, said, 'We believe that accident victims should retain their right to sue where they think losses exceed benefit levels, nor do we consider it necessary to impose any kind of threshold requirement.' The Premier now refuses to confirm that the NDP's auto insurance legislation will allow all accident victims access to the courts. Will the minister today confirm his government's commitment to eliminate any threshold and to extend the right to sue to accident victims?"

The minister's position on auto insurance has been very clear. Through a lengthy filibuster, in legislative committee and in this House, he has pleaded and harangued for the right of innocent victims to sue for pain and suffering resulting from automobile accidents. Even after assuming his cabinet position, in a prepared speech on 30 October, he said his public system will give access to courtrooms for injured victims. The minister now refuses to confirm that after he was appointed minister.

In view of the NDP's statement in the speech from the throne that the public remains distrustful of governments and it is the government's job to address that cynicism, I ask the minister: Is he not, in a fundamental way, prostituting his principles and adding to that cynicism by accepting his cabinet position and refusing now to give a commitment for the right of innocent victims to sue for pain and suffering?

The minister is not in the House at the present time to respond; he has his parliamentary assistant here. When we were in government, as a matter of policy, when any of these questions and answers were scheduled for 6 pm because the members were not happy, the ministers were always present. I think the Minister of Financial Institutions is chicken to come in here and answer the questions. I welcome the parliamentary assistant to try to do so.

Mr Lessard: I would like to thank my friend the member for Ottawa West for giving me the opportunity to be here and to respond to this question at 6:20 this evening. I would also like to point out to him what I think is perhaps an abusive procedure that is permitted with respect to asking these types of questions.

After listening to the questions that he did raise and listening to his question being raised this evening, he did provide the answers that the minister had provided to him in response to those questions. The minister did reply with respect to the rates of auto insurance that the member was going to have to wait for the legislation to be introduced. The throne speech did indicate that that legislation was going to be coming in in the springtime. In the opinion of this government, that is not going to be too long to wait.

With respect to the second question, the right to sue, there was an answer to that question as well. The response to that is that the member is going to have to wait for the legislation in the springtime.

As far as the increase in insurance rates being kept down pursuant to the present plan is concerned, that is not the experience that I am finding, at least in my own riding. People are telling me that insurance rates are going up. It is my submission that the details with respect to the insurance plan were specific enough in the throne speech and that my friend would agree with me that it is the job of this government not to tip its hand to the insurance industry with respect to the plans that are being studied at the present time. In order for those plans to be implemented in a responsible way, there are some discussions and consultations that are going to have to be done in secret. Once the consultation process is complete and the plan is put together, it will be introduced in this House in the springtime.

I listened with respect to the comments on the throne speech by the member for Lawrence, who indicated that he was proud of the record of the government on the SARC report, and that is something that we intend to continue with the implementation of. He had also indicated that there was some problem with respect to the promise about nuclear power and that we should perhaps decide not to have any further nuclear reactors here in the province of Ontario.

Something that we are not going to forget are the ideals that we have always had, the reason that we have been elected and the people who did elect us. We know that we received the support of 37% of the voters in order to form the government here in Ontario and that there are a lot of people who did not elect us to form the government. We have to take into consideration that we are representing all of those people as well. We have to take our time, be responsible and consult with those persons. We are going to do that with respect to auto insurance as well.

The House adjourned at 1830.