The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BICENTENARY EXPEDITION

Mrs McLeod: A very exciting project has been under way in Thunder Bay for some three years now. Students of the Outdoor Recreation program at Lakehead University, in co-operation with the One Step Beyond Adventure group and the Alexander Mackenzie Trail Association, are recreating the historic voyages of Sir Alexander Mackenzie. They have already duplicated Mackenzie's voyage to the Arctic and are preparing to follow his route from Montreal to the Pacific to celebrate the 1993 bicentenary of the first recorded crossing of the North American continent.

This is a significant project because this is a time, perhaps more than ever before, to remember both Canada's native inhabitants and the courageous entrepreneurs who envisioned this nation as stretching from sea to sea, a time for the provinces and Canada to work together for our shared heritage.

The Minister of Education has written a strong letter of endorsement of this project, clearly recognizing how much it can mean in enhancing awareness and understanding of our heritage. The project does, however, require funding. Unless $200,000 is received by 31 December, the expedition plans will be cancelled. The private sector, federal government and other provinces have all made a commitment. I would ask the Minister of Education to ensure that her ministry and the Ministry of Culture and Communications act quickly to provide financial support so that this important project can proceed.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Jordan: It is not news to anyone that the previous provincial government destroyed its relationship with local government. It is, however, discouraging to see that trend continue under the current government.

Municipalities in eastern Ontario and across the province are tired of hearing about wonderful new schemes that have been developed in the boardrooms of Queen's Park. Governments have been downloading on municipalities for too long.

For example, the previous government wanted to beef up court security across the province. The main thing they did not think of was who was going to fund the program. Municipal police forces were not large enough to supply the manpower and municipalities sure could not foot the bill.

The Minister of Community and Social Services has announced that an increase in general welfare will cost municipalities 20% of the additional $91 million that she has allotted, and that because local governments were not consulted the province will pay the cost in 1991. What happens in 1992? Will the minister assure our eastern Ontario municipalities that they will not have to pay for her magnanimous gesture?

TRIBUTES

Mr Fletcher: Mr Speaker, congratulations on your election. I would also like to pay homage to the two members who preceded me in this House, Harry Worton and also Rick Ferraro, who worked hard in this Legislature.

I would also like to pay tribute to three people from Guelph: trustee Virginia Parker, who is a long-standing member of the Wellington County Board of Education and who has worked very hard on the affirmative action committee and also on the nuclear awareness program; George King, who developed a co-operative education program in Guelph that became the envy of the city and the province and who was seconded by the Ministry of Education in order to develop the program throughout Ontario; and also Dr Taylor Evans, who is a past chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and past chairperson of the Wellington County Board of Education, who worked many years as a trustee, one of the longest-sitting members in Ontario as a trustee. Their passing is going to be sadly missed not only in Ontario and in Guelph but also in the area of education.

TRANSPORTATION IN MISSISSAUGA

Mr Mahoney: I would like to bring to the attention of the Legislature an important transportation initiative being undertaken by the city of Mississauga.

The city is planning a busway to be located in the Highway 403-Parkway Belt corridor which, when constructed, will become an integral part of the greater Toronto area transit network. The busway will be a form of rapid transit, a two-lane road on which only transit vehicles travel, thereby ensuring that they can move without restriction and quickly to points throughout Mississauga and beyond.

It is a flexible concept. Buses are a convenient, cost-effective mode of transport and can be converted to cleaner, more efficient fuels such as natural gas in the future.

In late 1989 a busway study was undertaken to examine the possible route alignment and station locations for this facility. The study will conclude in the spring of 1991 at which time the preferred routes and station locations will be recommended to council.

In the $5-billion Let's Move package announced by the Liberal government in April 1990, this busway was one of the projects specifically named. It was on that basis that the city of Mississauga proceeded and a considerable investment has already been made. There is now some concern on the part of the city that the present government may not fulfil these financial commitments. I would urge this government to live up to the commitments made by the former Liberal government.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Cousens: I am pleased to share with all members in this House a copy of Markham's recycling book. This is a book that has been developed by Markham's own committee on waste management and it is an exciting way of going about solving the problems of waste within a community. I say exciting because our whole community is buying into the need of being involved in reduction and recycling.

We now have one pickup per week within the community, house to house, for garbage pickup. We are also in a position where the Markham Stouffville Hospital is part of the whole recycling effort. We have two hotels that have bought into it and are working hard to reduce their waste, both the Valhalla and Chimo hotels. Two condominiums in Thornhill, the Summit and the Gazebo, have reduced their garbage pickup needs by over 50% in the last three years. We are talking about the whole community becoming involved in this and I see it as something where everybody has to take an important role in this whole environmental matter.

My compliments to the chairman of the committee, Councillor Bob Sherwood, and to Councillor Ken Dunphy and Regional Councillor Gord Landon, and also to the waste management co-ordinator, Jeanette Annbinder.

We are pleased to be part of this whole effort as part of Ontario, saying, "Let's do something more," and this is just one example of one community that is committed to it. I hope that when other communities see this they will rise to the challenge and might even come up with a new idea that Markham did not have.

1340

ILLITERACY

Mr Beer: There are as many as five million people in Canada who are functionally illiterate. This means they cannot read signs, fill out job applications, read medicine bottles or read the daily newspaper. A study undertaken in 1987 found that illiteracy costs Canada about $4.5 billion annually.

Illiteracy means extra workers' compensation payments, accidents caused by people unable to read operating and safety instructions, absenteeism and lost productivity. It also means a loss of dignity for those people who are illiterate. Most people want to contribute as much as they can at their workplace and in society. People who are illiterate are unable to do this. Though the pain is most severe for those who are illiterate, we all suffer from this loss of human potential.

Fortunately, there are some attempts to solve this problem. The previous Liberal government brought forth a number of positive initiatives to celebrate 1990 as the United Nations International Year of Literacy. The Liberal government announced a workplace strategy that was launched in January 1990, and $3 million was allocated to various special programs over two years.

There are also actions being taken on a local level. I recently had the privilege of addressing the Literacy Council York-Simcoe. This council has done some very important work to try to help the estimated 20,000 York region residents who suffer from illiteracy.

The United Nations year of literacy is coming to an end, but we have heard nothing yet from the new government concerning what it intends to do. The new government must not only continue the programs that the previous government brought in for literacy year; it must also bring in significant new programs immediately to help people to escape the vicious cycle of illiteracy.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister is no doubt aware that approximately 75% of this province is covered by forests and 85% of that forested area is crown land. In 1980, logging companies were given 20-year logging licences which made them responsible for renewing any areas logged. Compliance is reviewed every five years.

There are many things happening in the logging industry. There still exists the public perception that forests are being mismanaged. There are public fears about the practice of clear-cutting, the method of tree harvesting that involves the removal of entire swaths of forest, as well as proposals to cut some of the last stands of old-growth forest in Ontario.

The Ontario Forest Industries Association has asked the government to appoint independent auditors to investigate the industry's compliance to regulatory practices. There are very real public concerns about current forest regulations which emphasize the extraction of wood fibre over tourism and wildlife concerns. There are very real public concerns that industry clear-cutting is destroying the long-term productivity of our forests.

I urge the minister to support the call for independent auditors. I would recommend that the auditors include representation from environmental groups to give us a more balanced picture of the forest industry practices.

FIRE PREVENTION

Mr Huget: On 5 October 1990 the Solicitor General announced that the Rotary Club of Sarnia had won an Ontario Fire Prevention and Public Education Award. Ontario's fire prevention and public education awards acknowledge those whose innovative and practical programs may contribute to a reduction in loss of life and limit property damage. This is the third consecutive year that the Rotary Club of Sarnia has received an award.

The Rotary Club of Sarnia provided funding to the Lambton county firefighters to implement a fire survival program for schoolchildren. The donation was used to purchase a van, a smoke machine and other equipment that help firefighters teach children how to escape from a burning building. The realistic fire drills require children to plan their escape and reinforce the importance of smoke alarms.

Each year the Ministry of the Solicitor General gives awards during Fire Prevention Week to Ontario residents in groups who have demonstrated outstanding achievement, courage and ongoing commitment to fire prevention and public fire safety education. I would like to thank the citizens of Sarnia for their generous support of the Rotary Club and their interest in and contribution to this important program.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX / TAXE SUR LES PRODUITS ET SERVICES

Hon Miss Martel: I am pleased to rise today to bring to members' attention an interprovincial report on the impact of the goods and services tax and other federal tax measures on northern jurisdictions. My ministry is releasing this report today.

At a 1989 conference in Val d'Or, Quebec, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for northern development commissioned this report, entitled Concerns Regarding the Implications of the Recent Tax Measures for the Economies of the North. It evaluates the impact of the GST on the northern part of Canada and assesses the proposed changes to the northern tax allowance.

The report shows clearly that these federal initiatives will have a negative impact on low-income households, on small businesses and on manufacturers in the northern part of Canada's provinces and in the territories.

The report states that the goods and services tax will reduce the purchasing power of northern consumers and add to the cost of northern manufactured goods and tourism services.

Northern manufacturers will face special challenges because transportation costs will be taxed under the GST. This will lead to an increased incentive to manufacture goods close to the market and will put northern businesses at a disadvantage.

The GST will also reduce demand for the northern tourism industry by raising the cost of visiting that part of our country. Northern tourism is heavily dependent upon transportation and the tax will make that travel more costly.

Municipalities, universities, hospitals and schools in the north will also bear higher overall costs under the GST. Rebates for these institutions are based on a single national calculation which will not be sufficient to compensate for the additional costs associated with a northern location.

The report further states that the impact of the GST on the costs of transportation, energy and housing in the north will be felt by every northern resident. The expenditures for transportation and energy are higher in the north and they will become more costly as a result of the GST.

The report recommends that GST credits for institutions, new home buyers and low-income families in the north be adjusted to reflect the higher northern costs. It also suggests reducing excise and transportation related taxes in order to offset higher heating and transportation costs in the north.

Enfin, le Rapport sur les inquiétudes concernant les répercussions des récentes mesures fiscales sur les économies du Nord critique les conclusions de la commission Brunelle en ce qui a trait au dégrèvement d'impôt consenti aux résidents du Nord. Cette commission, mise sur pied par le gouvernement fédéral, recommande de n'accorder de déductions fiscales qu'aux collectivités situées à l'extrémité nord du pays.

Une telle mesure signifierait qu'en Ontario, seuls les résidents de la localité de Moosonee y seraient encore admissibles, de même que les Indiens de plein droit de 19 réserves indiennes dont les revenus sont déjà exempts d'impôt. Les résidents de nombreuses collectivités du Nord de l'Ontario -- Hornepayne, Pickle Lake et Manitouwadge, pour n'en citer que quelques-unes -- ne pourraient plus se prévaloir de cet avantage fiscal.

The report states that communities which are very isolated, lack essential services and have difficulty recruiting labour, especially teachers and health care professionals, would lose approximately $20 million annually.

It suggests that the provinces should be further consulted in order to establish more equitable boundaries and that those communities losing tax credits be compensated with more economic development assistance.

A number of other recent federal tax and fiscal measures that are having a negative impact on the north are also outlined in the report. These include funding for regional development, tightening of the unemployment insurance benefits and the elimination of the Canadian exploration incentive program.

I want to emphasize that the GST on its own is the wrong tax at the wrong time for northern Ontarians and that the GST, combined with other insensitive federal measures, is absolutely unacceptable to this government.

This federal tax grab is being imposed on a region whose residents can least afford a reduction in their takehome income. We will continue to voice our opposition to this destructive federal initiative.

1350

RESPONSES

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Mr Miclash: I must say that for the first statement by the Minister of Northern Development I expected much more. We know there are a number of ways that the GST is going to affect northern Ontario. We know that with the increase in gas prices, the increase in various prices for accommodation, tourism is going to be greatly affected. We know these things, but we want to know what this government is going to do for northern Ontario. So far all they have indicated is that they were going to reduce the retail sales tax and harmonize it with the GST. I do not think that is good enough.

We were expecting more in the throne speech in terms of what this government was going to do for northern Ontario. They like to talk about the fact that we do have six ministers from northern Ontario. We are looking for those six ministers to do something, to actually come across with good statements that are going to tell us what the economy of northern Ontario is going to be like once they have their policies in gear.

We were ignored in the throne speech. I think today all we have is rehashing of what the federal government is going to do to affect us in terms of the GST. We heard the Premier in Sudbury recently announce that the northern Ontario people will have to wait to find out what this government is going to do. I suggest to the new government that we have waited long enough. We are looking for direction; we are looking for policies that are going to bring positive results to northern Ontario. I suggest that what has been stated today is not what we were looking for from the Minister of Northern Development, no direction as to where we in northern Ontario can expect this new minister to take us.

Mr Stockwell: We certainly did not need a report of this length and magnitude to figure out exactly what was in fact taking place in northern Ontario. Clearly it is a GST-bashing period, which is certainly understandable, considering the party. The fact still remains that according to An Agenda for People there is a tremendous amount, apparently, that the minister's party in fact could be doing, a tremendous amount of input the minister can have to effect change. What has the minister done? Well, absolutely nothing.

The minister stood up here today and she bashed and she bashed and she bashed. The fact of the matter is that this government is not used to being out of opposition. It does not have to keep bashing. It can do something about it. Maybe it could go ahead and begin the $200 million or so for the northern fund that it promised during the election. What is the matter with announcing that program? Or is this government out of money? Maybe it could go ahead and talk about the $100 million it promised for four-laning the highway. Maybe it could do that; maybe it could make that announcement today in conjunction with this particular announcement. Those would be good ideas. Those would be ideas that people in northern Ontario would welcome. But no, we do not hear that. We hear more bashing. We do not even hear of consultation in this minister's statement. All we hear is bashing.

Continuing with the gasoline prices this government whined about for years, the public gouging, why does this government not do something about that? We know this government whined about it. It has an opportunity to do something about it. Nothing. We get a report and standing up here condemning the GST and throwing their arms up and saying there is nothing they can do about it. Why does this government not do something about the issues? Why does it not take the lead like a government should?

Finally, with regard to the $700 million this government's Treasurer announced -- which is such an obvious ploy that he stated himself that of the $700 million only $25 million would in fact be used this year to open up projects or go ahead with projects that will help the economy -- why does this government not spend it in northern Ontario? Why does this government not give the opportunity to spend some of this $700-million promise it made and hopefully regenerate a sagging economy?

We all know there are problems with the economy. We all know there are people out there who are in fact having difficulty getting along. We do not need the minister reading public statements telling them that. What we need is action, and maybe some action fulfilling the promises that this government made to the people, which I think maybe they had the misfortune of believing, and that may be the problem we have today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENT REVIEW

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the Premier. In the fall of 1989 he was asked what his solution was to the rental housing crisis, and he replied that the structure of ownership must be changed. In a quote that was put on the record last Thursday by the member for Dufferin-Peel, which I feel is important enough to repeat, he said: "You make it less profitable for people to own it," referring to rental housing. "I would bring in a very rigid, tough system of rent review....There will be a huge squawk from the speculative community, and you say to them, 'If you are unhappy, we will buy you out.'"

Can the Premier confirm that that is his policy and that that is still his view and that his Minister of Housing's recent rental review announcement is the first step in implementing his stated aim of removing rental stock from private ownership?

Hon Mr Rae: No. What I can tell the Leader of the Opposition is that the policy of the government is the policy that was announced by the Minister of Housing last week. This policy allows for increases, it allows for a reasoned approach. It also allows and recognizes that there have to be short-term steps taken to provide some protection for tenants. Then we will engage, as we have already stated, in a dialogue with tenants, landlords and all other groups involved, in producing a long-term policy.

I would also remind the Leader of the Opposition that this issue has been before the House on many occasions. It has been in the Legislature for 15 years, and each time a change has been contemplated, both in the initial phases under the previous Progressive Conservative administration and then under a Liberal administration, there was a recognition that there had to be steps taken to provide some protection for tenants. We certainly believe that the current system is not working very well. I will say to him that the policy of the government and the purposes of the policy of the government are as set out by the Minister of Housing in his statement last week.

Mr Nixon: I am interested in the Premier's answer, of course. I am not sure whether it means he has disavowed his previous statement that I just read into the record, which I see as his own personal view that private enterprise has no place in housing under these circumstances.

As there are approximately one million units owned and operated by the private sector, I am informed, should he not make it abundantly clear that the solution to our housing problem is surely a partnership between the government and those people who are prepared to invest in this regard and not simply a renunciation of what the honourable Premier might consider a capitalistic intrusion into the provision of this essential service?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the Leader of the Opposition should know, and I am sure that in his heart of hearts he does know, that the current system of so-called rent review has created a great many problems for a great many tenants. I am sure that in his heart of hearts he knows that, because as Treasurer he must have listened to a number of concerns raised, I am sure, within his own caucus by some colleagues who are here now who have raised concerns about how the previous system was not working.

Now that is an experience we have had to contend with and, I will say to him, in a very balanced way. We have a mixed economy, we have an economy which aspires to be democratic and to be fair, and that is the economy for which our government is now responsible during the period of stewardship which it has been granted by the people of the province.

I can assure him that I believe in fairness, I believe in a mixed economy. I would even say to the former Treasurer that I think there is a need for us to have a discussion that is widespread. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that we are going to be having that discussion, that the steps which were announced by the Minister of Housing in my view are reasonable steps. They are necessary steps for the protection of tenants and they are designed to provide that degree of protection and that degree of fairness which we believe is necessary. They are not arbitrary in any way. We believe they are designed to work. I say to the leader that this is the agenda which has been put forward by the government.

1400

Mr Kwinter: By way of supplementary, the Premier will be aware of the Friday 30 November advertisement in the Wall Street Journal denouncing the Premier's rental housing policy, an advertisement, I hasten to add, which I thought was totally irresponsible. Having said that, the fact of the matter is that the ad is out there.

This is the actual size of the ad that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. The heading says, "Investors Beware!" and the tagline says, "If you once thought Ontario was a safe place to invest, think again!"

Considering the millions and millions of dollars and the efforts we have spent over the years trying to convince American investors to put their money into Ontario, could the Premier tell me what he plans to do to counteract this negative impression that is not only out in the United States, but because of the widespread circulation of the Wall Street Journal, will be international?

Hon Mr Rae: If anybody had not read the ad, the member has done his best to make sure that others will be aware of it. I would just like to read to him a letter I received over the weekend from the chairman and chief executive officer of ScotiaMcLeod Inc. Austin Taylor is not somebody who is a member of the New Democratic Party, as I am sure the member for Wilson Heights will indicate. I want members to know what he said because I think it provides a basis from which to respond to the question.

"Dear Premier: I felt it important to comment on the enclosed advertisement of the 30 November edition of the Wall Street Journal, placed by AFFORD, Association for Furthering Ontario's Rental Development, which is patently scurrilous, harmful to our province, and stupid.

"The point I wish to make to you, Premier, is that however tempting it may be, please do not judge the Ontario business community by the senseless and unfair behaviour of AFFORD.

"I am confident that you and your caucus will rise above AFFORD's gutter politics and continue your repeated philosophy that government and business must be both respectful and responsible, each to the other, in order to provide Ontarians with an appropriate quality of life."

I want to assure the member for Wilson Heights, for whom I have a very high regard, and he knows that; I want to assure all the readers of the Wall Street Journal, for whom I have an equally high regard, that this government is determined to be fair, it is determined to be responsible and it is determined to act on behalf of all the citizens of the province.

I can also tell the member for Wilson Heights that we do not intend to be intimidated by anyone, no matter how powerful or well-connected they may be.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the Treasurer having to do with his announcement on transfer payments, which are usually made about this time of the year. I think the Treasurer and others would be aware that the decision made on the level of these transfer payments amounts to about 40% of the overall budget. When that commitment is made, some of his colleagues might feel their hands are somewhat tied when it comes to the allocation of the little bit that remains. The fact remains that school boards and municipalities have budgetary years beginning I January. Of course, the hospitals and universities are extremely interested in what level of support they are going to get. Their expectations, as the Treasurer knows, are very high indeed.

Can the minister say if he is going to be able to make this information available in the near future, particularly before he leaves to meet with his colleagues in Winnipeg?

Hon Mr Laughren: It is not my intention to make the announcement before we meet in Winnipeg later this week. I appreciate the fact that the municipalities and the school boards like to have that information as soon as possible. I think the leader would appreciate the fact that because there were several months taken out of the process this year because of an election, the transition period and a new government, we will not be able to make the announcement as soon as we would have liked.

Mr Phillips: My supplementary is regarding nurses, and I think the answer will be extremely important to nurses. As the Treasurer knows, contract negotiations begin. In all likelihood, the Ontario Nurses' Association, if previous patterns exist, will settle a contract that will run into 1994. I think the Treasurer also knows that expectations among the nurses are quite high. I think the Premier himself was recently at a convention of the nurses, reassuring them about salary promises and commitments.

The Treasurer also knows there is only one source of funds to reach an agreement with the nurses, that is, the grants the Treasurer will provide to the hospitals, and that the major item in the hospital budget is indeed nurses' salaries.

Can the Treasurer assure the nurses of the province that as he puts together these grants and announces them over the next few weeks, the grants to the hospitals will clearly reflect his government's commitment to the nurses of the province?

Hon Mr Laughren: Living with high expectations is something to which we are becoming accustomed. I must say that we are very much aware of the historical problems with the pay of nurses. We are also very much aware of the demands of the Ontario Hospital Association for grants that will be forthcoming in the new year. They will be taken into consideration along with everyone else's demands when we make the major transfer announcements.

Mr Beer: The Treasurer would know that school boards right now are anxiously awaiting some information in terms of how much they are going to be receiving, and the Treasurer will recall that in An Agenda for Reform a number of commitments were made by the new government. Recently, in one of the Toronto papers, it was noted that the Minister of Education had said that the Metropolitan Toronto Public School Board could be looking at something in the order of 20% support from the province. As the Treasurer knows, that 20% would be something in the order of $400 million.

Does the Treasurer recognize that in order to meet that commitment and to provide the other 176 school boards in the province with even a mere inflationary 5% increase, which would be around $250 million, that would mean overall at least a 15% increase in the grants to the school boards? Is the Treasurer prepared today to tell us that he is going to keep that commitment to Metropolitan Toronto and provide to the other school boards at the very least a 5% increase?

Hon Mr Laughren: I do not want to get into the situation in a piecemeal kind of way announcing what the transfer announcements will be. However, members all know that we are in the midst of a recession, they all know we are going to have a substantial deficit in 1990-91 of $2.5 billion, they all know we are not going to be climbing out of this recession until the latter part of 1991. Those same members who expressed dismay in the debate last week about the size of the deficit, even at $2.5 billion, I am sure would want to be consistent as they look down the road about the kind of commitments we are able to make to other levels in this province.

I hope members opposite will appreciate the fact that we are in a difficult economic time and that we must manage our expenditures as prudently as is possible, given the fact that tax revenues have been declining for the last half of this year.

RENT REVIEW

Mr Tilson: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. We have been listening over the weekend to some of his rather controversial statements, and I will say that the minister's ham-handed approach to rent control is causing untold hardship not only to apartment owners, which he expected and indeed seemed to look forward to, but also to the trades and suppliers who renovate and fixture those apartments. For example, Regal Aluminum Railings of Concord laid off 108 workers after $5 million in orders were cancelled. Wind-o-Mart Ltd has lost $2 million in orders, and that amount may rise to $5 million. Mercury Electric Products may lose $1.5 million or one quarter of its business. All of these examples were reported in the press over the weekend.

Is the minister prepared to admit that the implications of his actions go far beyond simple tenant protection and are right now resulting in job losses and economic hardship for an entire sector in the economy already reeling from the effects of the recession?

1410

Hon Mr Cooke: What I would indicate to the member is that somehow in the last several days the whole argument has failed to recognize that under our legislation tenants have not been given permission to stop paying rent. They are still paying their monthly rent -- hundreds of dollars of monthly rent.

I think it would be very unreasonable and irresponsible for the member to advocate that landlords are able to stop maintenance and repairs just because we have brought in a bill to offer tenant protection. That is not what we proposed. There is legislation in this province to call for the maintenance of buildings, and I am sure the member would agree with me that landlords are expected to meet those pieces of legislation and maintain standards in their buildings across Ontario.

Mr Tilson: I think what we are seeing here is Rambo VI. As the minister has apparently adopted a Rambo-like approach to the issue of landlords maintaining their properties no matter what, would he tell this House what sort of bloated bureaucracy will be required in both rental standards boards and municipal property standards departments to enforce his determination to see landlords maintain their buildings?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think one of the difficulties that all of us have had under the current rent review legislation is that it has been so complex that it has cost the taxpayers of this province $40 million a year to administer an incredibly complex system.

I think one of the prime goals of this government is to develop with landlords and with tenants, over as short a period of time as possible, a system of rent regulation which will be simpler and clearer to both landlords and tenants and which will result, in fact, in some of the bureaucracy in the rent review system being able to be downsized so that we will have a simpler system. So I would expect a member of the Conservative Party who is very concerned about the size of government to be supporting a process that will result in simpler legislation that tenants and landlords will be able to use.

Mr Tilson: There is no question, I think, that we all agree there is absolute panic in the housing economy. If the minister feels that the situation is so complex, and given the controversy over his proposed legislation, is he prepared to give this House an undertaking that it will be referred to committee for a full public discussion and debate?

Hon Mr Cooke: What I certainly hope we would be able to accomplish together is that the temporary legislation will be put in place as quickly as possible so that we can proceed with the process of consultation. I fully expect that this issue would be discussed by a committee. But what I would say to the member is that if we are to shorten that period -- the two-year moratorium, which I have indicated to landlords I would like to do; I want the new and permanent system to be in place as quickly as possible -- then we need to get on with the process of passing the temporary legislation and refer out to committee the long-term ideas we have so that they can be discussed with landlords and tenants and we can get on with developing permanent legislation. I think that would be the appropriate way to proceed.

Mr Harris: My question is to the Minister of Housing. I just want to clearly understand a couple of things. One, he is calling this temporary legislation. Every temporary legislation I have ever seen brought in has not been temporary. Rent controls in 1975, condominium conversion controls brought in, they were all temporary. Would the minister agree with me that his temporary legislation over the next period of two years will devalue the private sector rental stock in this province by about $20 billion, retroactive to I October, immediately?

Hon Mr Cooke: The first thing I want to make very clear to the House is that this is temporary legislation. This will be legislation that we want to replace with simpler, long-term rent control legislation. We have always taken the position that rent regulation is something that has to be permanent in Ontario and I continue to believe this. But I agree, the moratorium that we have introduced is not the right legislation for Ontario on a permanent basis. It is there to stabilize the market now, while we can work with the opposition, landlords and tenants across the province to develop a long-term, workable system, and that is exactly what I would like to do.

Mr Harris: Given that it was the Premier's intention before and during the election and his stated philosophy that it was his goal to bring in legislation that would substantially devalue the amount of private sector rental property in this province, given that the minister's legislation does that by $20 billion worth of devaluation that is in there -- I have not heard him dispute that figure -- is the minister really trying to tell this House that he thinks we should pass this on a wink and a nod, without any consultation, without public hearings?

This party of openness and consultation, this party that year after year said, "You must consult with people before you make any changes" -- will the minister commit today that Bill 4, this legislation that retroactively takes away $20 billion worth of value from the rental property stock in this province, will in fact go out for full public hearings before he brings it in as legislation?

Hon Mr Cooke: First of all, I would like to say to the leader of the third party that he can choose, if he wishes, to buy those types of statistics that are being thrown out by radical groups like the Association for Furthering Ontario's Rental Development. But if he wants to buy those kinds of figures, then I think we are going to have difficulty having a real understanding of the difficulties the tenants experience in the system as well.

The $20-billion figure has just been pulled out of the air by a landlords' group. But I would say to the leader of the third party that if real estate values have gone down in Ontario, it is not because of Bill 4; it is because of his party's federal government and the high interest rate policy. That is very clear.

I finish by saying, as a person who was House leader for the official opposition, if the Conservatives, as an opposition party, and the Liberals, want this bill to go out to committee for public hearings -- I would prefer that we go with the long-term alternatives; but if the leader wants this bill out to committee, I understand the rules and of course the bill will go out to committee for public hearings. We are not going to ram something down his throat or anybody else's.

Mr Harris: I appreciate the minister's saying he knows the rules of the House. What I find shocking is that his party did not want this piece of legislation to go out, that he did not want the benefit of the public input, that the New Democrats were a party that was going to say: "We'll pass the legislation. We'll zip-a-dee-doo it right in." He said it at the House leaders' meeting last Thursday, when his House leader said, "We'd like this passed before Christmas and then we'll have hearings to consult." The government told the industry that. It has told everybody that: Unless this bill is passed before Christmas, it is somebody else's fault.

I do not mind being the somebody else. It is my fault and I insist that this bill go out for full hearings and consultation. I am shocked that the Minister of Housing and the Premier, since the two of them are consulting on this, think that this type of legislation should just be passed in place, and then they will consult after the fact.

Hon Mr Cooke: I would say to the leader of the third party that he should just calm down. This is only the third week that the House has been back in session.

Mr Mahoney: You sound a little arrogant over there.

Mrs Cunningham: That's not like you.

Hon Mr Cooke: I am just suggesting that he should calm down. At a discussion last week in the House leaders' meeting, we indicated how we would like to proceed, but we indicated all along that there would be public hearings on the issue of rent regulation during the break. So if the leader of the third party has a suggestion to put forward, which he obviously does, I suggest that the House leaders will discuss it, the House leaders will schedule it, and everybody will be happy with the process.

1420

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Chiarelli: My question is for the Premier. On 10 November, on the subject of public auto insurance, he said: "The approach the government takes has to be based not just on pie-in-the-sky hope, but a solidly based, documented approach. The decision can't be made on ideology.It has to be based on facts."

On I November the Premier and his minister were given copies of a comprehensive economic analysis prepared by DRI McGraw Hill Canada showing possible losses of 23,000 jobs in Ontario as a result of his government's plan. Yet on 24 November, some three and a half weeks later, his minister told Robert Fisher on Focus Ontario: "There has been no suggestion to me by any of the industry as to who and what and when there would be any job loss."

My question to the Premier is, since his minister does not know what economic studies are being provided to him, can he tell us if the government has commissioned any internal or outside studies to determine the economic impacts of public automobile insurance in Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the question, and I can tell the member that obviously the minister and others are looking at, as we have already said, the plans that are in place in a number of provinces. Obviously we are looking at a question of the structure of the industry in this province and we are looking at the question of exactly what kind of proposal makes the most sense for Ontario's drivers and for the Ontario public. That is the approach we are taking; that is the approach we are going to continue to take.

The minister, as I understand it, has already offered to meet with the people who commissioned the particular study, a study commissioned by the industry. Of course, there are going to be a number of studies out there, but I can assure the member that this is being looked at in a very careful and dispassionate way.

Again, I want to stress, as I stressed in an earlier answer to other members, that we intend to consult, to listen to people, and then we intend to act as clearly as we can in the public interest, because we think that is why we were elected.

Mr Chiarelli: Obviously the minister is either incompetent or misleading the public. For three weeks he was sitting with the report on his desk and yet he is telling the public of Ontario, through the televised media, that he has no such information.

Perhaps it ties in with what the parliamentary assistant to the minister said last Thursday, when he revealed that the government is conducting its meetings secretly so as not to "tip its hat to the insurance industry."

According to the Globe and Mail today, it would appear that the government is not carrying out any economic assessment of its own. The DRI analysis goes on to say that in addition to the 23,000 lost jobs, the NDP's nationalization scheme would create a $2.6-billion capital outflow from the province and increase the provincial debt by $3.9 billion over four years. Does the Premier have any economic analysis which refutes the DRI predictions, and if so, when will he make such information available to this House?

Hon Mr Rae: To put it mildly, the story that I, along with a number of other people, read in the Globe today and the study which has been made are, if I can be polite, entirely speculative, purely hypothetical and totally one-dimensional.

Mr Chiarelli: What are you going to do to refute it?

Hon Mr Rae: Just for the benefit of those who are watching and who did not hear the comment, the member then shouts out, "What are you going to do to refute it?" All I can say to the member is, our approach as a government is going to be to listen to and learn from all those who are saying various things.

Mr Chiarelli: It's a secret? Doing it in secret.

Hon Mr Rae: The member is now shouting out, "Meetings will be held in secret." The members may have seen us. There was an oath ceremony in which we were required -- cabinet committees are required to discuss these things in confidence. That is absolutely right. That is the way the cabinet works.

There will be a number of other discussions with the industry which, I can assure the member, will be held and all that information will come out. A bill will be presented to the House, a bill will be debated in the House. If I have any sense of life, that debate will be a very lively and full one. I am under no illusions about that. The bill will then be referred to a committee. The committee will be asked to travel. There will be all and every opportunity for the insurance industry to present its views when that bill goes to a committee. Then the committee will make a decision, and it will come back to this House for a third reading.

There will be a full and open discussion, and that discussion will lead to the protection of public interest in the province of Ontario.

Mr Scott: You're not speaking at his nomination meeting. You can sit down now.

The Speaker: I, like other members, appreciate the occasional refresher on procedure. To the member for St George-St David, I also appreciate the long-held tradition of referring to members by their riding or position.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Turnbull: My question is for the Minister of Housing. On 27 November 1990, the Ministry of Housing announced that the government will fund a co-operative in Scarborough with 79 units. The annual operating subsidy for the 58 rent-geared-to-income units will be approximately $2 million. This subsidy amounts to $2,663 per apartment per month. If this money were to be given outright, it would allow each of the 58 families to purchase a $245,000 home. And look, for the bargain price of $135,000 they could buy condominiums. How can the minister justify this outrageous use of money?

Hon Mr Cooke: Before we came in this morning, I had a brief meeting with my staff to discuss this matter, but the member should understand, and I am sure he does, that a co-op house or apartment that is built in Toronto is very costly to build. The fact of the matter is that the mortgages, as he knows, are paid off over a 35-year period. I am advised that the figures that are used, and the figures that were used in the newspaper today, are the guesstimates by the sponsoring group at the time the unit is committed. The ministry has indicated to me that it will be nowhere near that much money on a monthly basis for subsidy.

Mr Harris: The Minister of Housing, with his announcement of last week, has clearly stated unequivocally, he and the Premier, that the private sector is no longer welcome in the rental housing business, either existing or future, in the province of Ontario. Second, he has talked about replacing the private sector with non-profit housing.

Let me give him two projects that are his figures. This is the ministry release, the ribbon has already been cut, they are open, they are up and running. Jackson's Point, northwest of Aurora: This one opened this summer. The subsidy by government is in excess of $1,000 a month. That is the government subsidy for this non-profit housing. The second one, in Keswick: This one is about $1,100 or more a month subsidization to put this non-profit housing on stream. This is the type of housing that the minister wants to replace.

The average private sector apartment rent in this province is less than $700 a month. He wants to drive that out of the province. He is saying that is unacceptable, no more private sector, because his philosophy is, "We don't care whether it costs the taxpayers billions of dollars more; non-profit, by golly, it is and private sector out of this province."

How can the minister justify project after project after project costing the taxpayers billions of dollars in excess of the private sector units that he says are ripping us off already? How can he justify replacing them on the basis of an outdated socialist philosophy?

1430

Hon Mr Cooke: I am sure the leader of the third party knows that there are two programs in Ontario to put nonprofit housing on the market. One of them is the provincial Homes Now program, and the other one is the federal-provincial program in which his federal government participates, and we are very grateful that it does, on exactly the same basis as the Homes Now program.

The member is using an average rent of $600 or $700 and comparing that with the rent it requires to have a non-profit or co-op housing unit break even in 1990; that is absolutely silly. He is comparing apples with oranges. The fact of the matter is that if we were simply to go out and rent private sector markets and try in that way to meet the housing need -- the vacancy rate in Toronto is 1%; the vacancy rate in Ottawa is 0.3% -- we would be no further ahead of the game. The goal of this government, the goal of the former government. the goal to some extent of the federal government with the federal and provincial program, is to add supply, to get more supply of affordable housing. That is a philosophy that I very much support and I think the vast majority of people in this province support that as well.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP CONTRACT

Mr Martin: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. We have heard a lot about northern Ontario earlier this afternoon and everybody knows, especially those of us who live up there, that things are not very good at this moment. However, I believe some good news was announced this weekend with respect to that part of the province. Could the minister elaborate for us on the Urban Transportation Development Corp contract signed through Can-Car in Thunder Bay for $50 million worth of technology to Los Angeles?

Hon Mr Philip: I can confirm that UTDC has won a $51-million contract for 40 bilevel commuter rail cars for the Los Angeles County Transit Commission. The cars are to be delivered by August 1992. This represents some 400 jobs years for the people of Thunder Bay. There is also an option for an additional 60 cars within six months -- 20 for San Diego and 40 for Los Angeles.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know that people here are relatively new and that we are just getting ourselves into the regular conduct of business and I know that the impact of this particular agreement is important to the province. This really ought to have been the subject matter of a minister's statement. It really ought to have been provided for us so that we could have made comment on it rather than conducting it in this way. Those people in opposition would have skewered us had we done it. I think that they should treat us with respect in this regard and have a statement.

Mr Scott: If you rule this out, I'm not coming to your room for dinner tomorrow.

The Speaker: I am not sure you are invited.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I assume that since the member quite properly raised a point of order he would like a response. I will respond when I am allowed to. I am inclined to agree with the member for Bruce. I was listening quite closely. It did indeed sound like the subject material for a minister's statement. I will review the Hansard for today and would ask that if the minister could wrap up his remarks within a few seconds without a supplementary, that is fine. Then we will move on with the regular rotation for questions.

Mr Elston: On that point of order, Mr Speaker: Might I ask, since the clock has run continuously since that time, that we add some more time on, please?

The Speaker: I hasten to add that a large part of the clock running was due to extraneous information from other members.

Minister, do you have any more remarks to make? If not, we will continue in rotation.

DAY CARE

Mrs McLeod: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister has indicated publicly that child care is a high priority for her government. In the New Democratic Party's Agenda for People, a very specific commitment was made to provide 10,000 new nonprofit day care spaces and 10,000 new subsidies in each of the first and second years of an NDP government. They said they would do it and they said what it would cost, $240 million in total. That is much clearer than the very non-explicit statement in the throne speech that day care would be extended.

May I ask the minister, will she provide 10,000 new day care spaces and 10,000 new subsidies in this, the first year of an NDP government, or was that simply a promise made when no one thought it would have to be delivered?

Hon Mrs Akande: I thank the member for the question. I and this government are indeed committed to extending the services and the provision of spaces in day care. We realize the tremendous significance this has to families and more specifically to women in this province, and therefore it is a commitment which we have made and will continue to make. However, we are confronted, as the member will know, with limitations in budget, limitations which seriously curtail the kinds of things that we want to do and that we planned to do.

In spite of that, we are waiting for our study of the budget and we will, of course, comply with some of those promises and make that information available in this House.

Mrs McLeod: I noted a little bit earlier the Treasurer's rather offhanded comment that they are getting used to living with high expectations, but I would respectfully suggest that this government did a great deal to create those expectations which they are now trying so hard to dampen.

In this case, the Coalition for Better Child Care made it quite clear on 8 November that it expected the new government to keep this particular promise. They felt they were asking for no more as an immediate step than what An Agenda for People stated this government was committed to provide.

The minister's leader knew when that promise was made that the federal government had capped the Canada assistance plan, and he knew that there was a developing recession. He still made the commitment. Day care advocates, I think, have a reason to feel angry and concerned that there was no indication in the throne speech of what this government's commitment would now be. May I ask the minister whether we can now expect that the NDP government's commitment to day care will resemble the 2% solution to the food bank crisis?

How long will the minister keep people waiting for the assurance that her government is as good as its word?

Hon Mrs Akande: I thank the member once again for the question. I know the member will realize that of course these things do take time and that every promise is not written in the throne speech. It is not intended to be an indication of the only things that we will do. We will, of course, respond to the needs in day care. We have always supported that issue and we will continue to support it. We will make that announcement when we have done that very quickly in this House.

1440

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Jackson: My question is to the Premier. It is with respect to the Premier's summer Agenda for People campaign in which he clearly stated, and I would like to quote from it, "We would increase social assistance rates to ensure that social assistance provides a real safety net for those who must rely on it" to a cost of approximately $300 million per year.

As if to confirm this public expectation that he would make good on this election promise, the Premier went on in the throne speech to say, "We pledge to continue the reform of Ontario's social assistance system and address the shame of child poverty...."

The people in whose name the Premier's election agenda was styled, especially the 100,000 people who rely on food banks every month in Metropolitan Toronto and those who make up approximately the 70% increase in welfare caseloads in this province, supported the Premier in the last election and they feel disenchanted by the minister's announcement last Thursday of less than a third of what the Premier promised in August to alleviate their poverty.

Was the Premier's Agenda for People in reality an agenda for election victory? But more important, why has he maligned his own social conscience on this issue?

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the question from the member for Burlington South and would say to him and to the public of Ontario that I think the public of Ontario understands that the government was elected on 6 September, that we took office on 1 October, that we have made a number of announcements since the throne speech clearly indicating the direction of our policy and indicating that within our means we are going to do what we can. I think they also understand that other major financial announcements are going to have to wait for the budget, which will come in the spring.

I also want to say as clearly as I can that we are committed to changing the direction and the policies of this province with respect to the poverty issue. I think the groups out there with whom the minister has been meeting, with whom I have been meeting, with whom our ministers have been meeting, understand that we are going to do what we can, that some of it is going to take longer than other things.

We announced just last week an expenditure of over $100 million on an annualized basis with respect to welfare payments. I would say to the member that I think that represents a very clear signal to those communities and to the people of this province that we are going to do what we can and that we are going to live up to the commitments that we have made to the people of this province.

Mr Jackson: With all due respect, that is not what the Premier was saying three months ago. That is not what he was saying particularly to councils all across Ontario which are running huge deficits as a result of the phenomenal increase in the demand for social assistance funding. I remind the Premier that the deficits for these municipalities run counter to the laws of this province as set out under the Municipal Act. It is illegal for these deficits to go unchecked. It is in that context that councils are expressing concern about his first election promise -- that he would address it.

But he also made additional promises. He went on record as saying that the provincial government should pick up the shortfall in these deficits for 1990. He was quoted in the Toronto Star, and I would like to read the quote directly from the Toronto Star. "My party's position is that any transfer of responsibility for providing services from provincial to municipal level must be accompanied by the necessary funding to pay for these services." The article goes on to say that some $59 million is the expected shortfall in the Metropolitan Toronto area. The article also says they were relying for payment on a promise the Premier and Metro-area NDP candidates made days before the election. These are written responses from the Premier and from all but one NDP member from Metro that greatly enhanced their electoral chances going into the last week of the election.

Again I ask him. has he betrayed his own social conscience and his written statements to Metro council with this promise?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, I appreciate the supplementary. I must confess to being a little perplexed by the member's second question. only in this sense: His first question was, "You haven't done anything." His second question was, "You've done something, and what are the consequences for the municipalities?" The member cannot quite have it both ways. If he wants to have it both ways, that is fine, but I do not think he can.

Let me answer as clearly as I can to the member. When the Minister of Community and Social Services made the announcement with respect to welfare increases this year, to my recollection in this House -- and I have been here for a few years now -- this is the first occasion on which a minister of the crown has indicated that there will be direct relief for the municipalities as a result of our decision to increase welfare payments, the first time it has been done in my recollection, the very first time. I do not recall the member's party doing it when it was in government for 42 years. I do not recall the Liberals doing it when they were in office for five years.

The municipalities of this province know we are entering into an intensive discussion with them with respect to the question of the administration of welfare, with respect to the question of taxation and how we share it. It is going to be a very important discussion for the future of the province. The member has raised his voice and said, "How can they trust us?" The municipalities will trust us because we are the first government in history that has carried out that kind of initiative.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not mind the honourable member for York South going on at length. but he has been doing that now for the last several days. Again, I know we are all new here, but he tends to think he is making speeches again, and that is not what the key to the success of this question period is. I would ask again that you examine the Hansard transcript and provide us with some time to have more questions asked in this House.

The Speaker: Actually, I appreciate what you have raised because the Speaker not only listened to the question and the answer but watched the clock. The placing of the supplementary, which normally follows simply from the answer previously given, took more than a minute and a half to place. So, when members choose to be wordy with respect to the questions they ask, they perhaps are asking for wordy responses. I suppose if all members are mindful that we have 60 minutes, and if members wish to have that time available mostly for backbench members to ask questions, then all of us are going to have to be guarded about how we place questions and how we respond to them. It applies all the way around the House.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Owens: My question is for the Minister of Labour. According to published reports, the Ministry of Labour ordered the Port Colborne fire department not to respond to water rescue calls until such time as they are trained and properly equipped. Apparently this arises out of a situation where a Port Colborne firefighter, Harry Chevalier, drowned while he was attempting to rescue two swimmers. The two swimmers also died. What does the minister know of this order and did he have any personal involvement in this issue?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to thank the member for raising the question. I want to inform him and this House that the media report is not true at all, that my ministry has issued no such order to the Port Colborne fire department or to any fire department in this province. What has happened is that the ministry officials investigated the accident, since it was an on-the-job accident, and orders were issued to the Port Colborne fire department to assure proper training for water rescue so that this unfortunate tragedy would not happen again. But we have never told nor would we ever tell any public safety organization not to respond to the need for emergency rescue. I think that would be unthinkable. We must take every possible precaution to protect the lives of rescue workers, but public safety must come first in this province.

1450

Mr Scott: Now you get up and read your bit and then he answers it. Now you ask your bit. You read the bit on the piece of paper there. Read it out loud as you can and directly to the Speaker. Now here it comes.

Mr Owens: With respect to the opposition, this government did spend a lot of money educating me and I take the opportunity to express the pleasure that I am able to read and write.

I would like to thank the minister for clearing up the inaccurate report. I would like to know what steps his ministry is taking other than issuing orders to train the firefighters to respond appropriately to these calls, both appropriately and safely.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: First of all, as a result of the ministry investigation into this tragedy, a hazard alert is being issued and developed for use by fire departments right across the province of Ontario. Second, there has been an inquest into the drownings and we are awaiting the recommendations of the jury. My ministry will be studying those recommendations carefully to see if there is anything else that can be done to handle this matter.

As I said before, we are vitally concerned with the health and safety of all workers, including public safety workers who are often at extreme risk, but as well we must also bear in mind that public safety is paramount. Training and proper equipment will give public safety workers even more confidence during rescue attempts and ultimately, hopefully, save more lives in the province of Ontario.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mrs Caplan: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I believe he is here in the chamber. Last Thursday the minister stated his government's intention to continue the policy of protecting the Oak Ridges moraine under the provincial interest that was declared by the previous government. The minister may be aware that Keele Valley landfill in Maple falls within the moraine.

In light of the Minister of the Environment's stated intent to use her emergency powers to expand this landfill, will the Minister of Municipal Affairs today give his commitment to use his powers to protect the moraine and to ensure a full environmental assessment of any proposed expansion?

Hon Mr Cooke: I was trying to get an indication from the Minister of the Environment whether she would, but what I would indicate to the member very clearly is that this government and the Minister of the Environment, who is the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, and myself will be working as closely as we can, as a government, to provide the proper services in this community and for the region for the disposal of their garbage and also at the same time protect the environment.

I think the strategy that the Minister of the Environment has outlined to this House and to the people of Ontario in terms of the 3Rs is the appropriate strategy. If we can all work together and have good tough regulations to reduce garbage, then a lot of these very uncomfortable and undesirable alternatives will not have to be implemented.

Mrs Caplan: I would say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that a provincial interest has been declared. He clearly stated the intention of that policy to continue. He has his obligations, and I would say to him that the operation of the Keele Valley landfill is subject to a provincial certificate of approval and contracts between Metropolitan Toronto, the region of York and the town of Vaughan, and that in 1983 an agreement established terms and conditions for the operations and indicates that any change in volume, capacity and contours of the site would require the input and the approval of the municipality of Vaughan. An emergency order by the Minister of the Environment would remove those rights.

The mayor of Vaughan is meeting with the Minister of the Environment today. She will be stating Vaughan's position that no expansion should occur without a full environmental assessment. Will the Minister of Municipal Affairs today state very clearly that he will take the steps necessary to uphold the municipalities' contract rights and protect the Oak Ridges moraine, as is his responsibility.

Hon Mr Cooke: What I can commit myself to doing is what I said in response to the member's first question: working very closely with the minister responsible for the GTA and the environment to make sure that we develop together a plan to deal with the garbage from the greater Toronto area. I think that after eight weeks in government that is all the member can expect.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF LONDON ACT, 1990

Mrs Cunningham moved first reading of Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1990

Ms Churley moved first reading of Bill Prl2, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED) / DÉBAT SUR LE DISCOURS DU TRÔNE (SUITE)

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 Chiarelli: Last Thursday, when I adjourned the debate, I was just getting ready to wrap up my remarks. I was talking about the reality that Ottawa-Carleton is the only urban area in Canada that does not have any long-term care psychiatric beds. I was referring to the erroneous information which the ministry had been providing to the various ministers over the years. I just want to conclude on that.

One of the responses that the ministry had indicated was, first of all, that the Royal Ottawa Hospital was not referring sufficient patients to the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital, some 90 miles away. Of course, the Royal Ottawa Hospital provided information that out of many referrals, a lot of referrals were not accepted by the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital.

Last January I delivered a memo to the deputy minister, Dr Martin Barkin. I think the members of the House will want to know that I think that is where the problem lies. I believe the deputy minister has been ignoring the facts about Ottawa-Carleton. I believe that he should start setting the minister straight on the realities of Ottawa-Carleton on this particular issue.

I want to address some remarks to the minister, who is now from Ottawa-Carleton. We have noted that with much fanfare she has talked about providing access to people who require abortions in Ontario. While that may be very laudable in her opinion or in the opinion of her government or a lot of people, I will say that she should look in her own backyard at what happens to psychiatric patients requiring long-term care.

In Ottawa-Carleton, in her own backyard, the Royal Ottawa Hospital must hospitalize these patients some 90 miles away, almost as far as Montreal. If the minister is interested in access to hospital services, I think she should look at the mentally ill people requiring hospitalization in Ottawa-Carleton. I would say to Dr Martin Barkin, would you please properly inform the minister so she can make the proper decisions?

There is an obligation on the part of this government to deal fairly. In this particular instance, there is a very large crack through which a lot of patients are falling. One can well imagine people in Metropolitan Toronto having to have their mentally ill family hospitalized in Trenton to the east or in Woodstock to the west. It is unacceptable for Metropolitan Toronto; it should be unacceptable for Ottawa-Carleton. I will be constantly and consistently urging the Minister of Health to look after her own backyard and fill that crack in the system.

1500

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, my apologies to the House -- there was an agreement among the three House leaders to divide the time this afternoon and I would ask the Clerk to keep the time for the debate.

Mr Harnick: Mr Speaker, may I thank you for permitting me to have this opportunity to reply to the speech from the throne on behalf of the people of Willowdale. In the past this riding, actually created in 1987 by amalgamating portions of the then York Mills and Armourdale ridings, was represented by Gordon Carton, Bruce McCaffrey and Dr Bette Stephenson, all ministers of the crown who represented their constituents with the greatest distinction. The first actual sitting member of this riding in 1987 was Gino Matrundola, who represented Willowdale with all his heart. I hope that I will follow in the tradition that has been set by my most worthy predecessors.

Mr Speaker, may I also congratulate you on your appointment as Speaker, and I would also like to say that it was an honour to take part in the election of the first Speaker by that method.

My constituents had to say the least mixed emotions about the speech from the throne and the perceived direction they see this new government about to take -- after the freezes and the moratoriums are completed.

They are clearly disappointed with the sudden uncertainty of the government with regard to its positions on rent control, automobile insurance, the environment, small business and taxation. Suddenly what was so straightforward and clear has become convoluted and murky. An Agenda for People, believed in by 37% of the electorate on 6 September, seems no longer to be the order of the day.

My constituents are also expressing concern over those items not discussed in the speech from the throne, where there was no mention of health care, a major concern to seniors in Willowdale, and education, both pre- and postsecondary schools, a major concern to the young people in my riding.

There was also no mention of help for small business, the area where jobs must really be created. I was dismayed last week when the Premier said to my leader that he should not be so gloomy when watching bankruptcies increase in this province. The loss of these small business entrepreneurs who create wealth, because they are prepared to take risks and thus create jobs, is of great concern to the people of Willowdale.

Our young people received no commitments in the speech from the throne, and this causes me concern. Where is the commitment for 60% funding of public schools? The Brébeuf Secondary School in my riding was built for an enrolment of 300 students. Today there are over 1,100 students, and 60% are in portables. Is this the 60% the government was talking about? Where is the commitment to capital spending in our schools?

Taxation was the major issue in the election held just three months ago. People cannot afford to pay more taxes, yet it appears this government, despite its avowed policy against market value assessment, is going ahead with a $20-million expenditure for property reassessment. It is embarking down a road where there will be no return despite its firm and enunciated policy dating back to 1984 which rejected market value reassessment.

Seniors in Willowdale are concerned. They worry for their safety in the streets. What is this government's policy? They worry about their health care. They see hospital beds being closed. Will there be a bed available to them if they should take sick or will they remain in a hospital corridor or be sent to a hospital far from home to be cared for?

What has happened to a driver-owned auto insurance plan where all of my constituents would receive good value for the premium dollar while retaining the right to claim for the actual injuries and losses which they suffer in the event of injury in a motor vehicle accident? On 6 September this plan was so near. Today it is so far away -- when people being injured daily learn they have no recourse. Why the delay? Slater has studied the issue, then Osborne, then Kruger, then a legislative committee. Now people who are injured in accidents have nowhere to turn. Why the delay?

I must state as well that my constituents are cautiously optimistic regarding the Sheppard subway. I say cautiously because the previous government made a loose commitment to the subway but no action was ever taken, this despite the fact that private funding was available to contribute to the cost. This private funding is still available. This funding will also provide housing, a large component of such housing being of the affordable nature. In recessionary times the construction of a subway and of housing will also create jobs.

Furthermore, in addition to the completion of the subway and the affordable housing being built, this project will have a positive effect on the environment. We all know that automobiles are responsible for over half of all airborne pollution, while adding to the greenhouse effect, acid rain and a high level of energy consumption.

The mayor of North York states that the subway is ready to go. He is only waiting for the Premier to give the word.

Finally, the Sheppard subway's construction and the building of new housing will rejuvenate neighbourhoods now awaiting renovation. These neighbourhoods are occupied by transient tenants. Rates of crime are increasing and home owners living in neighbourhoods along the Sheppard corridor have lost the quiet enjoyment of their homes.

My constituents are not greedy people. They do not want all of the government's $700 million for their infrastructure needs. They just want a portion. Willowdale is in the heart of the greater Toronto area where concerns about public transportation, housing and the environment are paramount. On behalf of my constituents, may I say we do not want to be denied for too much longer.

Finally, I am becoming concerned at this government's early propensity to avoid coming up with solutions to today's problems by blaming others and by passing the buck. This was a favourite approach of the Liberals. People obviously expected better. They expected a constructive approach. It is not enough to say one is against something without offering an alternative.

Let me tell my friends on the other side of this House that the people of Willowdale expect decisive action. They had all the answers before the election. Future study, moratoriums, freezes and blaming others will not create a province of excellence. It will only mire us in mediocrity.

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, in order that all three parties have the same amount of time, I would ask for unanimous consent to waive the questions and comments period for today.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that we waive questions and comments?

Agreed to.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I am honoured to be taking part in this debate on the first throne speech of the New Democratic Party government. I am especially gratified to represent the constituency of Port Arthur. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the constituents of Port Arthur and reiterate my promise to listen to them and be their voice at Queen's Park. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Premier for the confidence he has placed in me by appointing me to the Minister of Revenue portfolio.

I would now like to inform the people in this Legislature what the throne speech means to me, to the people of Port Arthur and the people of Ontario. This throne speech is realistic, concrete and measurable. We believe, as the government, that we have to gain the people's trust. The day we were elected was the beginning of that relationship. We did not want to destroy that relationship by making promises in the throne speech that were not realistic. People in this province want change and not empty rhetoric. People in this province want to be a part of change and not be forced to change.

1510

Before I was elected, I served as an employee of the social services department in the city of Thunder Bay. There I learned that individuals want to contribute and to participate productively. As a government, we will encourage productive participation by all the people of this province. We will break down the barriers that prevent this from happening. We will extend child care, reform the social assistance program, address child poverty, deal effectively with violence against women and children, improve support and custody order enforcement, provide a common pause day, protect small business and the rights of workers, increase the minimum wage and improve health and social services.

By recognizing the needs of all Ontarians and not just those who shout the loudest, we will all benefit, and An Agenda for People will happen.

During the election I toured the Faye Peterson Transition House, which was also visited by the former Minister of Community and Social Services. It serves as a refuge for women and children who have fled their homes and communities in northwestern Ontario. What I saw there was deplorable.

In this agency, which serves northwestern Ontario, were 15 beds in four rooms. Some of these beds were bunk-beds, where families had to go when they wanted safety. Sometimes when they arrived they were forced to go back to their homes because there was no room left.

The playground in the backyard was a trodden-down area with no grass left. In the basement, in the corner of the playroom was a sleeping bag on the cement floor. When I asked who slept there, the staff replied: "A teenage boy goes there at night for privacy."

I asked myself why this was allowed to happen to our women and children. Do they not deserve more?

Our government has promised those people that the corridors of power in Ontario are open to them as never before. They will see change and be a part of change, and I think we had a great example of that on 1 October, the evening we opened the doors of Queen's Park to the public of Ontario and had a variety of groups there who could enjoy Queen's Park.

Women, who have always been underrepresented in government, are now an integral part of the decision-making team. This government has great representation from the north: six cabinet ministers and four other valuable northern MPPs.

The government is committed to a program to ensure that society as a whole is fairer. In my own responsibilities as Minister of Revenue, I will be proud to take the results of our Fair Tax Commission and implement real changes to restore public confidence in the integrity of our tax system.

Right after the throne speech, I had the honour to introduce this government's first piece of legislation, Bill 1. Bill 1 will amend the Retail Sales Tax Act to ensure that people in Ontario do not pay provincial sales tax on top of the GST. This delivers on a promise we made in our election campaign.

We have always been opposed to the federal goods and services tax. We said it was the wrong tax at the wrong time on the wrong people. Now we are acting to reverse the previous government's decision to increase its revenues by stacking the RST on the GST. We believe there is a fairer tax system for all people in Ontario.

We believe the people of this province are looking to us for leadership. That is why we are committed to passing a Safe Drinking Water Act and an environmental bill of rights. The people of Ontario have told us it is time to take action on the environment.

We plan to make progress in negotiating self-government with the first nations of Ontario. They have been waiting far too long for governments to take action on their legitimate goals.

This is by no means an exhaustive list of all the goals of this government, nor was the throne speech. That would be impossible to set out in one short speech. We also recognize that no government has all the answers. We are willing to listen. We want to hear new ideas, even when they come from the opposite side of the Legislature.

As the Minister of Revenue, I want to assure the people of Ontario that I am prepared to listen, and as the member for Port Arthur, I want to assure my constituents that in this government their voices will be heard.

As a member of the first New Democratic Party government in Ontario, I want to inform all Ontarians that our throne speech on 20 November 1990 was the beginning of fairness for all the people in Ontario.

Mr Phillips: I am pleased to have an opportunity to continue the debate on the speech from the throne. I guess I had three overarching thoughts as the speech from the throne was presented.

The first thing was, frankly, something of a sense of disappointment in the tone of the speech from the throne. I had firmly felt that after the New Democratic Party waited all these years, we would have a speech from the throne that kind of lifted the heart. I think it is fair to say that virtually everyone who came here that day left feeling a little let down. Rather than a speech that set for the people of this province a vision of where this government wanted to go, it was, in my opinion, a bit of a compromise between perhaps what the party felt and thought.

I think a danger the party opposite ran into is that those people in the party who now are looking at getting re-elected are beginning to compromise some things. I believe that quite strongly. As I say, I think most people who were here left feeling: "Is that all there is? We had expected more, we had expected a better vision of the future."

One specific aspect I might highlight is in terms of the party's vision of this country. My concern is that if we look at the vision of Canada purely in economic terms, we are in for some real difficulty. The Premier, in terms of the speech from the throne and comments made afterwards, cast the unity issue in economic terms. I believe it is much bigger than that. The speech from the throne, in many respects, rather than lifting the vision of the people of Ontario and, indeed, the people of Canada, did not do that. That concerns me.

The second thing in the speech from the throne is, I believe, when we talk about integrity. The document by which the government will be judged, like it or not, will be the document where the real consultation took place; in the speech from the throne we talk about consultation. There was a major consultation that took place on 6 September, and the people of Ontario have spoken. Frankly, while it is somewhat difficult for us to accept that, we do accept it. We all believe strongly in democracy. The people spoke on 6 September. We are now the opposition and will perform that role to the best of our ability. But that was a consultation, and the document the people were consulted on was called An Agenda for People.

I assure the government that it will be this document that people will judge it on. As time goes on, the document will be pulled out and people will ask how the government has done in achieving this.

As I say, it was the biggest consultation that can possibly take place, the major one we all go through, where everyone in this province has a chance to tell us what their views are.

Certainly, if I were on the government side, I would begin to have some questions I may be asking in caucus. First, if you look at the various promises that were made in terms of tax reform, in the speech from the throne those things were referred to a commission to look at. But it does not say, "We will refer them to a commission and we'll ask the commission to tell us how we are going to implement these things." It does not say that. It just says, "We will refer them to the commission."

My judgement is that the government should have said: "We are going to implement these things. The people have told us they want us to implement these things. Now the commission must look at them and tell us how to implement them."

That is not the only one. As we go down the list of the major commitments made by the government during the election: "We are going to study those things. We are going to send it to a commission." Those are all possibly -- I hope not, but possibly -- delaying tactics to avoid actually doing it. Again, that caused me some concern as I listened to the speech from the throne.

As I say, if it had been referred in the tax area to the commission and said, "Commission, you tell us how to implement the things we have promised" -- but that was not what was done in the speech from the throne.

In education funding, as some of the members across know, that promise of 60% funding for education was a very firm commitment. Certainly the teachers of this province very strongly endorse that and will be monitoring this government very closely on the performance of that commitment. But there was nothing in the speech from the throne, which I know is causing some considerable concern in the educational community.

1520

It also is true in the child care area, where very specific commitments were made and, as the speech from the throne unfolded, an apparent backing off. I hope I am wrong on that, but I go down the whole Agenda for People and compare it to the speech from the throne.

Minimum corporate tax: referred to the commission. Tax elimination for the working poor: referred to the commission. Succession duty, speculation tax, all to the commission. Education funding: so far, no firm commitment to that. I hope the Treasurer, when he announces the grants to the school boards, will make a major step forward on that, but we will await that. Pay equity: I had fully expected and I think over the next few weeks we should have from the government its plans for pay equity, because, as members know, companies are required to post their plans January 1. We are less than a month away from that right now and there is no legislation from the government. The child care area I have spoken of.

The social assistance plans: a $300-million-a-year commitment the government began to move towards, but only began to move towards.

And all the way down. The non-profit subsidies, the northern fund and the four-laning for the highway: very specific plans, and if my understanding is correct -- certainly there is no mention in the speech from the throne -- the Premier has indicated that those may have to wait some considerable time, maybe even until after the next election.

The government can say, "Yes, but those promises were made before we knew there was a recession," but, as I think the members across will know, on page 2 of An Agenda for People it says, "Ontario is now in a recession." Members are going to have substantial difficulty in backing off of the promises made by saying, "Well, we didn't know there was a recession." Indeed they did, and indeed in the document it says, "Ontario is now in a recession." Certainly the Treasurer will say, "Well, when we arrived we didn't realize there was a deficit." He knew there was a recession. He knows that indicates a lessening of revenue and he knows that indicates an increase in costs, and those were the two major reasons for the deficit.

As much as I think the government would like to find a way to back off its commitments, I think the people of Ontario will say: "No. When we voted for you, you said there was recession. You made those promises knowing that. You're not going to be able to back off those."

That was my second concern as I listened to the speech from the throne, a concern that the government was beginning to try to back off what I think will be the major judge of their integrity, that is, its performance on its commitments made in An Agenda for People.

The third area of concern to all of us is just the economy and how all of us are going to provide help to turn the economic situation around. Certainly there is a lot we can do to cushion the impact of the recession. We all appreciate that we have to find our way to work out of it, and that means creating jobs. One of the challenges for this government I think will be that the solution for that does rest on co-operation among the four groups that were mentioned in the speech: Labour, the business community, the governments and community groups. The challenge I think the government will face is that when the word "labour" is used in its agenda it has quite a specific meaning: organized labour. I appreciate that, but they are -- one of the members is shaking his head.

Mr Mammoliti: No, two of the members.

Mr Phillips: Two of the members? Great. Then I feel a lot more comfortable that when the word "labour" is used in their agenda it does not mean organized labour; it means all of the people who work in Ontario. Members nod their heads and I appreciate that. That makes me feel more comfortable, because I think that is going to be important as we work our way out of the recession, that we have that co-operation among all of the people who work in Ontario, not just organized labour. As I say, it is comforting to know that the consultations will involve more than just organized labour, that all of the people of Ontario will be involved. I am pleased with that assurance.

Just to conclude my comments on the speech from the throne and the three concerns I have, as I say, I was disappointed in what I felt was a lack of vision in the speech from the throne. My opinion is that it was because people, some, already are beginning to say: "Well, wait a minute. We may have a vision, but we've got to get re-elected." As soon as you start doing that, it is the road to not getting re-elected.

The second thing is that An Agenda for People will be the true measurement of the government's integrity, and it will be held up each time it comes before community groups. I think that will be the report card on integrity.

The third one, which I am reassured on today, is that when the word "labour" is used in the speech from the throne it means not organized labour but all of the employees of the province. I appreciate that clarification.

Those are my thoughts on the speech from the throne. I wish the government the very best of luck, because I think we all share in an attempt to build a better Ontario. We have our role in opposition, which I hope we will perform well. The NDP has its role in government, which I hope it will perform well, as well.

Mr Turnbull: It is a great privilege to rise and participate in this historic debate, historic as the first NDP throne speech. I am proud and honoured to be standing here in this House as a new member and the representative from York Mills. I welcome the challenge and I will devote all of my energy and ability to prove myself worthy of the confidence placed in me.

I would ask the indulgence of the House as I take just a moment to acknowledge the achievements of my predecessors in the riding. Because of redistribution, my riding is comprised of parts of four old ridings: York Mills, Don Mills, Oriole and Armourdale, each of which has been represented by ministers of the crown in the cabinet of Premier William Davis.

The people of my riding are fortunate to have had so many extraordinarily talented and devoted individuals as their members. I am humble to follow in their footsteps.

Dr Bette Stephenson, who distinguished herself throughout her career, quickly became a role model for other women who aspire to political office. She was the first Minister of Labour, the first woman Minister of Health, the first woman Minister of Education, the first woman Treasurer, the first woman Deputy Premier and the first woman president of the Canadian Medical Association. Her competence, brilliance and kindness were such that she will be remembered by all veteran members with fondness and esteem.

Bruce McCaffrey represented the Armourdale section of my riding from 1977 to 1987 and is particularly remembered for his commitment to pension reform. The House became a duller place when he retired, for his fine sense of humour was missed.

Dennis Timbrell, MPP for York Mills, was one of the youngest cabinet ministers in this House. During his long and illustrious career he held five cabinet positions, serving the people of Ontario with dedication and distinction.

John Williams, from the riding of Oriole, is well remembered for his devotion to his constituents.

The first Liberal to be elected in York Mills, Brad Nixon, represented the constituency from 1987 to 1990.

My community, the riding of York Mills, is a metropolitan area that represents a broad cross-section of our society, from the largest, richest properties to subsidized housing units. It holds within its boundaries people of every cultural, family and work group. Problems exist, although maybe not as abundantly as in some ridings, but they are important and deserve our close attention.

The residents of York Mills are hardworking, responsible taxpayers, the very backbone of our province. Knowing what it is to work hard, to save and be fiscally responsible, they believe it is only right that their government should have the same sense of responsibility.

I must say, my sympathy goes out to the government as it tries to establish its priorities in the light of the terrible economic mess left by the Liberal administration. Faced with both a crushing deficit and a recession, the challenge is to find ways to implement its policies.

With this in mind, I must also point out that the Agenda for People, circulated during the election, contained a great many promises. The Ontario government should be commended for not moving forward with many of these expensive policies. In fact, it would be irresponsible to push forward. However, my constituents are really disappointed that they are not going to get the free, energy-efficient refrigerators, stoves and microwaves promised to everybody by the honourable member for Hamilton Mountain just after the election.

1530

We will support those initiatives we believe to be in the best interests of the people, but we remind the Premier that when we believe a course of action is not good for the province we will say so loud and clear. My constituents are worried, worried that the government will pay for its expensive platform by increasing taxes. Five years of Liberal government has left Ontario the most heavily taxed province in Canada. This unfavourable tax structure hurts consumers, who ultimately pay the higher price for goods, and workers, who are finding fewer jobs in the marketplace.

The growing burden of taxation has reduced Ontario companies' ability to compete. Bankruptcies have increased dramatically. Firms can move to more attractive tax jurisdictions and take jobs out of the province. Many have already done so; more will surely follow if this government fails to reduce the crushing load. I encourage the Treasurer to be creative and to find money for programs in ways other than raising tax.

The throne speech offered workers many safeguards when losing a job but did not provide one concrete inducement to keep companies in the province or to create jobs in the private sector. Relief for job loss may temporarily ease the pain for the worker, but it is only a bandage on the problem of unemployment. A growing economy is the ultimate safeguard for workers and for our standard of living. This government must stop driving jobs out of Ontario with a program that is too expensive in hard economic times.

My firsthand experience growing up in Britain was that socialism does not work. The country was on its knees as the sick man of Europe after years of old-fashioned socialist intervention until a pragmatic dose of Conservatism restored its health and prosperity. Winston Churchill once stated, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Let us hope these predictions do not hold true in Ontario in 1990.

Interjection.

Mr Turnbull: I am most flattered that members find these comments stinging, but they are very important and I want members to consider them in the years ahead.

A major area of concern for my constituents is property tax reform. We were most disappointed it was not mentioned in the throne speech. The previous government shifted the cost of providing many public services on to municipalities, placing an unbearable tax burden on the shoulders of property owners and tenants. Other provinces do not depend on property taxes as a major source of revenue. In Quebec, property taxes are just over one half of Ontario's. Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Quebec have all virtually eliminated any link between property taxes and education funding.

My constituents are extremely disappointed to realize that the New Democratic Party election promise to fund 60% of education costs was just empty rhetoric. They appear to have taken a leaf out of the Liberal's campaign book: Make a promise on education funding during the election and ignore it after. I encourage the Premier to make a clear statement on his government's position on education funding.

Another area not covered by the throne speech is the government's plan regarding the imposition of market value reassessment in Metropolitan Toronto. This unfair, regressive location tax will, if implemented, cause seniors and other residents to be forced from their homes and apartments. It is unduly complicated, destabilizing, administratively expensive and it encourages appeals on property tax bills. Tenants are affected as much as property owners because an increase in property taxes is added to the regular rent. It is estimated that by 1996 the majority of tenants could be paying the equivalent of five months' rent per year in property taxes. Citizens from my riding want the $20-million reassessment scheme planned by the defeated Liberal government to be cancelled, market value reassessment to be shelved and a fair property tax system to be implemented.

During the election campaign we were promised an immediate environmental bill of rights. We in the Progressive Conservative Party support the government on this issue. Now in the throne speech we hear that the Minister of the Environment plans to consult the public before taking action. When the honourable member was in opposition, she introduced a private member's bill on the environment four times over the past five years. Where is the bill now?

One of the horror stories in my riding of York Mills is the state of the Don River. Even though the cleanup of the Don has been a high profile item in the media over the last 18 months, there is no discernible strategy to actually get things moving. Individual groups of citizens have banded together on many occasions to blitz projects to collect litter along the banks. These efforts are most commendable and demonstrate the seriousness with which my constituents view the Don. However the minister, as well as everyone in the city, should be concerned, since this river, which has become a sewer, empties into Lake Ontario, the source of Toronto's drinking water.

We are indeed fortunate that in the middle of the big city we have rivers and ravines accessible to most of our population. Within a few minutes of most residences one can experience the calming atmosphere of water, grass, trees and birds, but the pollution and erosion of our natural environment has placed all of these areas in jeopardy. Today, concern for the environment -- in fact, concern for the survival of the planet -- has reached global proportions. We all know there is not much time left to clean up our act. Hopefully, the government will make this a top priority.

Tenants comprise almost one half of my community and they need affordable, properly maintained apartments. I wish to remind the honourable Minister of Housing that it was his colleagues, in partnership with the Liberal government, who devised the present rent review legislation. This legislation has resulted in only one area of agreement between landlords and tenants -- both agree it is a disaster.

The new policy proposed by the Minister of Housing would be another disaster, for it fails to address the critical questions of maintenance, renovation and supply. In fact, it discourages all new construction of rental units. I ask the Premier to bring in legislation which will recognize the legitimate needs of both landlords and tenants.

I would like to thank my constituents for the trust they placed in me on 6 September and I will endeavour to live up to their trust.

1540

Mr Drainville: I would like to offer my felicitations to the various Speakers who will be presiding at this House and the support that will be given to them over the months ahead. I would also like to say that I stand here as a person following in the footsteps of a very fine politician, John Eakins, who represented Victoria-Haliburton for 15 years. In that time, he was distinguished for his eloquence as well as for his kind support for all people. He is a very great man indeed, and this day I want to do him honour by saying how proud I am to stand in this place after him.

We have looked at many issues over this throne speech debate. We have seen the opportunities that we have as a government to begin to lead the province of Ontario into new directions. I am very thankful indeed that I have an opportunity just to highlight some of the issues that have been raised in the throne speech and issues that have been raised by my colleagues in the government benches over the last period of time.

It is important that we say at the outset that our party has always been committed to the philosophy of equity in society. We can see that in terms of the pay equity law that is presently in existence, we as a government are going to begin to move into a stance of looking at that law and beginning to change it to make it more applicable to the totality of our society in Ontario. Employment equity is absolutely necessary in the age that we live in. We know that our government is committed to this and it has indicated so in the throne speech. We await that legislation to come forward in the life of our government.

There is no question that as a party that has been committed over the years to the needs and aspirations of workers in every part of this province, we need to take seriously the plight of workers, particularly in the time of recession. I draw attention, in particular, to the work that is going to be done after the throne speech to provide wage protection in terms of workers who experience their employment's terminating because of bankruptcy and support for labour adjustment committees in the industries affected by dislocation and to introduce stronger measures on layoff notice, severance and other adjustment issues. If we look at this whole package of our response to those who work in this province, this basically is a commitment to justice in the workplace. It has been fundamental in our party that we have believed in this since the beginning. It is fundamental that it is part of our platform now and it is fundamental that it is part of our throne speech. We look forward to the time when we can see that workers in Ontario have the opportunities and the supports they need to live a prosperous life, a life that is committed to providing service to the whole of this community.

One of our concerns has to be the problems in the agricultural community. In my own riding of Victoria-Haliburton we are experiencing great problems as we look at the difficulty of stabilizing farm incomes. Their present levels have been raised in the debate. If they were to be stabilized at their present levels, then we would see the farm economy go down the tubes. We need to do more. Indeed, it is the aim of this government. As we have seen in terms of the public utterances of its ministers and in terms of the throne speech debate, we are committed to ensuring that the farm incomes are stabilized in Ontario. For that, I want to say that I am proud to be a New Democrat and to see the moves that we are making in the agricultural areas.

We realize that we have a five-year mandate, a mandate in which there are going to be many needs expressed by people in society. In that five-year mandate we are going to see an increase in the minimum wage to 60% of the average industrial wage. That is necessary. It is necessary and I have seen it as I have worked in the area of helping people who are low-income, those who are in poverty. We have seen the need for people to have an adequate wage and salary so that they can maintain themselves and ensure that they do not have to resort to places like food banks. We look also for the expansion of the supply of affordable housing that our own Minister of Housing has indicated in the last week. We will see an extension of child care services. Last, we want to see a continuation of the reform of Ontario's social assistance system.

In all of these things. we see a move in terms of our philosophy of government to invite the people of Ontario to an experience of good government, an experience that will draw them to the conclusion that, as the New Democratic Party has always stood for the needs and aspirations of all people, so we will continue to do in the future.

In terms of this debate, I want to respond to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. When the Leader of the Opposition was speaking a couple of weeks ago, he objected to the words in the throne speech, "As a group of people accustomed to being on the outside of the established power structures in Ontario, my government will open Queen's Park to those who have never before had an effective voice in the corridors of power." This was also raised by the leader of the third party.

I make no bones about it. I look at these benches, the government benches of which I am a member, and I remember the years when I walked up and down the halls of these corridors of power, when I tried to seek an opportunity to speak with ministers and deputy ministers about issues of poverty, hunger and oppression in our society, and I have got to say those doors were not open to me. The very day that the election was called in 1985 I sat with the honourable member for Bruce. He was talking to us about food banks. I have to tell members that was the first discussion I had with the honourable member and it was the last discussion, because he ended up in government just a short time after that.

What I would like to say is that there is no question that if we really think carefully about who has had access to power in this province, it has been those who have a way into the business community, those who have had people of prestige and power behind them. As I look at these government benches, what I see are workers, people who know what it means to make a wage, people who know what it means to have worked in very difficult and sometimes oppressive conditions, people who have seen life from the other side. I say today in this House and in this throne speech debate that it is my honour and my privilege to represent a government that knows the people and has made a place for the people in the halls of power of Ontario.

Mr Ruprecht: Madam Speaker, let me first congratulate you and so many of your colleagues on arriving here after being somewhat bruised, I guess, in combat of the electoral process. Since time limitations do not permit my throne speech to cover all subjects, I have chosen to limit my remarks, in general terms, to the economy and specific aspects of social policy. And yes, I will be making some recommendations.

There is no secret that we are in the midst of an economic crisis, and it might get worse. That, in no small measure, is due to our inability to control our own economy and events. We all know that over 90% of the Canadian auto industry is foreign-controlled, over 95% of rubber products, over 80% in chemicals, over 80% aircraft, over 80% electrical products, over 90% of all industry, especially in terms of patents. In the years between 1957 and 1977, the foreign patents that were taken out in Ontario were foreign-owned or foreign-controlled; certainly they were made by foreign applicants.

Now, of course, we see the sale of Consumers' Gas. The grim fact of foreign takeover of Canadian industry is really frightening. Since free trade, especially, we in Canada have had to take the major brunt of making us, on the global economy side, fairly unstable and unable to continue the competitiveness that we so desperately need to maintain our high standard of living.

Never has a country lost control over its economy so quickly -- with provincial consent, I might add. Now, of course, we have to pay the price for our policies and we have to pay the price for our neglect. The free trade deal today does not serve us well and will not serve us well. Included in free trade, of course, is the high Canadian dollar which makes our competitiveness internationally much worse.

Now we are in the throes of new discussions where the federal government necessarily has to get into the fray of ensuring that Canada will have a voice on this continent and discuss a new deal with the United States and Mexico. I only hope that the Premier of today will ensure that he will do what he possibly can so that we in Ontario and Canada will not be in a position that we have to reopen negotiations, because that is what our mighty neighbour to the south wants us to do, to reopen and to talk in terms of pharmaceuticals and in terms of subsidies.

1550

We would recommend to the Premier that he use his powers wisely and well to ensure that these negotiations with Mexico, when they take place, will not directly or indirectly hinge on a new deal that will leave us out in the cold or that will open up our trade practices with the United States, which would include pharmaceuticals and subsidies. We therefore urge the Premier to show some leadership.

Speaking of leadership, we have a great urgency in that if we want to be globally competitive, we have to be competitive in a way that permits our workforce to use its skills and new technology to ensure that we can trade with other countries. To do that, of course, we need a new skills development strategy. We have seen in the throne speech that thousands of workers are being laid off, and yet does the New Democratic Party have plans for job creation? No; no plans to hire or to find new work for those who have been laid off, no plans to offer to put them back to work.

This government has no specifics to offer on skills training, and no skills training programs have yet been offered in this Legislature. When we read the Premier's report on skills and how we become competitive internationally, we know what we need to do. We need a strategy that aims for competitiveness and education that provides the basic skills to participate in the economy, the freedom of choice in one's career and full access to that chosen career. I urge this Premier and this government to act quickly so that this workforce will be competitive.

Finally, let me talk quickly about an item that is very important in my life as a member of the provincial Parliament and for the residents of the area that I represent. We have had a number of recommendations from the city of Toronto and from Metropolitan Toronto council dealing specifically with an anti-drug strategy. The Solicitor General stood up right here on 21 November and talked about the anti-drug week, and yet these kinds of platitudes will not serve us well because we need specific programs and specific recommendations. Even the mayor of the city of Toronto says, "I am disappointed that the provincial government yesterday gave no direction on whether or not they were going to finally put an end to the scandal of spending $20 million of OHIP dollars for treatment in the United States."

Here in Canada, to become more competitive, we need our money for skills development, and yet we are spending over $20 million every year to send our addicts to the United States to get treatment. We have no treatment facilities of any significance in the city of Toronto. It is serious, and we therefore recommend immediately to think about treatment facilities for our people and our residents so that we do not have to spend millions of dollars to send them to the United States. It is outright shocking that this kind of situation should persist and we recommend that this kind of strategy be discussed in the Legislature as quickly as possible.

The other recommendation that was made by Metropolitan Toronto council, and the city of Toronto supported it highly, was that of Metro licensing. The provincial government needs, I think, to support these recommendations. The Legislature here granted the city of Windsor powers to impose conditions on the issuance of licences, to suspend or revoke licences. I am thinking of doughnut shops and other places where people hang out in the evening.

Why not bring this kind of recommendation forward so the cities, like Metro and other cities across Ontario, have the right and power to shut stores and some businesses down that are implicated in this kind of a drug deal.

Finally, we simply ask that consideration be given to the Highway Traffic Act, the licence suspension. It is recommended in this report that the Highway Traffic Act be amended to include a provision that would result in an automatic driver's licence suspension for a period of up to one year for persons convicted of dealing in drugs.

These recommendations are important, and we would ask that this government take them seriously, because our people are hurting.

Mr Arnott: As I rise in this crowded assembly to give my maiden speech in response to the speech from the throne, I am overcome by a feeling of reverence for this chamber and its members. I am humbled and honoured that the people of Wellington have chosen me to represent them.

I am doubly humbled when I recall the tireless toil which friends, family and supporters exhibited so that I might be here. And I am doubly honoured to have been selected to succeed as the member for Wellington one of the finest people I have ever known: Jack Johnson, who served the people of Ontario with compassion, integrity, sincerity and dedication for 15 years. His is an example we would all do well to emulate. I join the people of Wellington in saying thank you to Jack Johnson.

Now as we enter a new decade, it is my responsibility to articulate the beliefs and the concerns of the people of Wellington to this assembly. It is a responsibility I take very seriously.

We in Wellington understand the economic value of hard work and the social value of personal responsibility. From this understanding stems a serious concern when our government refuses to live within its means, when our government grows until it begins to inhibit overall economic growth, when even excessive taxation does not prevent the expansion of our government debt. My party's leader has expressed these concerns for many years, and I wish to echo these concerns today.

In his response to the speech from the throne, my leader mentioned his surprise that young people are not taking to the streets to protest government waste, extravagance and a crippling debt, for which they ultimately will be responsible. Young people who are concerned about big government may not be in the streets, but I can assure members that some have taken seats in this assembly and will be vigilantly advocating that we first restrict the growth of government and then gradually bring it back to a level which we can afford.

We in Wellington want action on the environment. We want accessible health care and quality education for our children. We want to preserve Canada's traditions. We want government to enact laws which will allow agriculture and small business to flourish, so that we can have hope for the future. We want accountable, accessible local government. We want to keep Sundays for families and for worship.

If we all listened to the people of Wellington and acted accordingly, Ontario would be well served and better off.

I have listened to many honourable members' responses to the throne speech, and a great many members have commented that the Ontario public is tired of the old-style politics and the way some politicians have acted in the past. I agree.

Politicians, being human beings, though, have always acted in their own best interests. As long as we have politicians, they will be tempted by the expedient course, by the course which seems to ensure re-election. Today, that course lies in ignoring what may superficially seem to be the most politically acceptable and opportune route in favour of what we truly believe to be right. If we expend our energy on Machiavellian manipulations and efforts to be perceived as being strong on this issue or that, we should not be here, and we will not be here long, for the Ontario public deals harshly with politicians whose greatest interests are selfish.

1600

The Ontario public had its say on 6 September and a historic new government was formed -- the first New Democratic Party government in Ontario. I want to see good government in Ontario. While I have profoundly, fundamentally and philosophically disagreed with much of what the New Democrats espoused while they were in opposition, I am willing to give them an opportunity to bring forward their program and their agenda, since they have been elected to do so.

However, I hope to make a strong contribution within our party, pressing the new government to listen to our case, our agenda, which it will ignore at its peril.

A common thread running through many of the oral questions raised by opposition members to this government to date has been the great gulf which exists between the NDP election platform, An Agenda for People, and the announcements which are coming forth today from the new government. One might almost conclude that the opposition parties in this assembly are pressing the government to meet its election commitments as outlined in An Agenda for People.

I can only say that I thank providence that this gulf does in fact exist between NDP election promises and some recently announced government policies, directly because I do believe in good government. I hope that the new executive council does not delay in further repudiation of some of that particular document's more outlandish platitudes and absolutely impractical premises.

In closing, I wish once again to allude to the seriousness and importance of our duties in this assembly. The Premier has stated on several occasions that he did not expect to assume the office he presently holds. A logical corollary suggests that many members in this assembly did not expect to win the seats they presently occupy.

I sincerely hope that all members will approach their duties and responsibilities with appropriate seriousness and dedication which the present occasion demands.

Ms Churley: It is my pleasure today to participate in this debate on the throne speech as the member for Riverdale. I believe on the first day of the House, I paid tribute to David Reville. I would like to today mention again that I am very proud and honoured to be following in David Reville's footsteps. As well, members may remember Jim Renwick, who passed away in 1985 and had served Riverdale for many years and was well loved in our community and, I think, well respected in this House.

There is a strong Riverdale tradition, as many of the members here know, the NDP has been serving that community and, may I add, quite well for some time now and I am proud to follow in that tradition.

I came to politics fairly recently as an environmental activist from Riverdale, as well as the past executive director of the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund. I am, therefore, very pleased to have been appointed the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment. I feel that I have some knowledge and am, therefore, able to contribute to that portfolio at these very difficult times.

I would like to point out that the throne speech says very clearly, and I would just like to quote a line from it: "There is an environmental crisis facing Ontario and it will require an extraordinary effort to meet it. We accept our duty to the future." This government is prepared to meet that challenge.

Right now all the focus is on solid waste management, and there is a good reason for that. We can see it, we can smell it, we can see the trucks go by. Also, of course, the previous government pussyfooted around the issue and did not come up with the kinds of regulations that were necessary.

I would like to take this opportunity, however, to thank the previous government for the work that was done and the beginnings of some of the regulations that now have to be put in place on the 3Rs. Unfortunately, that government did not get serious about it and actually relaxed the soft drink quotas for reusable bottles. That is a very direct symbol of the kind of throwaway society that we live in, and this government is prepared to get tough on regulating, when necessary, the kinds of reusable materials that we are now throwing into the garbage.

The other thing that is mentioned and has been mentioned by the minister is that we will keep our commitment to full environmental assessments for garbage dumps in anybody's neighbourhoods.

One of the great significant points to me however in the throne speech is the commitment to the Safe Drinking Water Act because, believe it or not, solid waste is not our most serious environmental problem. Millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes, millions, are pumped deliberately and often legally into our lakes and rivers, and these toxic wastes -- you cannot see them; they do not drive by us in trucks -- are persistent and they build up in food chains. We do not even know what they do to us ultimately down the line and our sewer systems are not designed to handle them. Finally, this clean drinking water act will begin to deal with the problems of hazardous wastes going into our drinking water. As well, some of the work that was done by the previous government, the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program, which is very, very good and lays the groundwork for the beginnings of stopping hazardous wastes from going into our waters -- I again would like to thank the previous government for beginning such a fine program and this government will be proud to be able to pick that up and continue with it because it is a very good program.

Mr Ruprecht: Put your application in; we might accept you.

Ms Churley: As I was saying, this is finally -- and I do not want to be a Liberal, no; I am very proud to be a New Democrat. We will pick up on some of the fine programs they started, however.

As a member of city council I worked hard to get environmental issues on the table and I will continue to do that here. These issues have been, of course, of prime concern to my constituents in Riverdale. Riverdale -- south Riverdale, in particular -- has been a dumping ground for a very long time for garbage and for polluting industries and I think that this is a perfect opportunity for me to pay tribute to the residents of south Riverdale who have worked so hard over the years to get, in particular, the lead cleaned up in south Riverdale. For years and years and years, they fought to be listened to and it took many years to get the attention of any government. Finally, tests were done and lo and behold it was determined that many of the children in south Riverdale had in fact very high lead counts and, as we all know, this can cause serious brain damage. The citizens of Riverdale have been very active for a long time and at the forefront of the environmental community groups in the city of Toronto and have in fact been at the forefront of some of the waste management issues that we are now in the thick of.

I would like to thank as well the residents of Riverdale for giving me their overwhelming vote of confidence. I have to brag a little bit and say that I did win every poll and I like to think that is because of the work that was done before me by my predecessors and by the work that I was involved in at city hall. But I pledge to these good people of Riverdale that I will continue fighting for the things that matter to them, as I did at city council, and those are equality for women and visible minorities, a safe environment and social justice.

I would like to conclude by saying that I believe that every member in this House came to office because they too care about social justice and a clean environment and that despite the criticisms that have been given on the throne speech, some legitimate and some not so legitimate, when necessary we will all co-operate and we will all work together to do what we were elected to do, and that is to improve and enhance the lives of the people of Ontario, not only the people of this generation, but the generations to come.

1610

Mr Grandmaître: First, I would like to congratulate all the new faces in this place, in this crowded place -- overwhelming. My remarks will be short, will be brief, but to the point, because I want to give an opportunity for every one of us to have a chance to talk about the throne speech and the lack of direction. That is exactly how the people of Ottawa East, the people of eastern Ontario, feel about the lack of direction in the first NDP throne speech.

Interjection.

Mr Grandmaître: I know the minister responsible for francophone affairs will heckle me, but that is okay. I can take it. He has not received his first question yet, but I might get him next week.

The people of Ontario had a right to expect more than they received in the NDP throne speech. People were expecting a clear sense of direction and a firm set of priorities in their first speech. The throne speech was a disappointing retreat from the bold promises made by the NDP during the election campaign.

All we have been hearing since we came back on 20 November is: "We're consulting. We're listening to groups, to individuals, to anybody who wants to listen." I find it very strange that now they are telling us they are consulting with the people, and yet in August and even in the first week of September, I would like to ask the government how come they made these electoral promises without consulting their own people. Now they say: "Well, look, we can't keep all these promises. We have to go back to the people of Ontario and ask them what we should do."

I find this very, very strange for a government that wanted to be in power, that promised the world -- and they did. Now they say, "Because of the recession." Well, the recession was in place back in August, but I suppose they have forgotten about the recession of August. I find it very strange that they would even use the recession as an excuse.

Mr Speaker, I would like to talk about your favourite subject, eastern Ontario, and my own riding of Ottawa East. As you know, people in eastern Ontario expected a lot. We welcomed the NDP's commitment to follow through on a Liberal promise to relocate civil service jobs to communities right across the province of Ontario. The government was dragging its heels, as you know, on this issue, because of pressure from the civil service unions, but with pressure from the Liberals and from members of the communities affected by those decisions, finally the government came through. Congratulations.

Also, we welcome the government's decision to provide $700 million for public works projects. Although this program will re-employ some workers, it does not provide much hope for the thousands of workers in manufacturing, agriculture, resource development and single-industry communities who are being hurt by the recession. Workers who have been laid off today have none of the protection the NDP talked about while it was campaigning across this province. There is nothing in the throne speech that will encourage business people to invest, both at home or abroad.

I think this is a golden opportunity for me to remind the government that a cabinet committee existed of eight different ministries. It was a newly appointed committee made up of the ministries of Tourism and Recreation, Agriculture and Food, Industry, Trade and Technology, Education, Skills Development, senior citizens' affairs, Colleges and Universities. As you know, Mr Speaker, we are not being favoured in eastern Ontario. They have a Minister of Northern Development and they have a minister for the greater Toronto area, but we do not have a minister responsible for eastern Ontario. We do not have such a minister. I feel very sad that in the throne speech nothing gave us an indication the committee would be reinstated. I implore the government to do so as soon as possible.

This committee had given the eastern Ontario members some faith that finally, instead of Metro or Toronto, eastern Ontario would be recognized as a very important section or part of this province. I think we have a great deal to offer in eastern Ontario and I think the new NDP government should take advantage of that golden opportunity and reinstate that committee as soon as possible.

Comme je l'ai annoncé, je ne voudrais pas prendre tout le temps nécessaire -- je veux permettre à tous mes collègues de dire un mot. Mais par contre, je dois vous dire à quel point les gens de l'Est de l'Ontario étaient déçus du discours du trône.

Comme vous le savez, Monsieur le Président, les francophones de l'Ontario attendaient avec impatience ce premier discours. La raison en était majeure : c'est que le gouvernement néo-démocrate avait promis la lune, avait promis une université de langue française, avait promis une province bilingue, mais pas un mot de cela dans le discours.

Alors, c'est une des questions, peut-être, que je vais poser au ministre responsable des Affaires francophones. J'ai été flagellé, j'ai été crucifié pendant quatre ans et demi, alors c'est au tour du ministre d'être crucifié. Il va entendre parler de moi, et non seulement de moi, mais de l'Est de l'Ontario. Le ministre a fait des promesses, maintenant c'est à lui de se rendre responsable et de tenir ses promesses électorales ; alors, que le ministre se prépare.

Mr Ruprecht: He will get the chance.

M. Grandmaître: Oui, le député aura sûrement sa chance.

Monsieur le Président, comme vous le savez, le nouveau gouvernement avait répondu oui, sans exception, à toutes les questions de l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario. Alors, je vais avertir le ministre que je vais lui poser une question sur chacune de ces promesses-là. Je veux connaître son agenda : je veux savoir quand on va implanter ces programmes et quand les Franco-Ontariens doivent recevoir les services dus. Ce n'est pas une faveur qu'on demande, c'est un droit.

I will wind up by reminding the new NDP government that the Liberal Party's criticism policy will be a just one, a constructive one. It will be based on Liberal principles: the rights of individuals, the rights of equal opportunity, an activist government which remains fiscally responsible.

1620

Mr Jordan: It is a special privilege for me to have the opportunity to speak this afternoon with a fellow colleague from eastern Ontario in the chair. I would also like to mention at this time that I would like to congratulate the regular Speaker on his election to that high office and his very fair treatment of us. the new members.

I want to say that I am not only proud to represent the riding of Lanark-Renfrew, but to follow in the footsteps of a member of the calibre of Doug Wiseman, who represented the riding for 20 years. Doug did not allude to practices that lead to the public assessment of a politician that is being expressed today. I realize the tremendous responsibility and challenge ahead in attempting to build on his principles of government.

I would like to put forward the basic principles of honesty, integrity and accountability that go together to build character. It is on these principles that my wife and I have raised five children through the school system, all five ending up with university degrees, and on the basis that all five are well established as citizens of this province.

I will be serving the people of Lanark-Renfrew from this character base as I continue to explain and eventually be part of implementation of the policies of our Progressive Conservative Party.

Leading the way for me, not only in Lanark-Renfrew but with the people across this province is our leader, who encompasses all these qualities of which I have spoken.

The principles of government must be no different than the principles of life. The promises made by this government prior to the election were of such extreme that the reality of implementing them is impossible. In Lanark-Renfrew this is already leading to the question again of the credibility of politicians. Why are they flip-flopping on their energy policy? Why are they flip-flopping on auto insurance and on the price of gasoline at the gas pumps? Why are they flip-flopping on their plans for the highways and their plans for waste management?

These are the same people who before the election claimed to the electorate to have the policies and the answers, and the people believed them.

The people in many areas of my riding are in desperate need of assistance due to layoffs, plant closings, pension funds being withheld and education and health costs continuing to soar. The people are looking to this government for those answers that were promised. I would like to make some suggestions to the government regarding projects adjacent to or in my riding that will give hope and relief to some of these people.

The riding of Lanark-Renfrew is fortunate in having an abundance of hydraulic sites for the generation of power; namely, High Falls, Carleton Place and Galetta on the Mississippi River, Mountain Chute, Barrett Chute and Stewartville and Arnprior on the Madawaska River, and also Chenaux and Chats Falls on the Ottawa River.

I draw to the attention of the Minister of Energy that the locations at High Falls, Carleton Place and Chats Falls require upgrading for increased capacity. The Chats Falls plant could be increased by 25% by installing two additional generators in the intakes already designed when the plant was built.

The initiation of these work programs, along with another major project under the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Natural Resources, will be of great benefit to all concerned. The major project on the Ottawa River is what has been referred to over the years as part of the GRAND Ship Canal.

Studies were done in the 1930s and again in the 1970s on the feasibility of this project. I ask the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Natural Resources, in conjunction with the federal government, to seriously consider, immediately, that portion of the canal system between Constance Bay and Pembroke. This would allow navigation on the Ottawa River around the hydro dams and rapids which at the present time leave the river to such limited use that the recreation and tourist trade has not developed. The beautiful beaches and scenery, including the Laurentian mountains, along this route are second to none in the province of Ontario.

In conjunction with these projects, I would ask the Minister of Energy to consider directing Ontario Hydro to reinstitute its policy of landscaping and maintenance around its properties in Lanark-Renfrew and restore them to the tourist attractions that many people enjoyed in the years gone by. This warm and open concept not only attracts tourists, but is educational and gives understanding to the people of the tremendous responsibility Ontario Hydro has shouldered over the years in supplying abundant and low-cost power to the people of Ontario.

I suggest that these suggested projects will not only be the source of an efficient increase in the supply of energy to this province, but will restore confidence in the commitments made by the minister regarding utilization of all sources of energy. The projects involving the upgrading of existing facilities require no environmental studies. They will provide employment in the construction and tourist industry.

I would also ask the minister to consider the relocation of Ontario Hydro's hydraulic engineering division to the town of Arnprior, the central location relative to 10 hydraulic plants in the eastern region. I would further ask the minister to consider the relocation of their customer service and conservation division for eastern region from rented quarters in Belleville to property already owned by Ontario Hydro in the town of Smiths Falls.

I am personally acquiring copies of previous studies on these projects and would welcome the opportunity to sit down and share this information with the ministers involved, as I have already arranged with the federal minister for Lanark-Carleton. The people of Lanark-Renfrew are aware of these great possibilities for their riding and they await a reply from this government.

Mr Silipo: I am pleased to join in the debate this afternoon, albeit perhaps a little briefly, given the agreement that was reached today.

First of all, Mr Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your election, and through you the other members of the presiding team. I think that although there seems to be a bit of a subdued air in the House this afternoon -- I am not sure if it is due to the weather or due to the fact that we have done away with the question and comment session this afternoon -- if the tenor of the debate in the previous week has been any indication, you and the other members of the presiding team will certainly not be bored in your position in the Chair.

I of course come to this House for the first time from the riding of Dovercourt. For those who do not know, the riding of Dovercourt is situated in the west end of the city of Toronto. It is an area that is home to many thousands of people who have come to this country and to this city from many parts of the world. I think it is a microcosm in that sense of the kind of society that I think we want for all of us.

I would be remiss if I did not, in my first address in the House, note and recognize some of the previous representatives from that area. I say representatives because of course, as a result of the redistribution that happened a few years back, the present riding of Dovercourt takes in a good chunk of the old riding of Dovercourt and the old riding of Bellwoods.

1630

I want to note and recognize Tony Lupusella, who represented the riding of Dovercourt for about 15 years. While I may not have been pleased about the fact that he decided a few years back that he was more comfortable being a Liberal than a New Democrat, I do want to note the contribution he has made to this House, particularly during his earlier years on the issue of workers' compensation and in bringing to this House and to this Legislature the plight of injured workers, something which I hope to be able to do as well in the months and years to come. I also want to note that he was of particular help to me when I first began my public career as a school trustee. As I said, regardless of what may have happened politically and in a very partisan way, I do want to note in a very non-partisan way that this is something I will never forget, the help he was to me in the early years.

I also want to pay tribute to another person, Ross McClellan, who represented part of the area of Dovercourt, the old riding of Bellwoods. He, of course, served this House well in various capacities. I note in particular his role as the NDP House leader for a number of years, and particularly his role in negotiating the accord in 1985 that brought the Liberal government of that day to power and to the government.

I want to start from there and indicate that what happened around the accord, in my particular analysis, and what happened on 6 September are very linked. I think it is perhaps what happened during that time by the previous government in forgetting some of the sense of promise and openness and some of the sense of change that I think people saw in 1985. Quite frankly, in my view, that led to the defeat of the Liberal government this past September and the election of the New Democratic Party to power.

Certainly, as a member of the government, I can say quite clearly and openly that I never expected to be in this House on this side of the House. While I was confident in my ability to be elected, for various local reasons, I certainly did not expect, as I believe many of us on this side of the House expected, that we would be forming the government. I think we recognize, as many people, including our Premier, have indicated, that in fact the vote was as much a protest vote against the Liberal government as it was a vote for us, in terms of the electorate searching for a party to which they could turn who had some of the answers they were seeking.

For me, that realization, beyond just simply accepting that that is what happened, strikes at the heart of what the throne speech is all about. We have heard, and I think quite legitimately, some of the criticisms from both opposition parties to the throne speech, about how vague it is, about how it does not have this particular area or that particular section covered. I think one can only say that to some extent some of the comments they have made are quite accurate. In fact, the throne speech does not cover every conceivable area, but the throne speech, on the other hand, does not pretend to cover every conceivable area. What it does, and I think does very well, is set out some very key principles and elaborate to some extent on some of those areas.

I want to touch a little on some of those, but I particularly want to point out that in effect what has also happened in the weeks following the reading of the throne speech is that, as we had announced, various ministers have made various additional announcements on some important changes and some important improvements. I think that also is an indication of how we will be doing business.

I was pleased to see that within some of the key principles embodied in the throne speech there were some that touch very close to the heart of what I believe the constituents of Dovercourt would want to see from this government over the next number of years. During the election, I certainly heard and talked about a number of issues, but particular among those were the concept of taxation and the fact that, while everyone agrees they need to pay taxes and that we all need to pay taxes, there was a great and growing sense among my constituents that the present tax system is very unfair. So I was pleased to see that through the Fair Tax Commission we will hopefully be addressing some of the inequities in the present tax structure which place an ever-increasing burden on those who are least able to pay. I am quite confident, as I say, that we can begin to address some of those inequities through that process.

There are obviously great concerns about the environment. Other members of this House have spoken at length and well on those, and I will not dwell on that except to say that I believe it is a concern we all have, to look at and continue to put forward measures that will safeguard and improve our environment, not just for our wellbeing but obviously for the wellbeing of those that will follow us.

There was one issue, however, that I think probably kept recurring throughout the election. I was glad to see that was the issue that opened the throne speech, that is, the concept of integrity. I see that as something that plays very much not only on the workings of the government but also in our own dealings on a day-to-day basis in how we deal with each other as government versus opposition parties and vice versa, and also in the way in which we deal on our own as individual representatives with our own constituents. In addition to the concept that I think is enshrined in the throne speech, of which we will no doubt be seeing some more details over the next few weeks and months around how we, as a government, can inject the greatest sense of integrity into that system, it seems to me that also inherent in that is our ability to admit to mistakes we may make from time to time and our ability to deal with the consequences of those mistakes. I have every faith in the members of the government who sit on this side, and I think that will more and more become the way in which we will be working.

There are a couple of other issues I want to touch on. I look forward to the comments we will be getting on the Constitution and what we will be doing as a government and as a Legislature to deal with that. In the post-Meech Lake era we all, I think, want to try to come to grips with the problems that are there. In my view there are ways to both recognize the reality of Quebec as a distinct society and also to recognize the rights of native peoples and the multicultural reality of our city and of our country. I am one that believes very much that those things are congruent and do not have to be separate from one another.

I look forward. of course, to the announcements that will come forward, the process and the results we will reach in terms of a publicly owned, driver-owned car insurance plan.

I want to conclude by making two comments; I want to pick up again on some comments that came from some of the opposition party members. One is that the New Democratic Party does not have a monopoly on social consciousness, and I would certainly have to agree with that. If there is any one rule I have used in my years of public life to date, it has been that one needs to continuously be able to reach out beyond partisan politics to members of all parties, because I think we all have a contribution to make in our own respective ways, whether that may be enshrined in a partisan or philosophical point of view -- and I think that is also part of the system -- or whether it goes beyond the views we may espouse from time to time as members of particular parties. I think that is also something we need to continue to search for.

It was mentioned earlier by more than one person that we will be judged in the end not on the throne speech but on An Agenda for People. A lot of people have waved this document around, and I for one not only am not afraid of being judged on An Agenda for People but agree that that is what we should be judged on. But I also wanted to say that in that context people ought to also be realistic and see the throne speech for what it is, which is the beginning of the process. I think the ledger sheet will really be tallied at the end of the four- to five-year period, and I think it is fair at that point for the opposition parties and indeed the public to be able to look at our record and say, "Well, here are the things you promised, NDP, and here are the things you actually managed to deliver on."

1640

I am very confident that when that ledger sheet is tallied, our record will be quite good. I am confident of that for a number of reasons: first, because we will have certainly a very active opposition, if the debate to date is any indication, who have taken it upon themselves to at some points be perhaps more socialist than the socialists. That is fine. I think it is quite a legitimate role for people to remind us of the promises we have made.

I hasten to add, however, that I think people ought also to be a little careful in not trying to continue to have it both ways, of criticizing us for not going far enough and then, when we do make a move, saying we are going too far. But I suppose that is the role of opposition to some extent.

There is another reason -- in my view, in some ways perhaps an even more important reason -- why I think in the end we will be judged well on the ledger sheet. It is not because we on this side of the House have all the answers. We do not. But I think we have a strong coalescence around the kinds of things we, as a government, believe need to happen. While we are still in the process of working out all of the ins and outs, and no doubt we will over the next number of years, we do come to those issues and to the many issues we need to deal with with a very similar kind of perspective. I think that will help us.

But I think more important than that is what we see as the role that each of us as members of the government needs to play. That is, as members of the government, we have not forgotten and we must never forget, that we also have a role almost as opposition: to continue to bring the issues of our constituents to this House, to the various committees, to our caucuses, in whatever way. I, for one, certainly intend to do that. I know that many people on this side of the House intend to do that as well.

I think in the end that is what will make us a good government: our ability to continue to do those things, to continue to play our role not only as representatives of the people who elected us but as real advocates.

I conclude by saying that I very sincerely look forward to the next few years in this House. I think there is a great deal of work we need to do and I think that the throne speech has set us on a good beginning on that road.

Mr Villeneuve: Mr Speaker, it is my first opportunity to get up in this chamber and debate since 6 September. I want to congratulate you, sir, for having been chosen as the Deputy Speaker. I know you will do a good job. Certainly I want to congratulate the elected Speaker, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, for having been chosen by his peers, the members of this assembly, as our Speaker for this session of Parliament.

I welcome all the new members, most of them across the way in government, to Queen's Park. We will be looking very closely at the Hansards of some of their first speeches, and they will be saying several years down the road: "Did I really say that? If I did. why in the world did I say it?" We are just putting them on guard.

To the 10 new caucus members we have in the Progressive Conservative Party, I say welcome. They have come at a time when our party has just turned the corner and is a government in waiting, so I say to them welcome.

I want also to thank the constituents of the area I very proudly represent, that great part of southeastern Ontario, really the cradle of Ontario where it all began, Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville, parts of four rural counties and an area proud in tradition, where French, Irish, English and Scottish live side by side, well together, and hopefully will continue to do so for a long time to come.

Coming from a very rural riding, I will be touching on the plight of agriculture, the plight of eastern Ontario, economically and otherwise, and I will also be suggesting some ways and means of improving them.

We have, in the great riding I proudly represent, the St Lawrence Parks Commission, where five of our major parks were actually closed down. This, for a tourist attraction, is a terrible scenario and a terrible situation. One of them was reopened by a municipality last year and hopefully this year. I say to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation from the new government, we must reopen the four remaining parks that were closed throughout the summer of 1990. If we are going to attract tourists to that area, new money, new people, we must have all of our facilities open and readily available to the public.

On Highway 416, there was some question at some point not long ago that possibly we would be going beyond the previous government's originally scheduled 1999 completion. It is absolutely imperative that this twinning of Highway 16 into a four-lane be done and be done even sooner than 1999. It is most important to the economy of the area. to the tourist trade. Remember, when you cross from the United States into Ontario, a cowpath literally leads you to the nation's capital. We need Highway 416 and we need it now. We cannot afford to procrastinate on this one. As we look ahead from 1990, 1999 seems like an eternity ahead. It will come, but we must have Highway 416 fully completed by that time.

We also have the potential of a youth detention centre, a very beautiful facility known as the Seaway Training Institute at Morrisburg. We understand that the people of Ottawa are saying they want to keep the facility in the city of Ottawa, but "not in my backyard." Well, you can come to our backyard in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. We have the facility there on site and ready to be utilized. Our young offenders do need proper facilities and supervision, and we have those very facilities right along the seaway at Morrisburg.

I say to the Minister of Community and Social Services -- it is great to see her here in the chamber this afternoon -- that those facilities are readily available. I have been with two groups that have inspected them to this point. For whatever reason, possibly that it is a little large -- but the price is right. I want to invite the minister personally to visit that particular Seaway Training Institute, which it was before. It is a beautiful facility. It may look slightly large right now, but possibly is exactly what we need for the future.

In agriculture, we have very definite great economic problems. Grain this year is selling for less than it sold 15 years ago, and that is for a long ton. Back in the old days, we sold a ton as 2,000 pounds; today, the tonne is 2,205 pounds and we are getting less money than we did in 1975.

One of the speakers earlier this afternoon touched on the fact that he was most happy with what had come out in the speech from the throne. In my humble opinion, the speech from the throne leaves a great deal to be desired when we speak of support for agriculture, the basic industry.

We take food for granted. When there was a slight slowdown in the movement of goods earlier this year and Highways 401 and 417 were lined up with trucks going nowhere, all of a sudden some of our supermarket shelves became a little bare and there was great consternation. "Where do we fill our food basket from?" If we do not look after our agricultural community, the very backbone of this province, we will have great difficulty. Once we have lost them, once they have lived the urban life, not many want to go back to milking cows, feeding hogs or beef or growing a crop when a large amount of capital is required and there is a very low return; indeed, this year in the grain situation, to break even is doing well.

Where else do you get this, particularly in a situation where this government is going to increase the minimum wage to somewhere above $7 an hour? It may not be a lot of money for a lot of people, but in agriculture we have many people who are not earning anywhere close to that and they are working some very long hours and have a lot of capital invested.

1650

I will touch on realized net income just for a moment. We have had a reducing realized net income since 1983, reducing on an annual basis. When we look at this, we are basically somewhere in the area of about two thirds the return to our agricultural community that some people in the urban areas are making. I think it is very unfair and I think it is unhealthy for our province.

We have the possibility of new uses for crops. The fuel ethanol industry, I think, is on the verge of coming to Ontario. It has been operating in the United States; it has been operating in western Canada. I say to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who has to be away for the next period of time, and I realize that, the fuel ethanol industry must come to eastern Ontario. A clean environment is what it promises, and new markets for our grain producers.

Finally -- I know that time is of the essence and I have promised my remaining colleague for our party that I would give him as much time as I have taken -- this government promised a minister for eastern Ontario. I know they will not deliver on many of their promises, and probably thank Heaven that they will not. I say that to them with all honesty and all earnestness. But they promised, many of their candidates in eastern Ontario, and the Premier himself, when he came to Cornwall, said, "You'll have a minister of eastern Ontario." We have lost thousands of jobs in the last 18 months, literally thousands of jobs in Cornwall and the area that I represent. I do not know whether a ministry of eastern Ontario could have solved that, but at least it could have addressed it, as the minister responsible for northern Ontario addressed it in today's statement in a negative way but was here to talk about it.

I could go on and speak about the metropolis in the great riding that I represent, the town of Alexandria, which has been limited on expansion because of a sewage treatment system that is not adequate. It is a town of 3,300 people; it cannot expand. Limited expansion, we must address that.

Mr Speaker, I see that my time is up. Thank you very much for listening to me, and again, congratulations to you, sir.

Mr Ferguson: Mr Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker, as well as to congratulate the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, who was elected by this assembly.

I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate the residents of my community who selected me to be here today to represent their interests. I want to say to the 46% of the residents of Kitchener riding that I certainly appreciate having the pleasure and the opportunity to represent them here today. To the 54% who did not support me, I want to let them know that I will certainly be working hard to earn their trust, confidence and respect so that perhaps they will be able to support me on the next go round.

I think it is also fitting that I acknowledge the hard work, dedication and efforts of the previous member for the riding of Kitchener -- in fact, the previous two members -- David R. Cooke, who was the chair of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, as well as James Breithaupt, who served in this Legislature from 1967 until 1985. Both individuals, I know, worked hard on behalf of the residents of the community that I represent today and I think that they should be acknowledged because they both did excellent jobs on behalf of the residents of Kitchener.

I listened very intently over the last number of days to responses to the throne speech from not only members of the government side but also the opposition side, and I want to say that there has been a variety of speakers on the issue. I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition as well as to the leader of third party and I certainly appreciated, in a number of instances, the constructive comments that were put forth. I certainly appreciated the number of thoughtful and deliberate attempts on behalf of the other sides to make their views known to the government, especially those who took it in such a constructive, positive manner that they should put forth a message to us and that we should not only be listening but hearing what they are saying. I think that we on this side of the House, we the government members, certainly appreciate those people who have taken that time.

The throne speech itself -- and I think perhaps this is lost many times -- was essentially a speech about principle. I think it spoke of the values that many of us in this House share and it spoke of some of the common ground that we all share. I think too often, because democracy seems to be the adversarial approach, we lose out on the common ground that in fact we share. It talked about some of the economic realities, it talked about our faltering economy and some of the real difficulties that constituents are being put in as a result of the economy, as a result of the free trade agreement, as a result of the value of the current Canadian dollar, as a result of the high interest rate policy. I am not here to criticize, because we can do that at any time. Why I am here, and I hope all of us can share in this, is to build some common ground. We are all very clear about what the problems are that need to be addressed out there, but I think where we have difficulty is building the bridges in order to resolve some of those problems.

The throne speech, which was very much about the principles that this government and this party stand for, talked about integrity in government. That is a question that I know each member is concerned about, especially when we read that a number of surveys have been taken by a number of surveying organizations, such as Gallup and Environics, that rate the politician or somebody who decides to serve in public life somewhere around sixth or seventh on the totem pole in terms of trust and/or respect.

The throne speech also spoke of fairness. It talked about fairness for the individual, which many of us believe has been lacking. It also spoke about fairness to communities, which I, as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, am obviously concerned about. Perhaps more important, it touched on some of the minority groups that have not been included in the throne speech before, such as our first nations people, Franco-Ontarians and in fact a wide diversity of multiracial or multicultural groups.

This government has been criticized a number of times, not about what was in the throne speech, but in fact what was left out. I find that odd. I find that odd because contained within the speech itself, it states that it has not been the intention of this government "to touch on every conceivable base or to announce every measure that we will undertake in our mandate. Rather, it is an initial agenda...."

I think it has to be seen as an initial agenda to get this province moving.

The common ground, I think, is there for each of us to build on. We recognize that opposition certainly has its role to play with the government, but we also recognize that when we look at concerns around the environment, integrity in government, when we look at the whole question of whether or not many in our communities will be able to maintain their standard of living or will be able to have a job to go to tomorrow, we understand that in fact we have to build that common ground in order to resolve some of those problems.

I believe that we have some of the answers. I do not think we have all the answers. I do not think there is any quick fix or any Band Aid solution to many of the problems that exist out there, but at least for once I believe that the residents of Ontario are going to have a government that is not only concerned but that genuinely cares, and a government, for once, that is prepared to listen.

Finally, Mr Speaker, it has been stated that An Agenda for People will really be the acid test of this government come 1994 or 1995. I want to tell you, I welcome that. I am sure it is not going to be 1993, by the way. But I welcome that to be the test of this government. I am certainly not backing away from that. I hope my colleagues, as well, will be prepared to defend that document and that we have implemented on behalf of the residents of this great province.

In conclusion, I want to say that as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs I look forward to the challenges within the ministry, I look forward to dealing with the over 5,000 locally elected individuals who serve their communities across Ontario and, as well, I look forward to dealing with the heads of those 839 municipalities who have to work -- and we have to work -- in very much a co-operative effort in order to deliver the services that the residents of our province not only expect but certainly deserve.

1700

Mr Jackson: I am very pleased to be able to speak in the House today on the throne speech. Like virtually every Ontarian, I was surprised at the election of Ontario's first socialist government and I was looking forward to the throne speech with some trepidation, some excitement, some anticipation, not only by virtue of having debated what I thought was an outstanding NDP candidate in my riding in the election but also by virtue of the relationships that I had over the six years with my friends in the New Democratic Party who sat adjacent to me in opposition for so many years. I had a particularly close relationship with the former member for Scarborough West and the former member for Riverdale, with whom I shared an interest in and a devotion to social policy issues.

It is within that context that as I read the throne speech and I look at the subsequent announcements of this government in the ensuing period, I have some serious concerns. The initial, first day's reading of this throne speech means one thing to a lot of people, but now some two weeks after the throne speech, based on a series of announcements, it is clear that this throne speech should be reviewed and revisited to see the real context in which it is being presented.

I think there are three themes that did not really come out in the first reading of the throne speech, but I think on returning to it, these themes can be drawn out very clearly. One of them is this thought process or this mentality, a them-versus-us mentality on the part of this government, almost as if it has a bit of a chip on its shoulder before it even gets out of the blocks with its responsibility to govern in this province. Clearly it says that they are "a group of people accustomed to being on the outside of established power structures" and "my government will open Queen's Park to those who have never before had an effective voice in the corridors of power." Yet when we ask what that means, we cannot get a clear statement from the Premier on who he is talking about. One would assume that we were talking about vulnerable adults. Clearly that is a group of our citizens. Maybe another group would be children, because we do not have mental health legislation that covers children. In fact children should have a voice in the corridors of power.

Yet we do not see, in terms of policy statements coming from the throne speech, a clear commitment. Certainly the actions of the government would betray that there may be a whole set of other people who are getting access to power for the first time. It was only last week that I raised the issue of the unusual and untoward influence that the president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union had with the Minister of Community and Social Services, and yet vulnerable adults were not allowed to be party to that decision. They were not even given the courtesy of being invited in to discuss the implications of hijacking a major commitment to deinstitutionalization.

To parallel this, we have a Provincial Auditor's report that shows that many of our vulnerable adults are today at risk in these institutions, that we have been documenting this for over a year and a half, and yet it is possible to read in this throne speech that maybe it was OPSEU that has been denied access to the corridors of power. It might be interesting to find out if there is within cabinet a policy vetting framework -- which is not unaccustomed for cabinets all across North America -- that deals specifically with the interests of OPSEU before any legislation becomes public.

I think that begs the other side of the coin, that in the process of giving additional access to power, there is the reciprocal: Who loses some of that power? Whose interests are less served? I think the government would be wise to put in perspective, before it gets too entrenched in its belief in its own Agenda for People, that this simple document will sustain it for four years, and not that these actions which, because of opposition, the media and the spirit of the very people who are vulnerable, that this message does become public and ultimately the government will be measured by its response.

I think another theme in this throne speech was this theme of, "That was then and this is now," as though things that happened as late as August, the election commitments, well, that was fine. That was in the context of a heated election, sort of like pre-orgasmic thrashing of politicians promising everything to get votes. The truth is that people in good faith went to the ballot box with a belief in individuals, backbenchers, government members, cabinet ministers. They put their faith in those individuals to come forward with the solid proposals that would give them the relief they sought, the dignity they deserved.

So I remind the government members that when they read this throne speech, they cannot embrace the notion, "That was then and this is now." Of course, the final theme is, "Be patient, don't worry." I find it hard to believe that having waited all these years, with the social conscience of the leader of the third party, then Leader of the Opposition and now, today, Premier, he can actually make the statement: "Be patient. It's going to take time."

There should be priorities for this government and they should be clearly enunciated. The priorities did not appear in this throne speech in the areas that we heard on the streets as we knocked on door after door. What were those priorities? Health care. The only line we got on health care was that money was not the answer. Imagine, money is not the answer -- as if, after all these years of planning for health care, that is what they can come up with.

In social services, we are told we have to be patient because there are going to be structural changes. "We're attacking structural changes." I have news for the members: The only structural changes the government has come up with are it has fast-tracked a nuclear plant and it has allowed a foreign company to come in and buy Consumers' Gas. Those are the structural changes the government has made to this province. But have they made the structural changes that have been required to give access to disabled people to continue with the progress of deinstitutionalization, to give dignity to adults who have been our most vulnerable?

Education: not a dollar in education, not a hope for education. Not a prayer for health care and not a word for business. Those are the three things that are in this throne speech which are reason for concern. We saw rent control legislation. I voted with the NDP against the rent control bill in this House five years ago. I did so because I knew then it was a bankrupt bill, and that party has known for years that it was wrong. What do they do? They come in and they freeze it down.

I want the members to know that the rich tenants in my riding are delighted with the Premier. They are delighted they are going to be able to spend six months in Florida and their rents will stay cheap in Burlington while they are down there. I voted against that bill because we need a shelter subsidy that recognizes true need. That was mentioned in the Social Assistance Review Committee report; that was mentioned in the Stuart Thom report. I cannot abide the ideological view that we have to have universal subsidy for the rich under rent control.

Every time we give something to someone who does not need it in this province, there is that much less to give to those who are less fortunate, and the list is growing. The truth is that the government's commitment to job improvement in this throne speech is for $700 million for capital improvements. These are major corporations which are going to be out building roads, major capital works where the moneys are not going specifically into the workers' pockets but would, for example, by the removal of almost $1 billion in capital improvements. Renovations: We have a carpet company in this province that is going under, and 30% of all accommodation or apartment units in this province will, in many cases, be doing without additional carpet because those renovations have been halted.

The truth is that there is some good news in this throne speech. I would be remiss if I did not mention it, and unless the members want to interject, I would like to get it on the record. The truth of the matter is that it does not take, as I have been lectured by a member of cabinet, 11 feminists in the Premier's cabinet in order to establish some badly need changes in this province for women. The truth of the matter is that all three political parties are committed to that and I want to acknowledge publicly my support for the Attorney General and his commitment to women, especially as it relates to violence and abuse. The members who are veterans know of my interest in that support for those initiatives. I applaud the government.

I simply want to say in closing that I am disappointed that the Agenda for People has become an agenda for election victory only. With all members, I wait in anticipation to see how many more people in this province are disappointed by the failure to implement certain elements of the Agenda for People.

1710

Mr Conway: I want to say that it is a pleasure to join this debate as it winds down. I think we are taking the vote later this afternoon. I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity today to join in the debate after my mends the member for Lanark-Renfrew and the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry have both participated in the debate. I certainly enjoyed their remarks very much indeed.

I guess I should, like all other members, begin my remarks by thanking the good voters of Renfrew North for sending me to this place on the sixth occasion. In the tradition of these speeches, I want to thank them most heartily for their renewed vote of confidence in me as their member.

Obviously, I want to welcome all the new and returning members and in so doing, like a lot of the veterans around here, observe that this is a very different place. I am excited to see so many new and vibrant people in the chamber. In making that observation, of course, I would also have to reflect upon some of the people who are not here. I was glad, for example, to hear my friend the member for Wellington talk about the contribution of one of the best members I have known in my 15 years, Jack Johnson, who served here and served with me in a number of capacities over those 15 years. Certainly, Marion Bryden. I do not know if anyone mentioned Marion, but Marion soldiered through long, long years of opposition. I think of people like Jim McGuigan, Gordie Miller from our side, people who are not here any longer but who certainly made a very considerable contribution.

I want to begin my remarks by reflecting on two or three aspects of the recent campaign, the Ontario election of 1990, which, as has been observed, I think, by many of the previous speakers, was quite a dramatic turn of events, a surprising election in many ways, significant to be sure. When one looks at the returns on a province-wide basis, one sees things that we have not seen in Ontario before. I want, in making those observations, to congratulate in a very direct and personal way the New Democratic Party and especially the Premier. I say this most personally because I have watched the Premier since he arrived here in 1982. We are almost at his eighth anniversary, I think. Over the last two or three years it has not been easy. I do not think it is any secret that at a personal level, the leader of the government has gone through some very difficult times. To soldier in those times as he did stoically --

Mr Nixon: With a lot of disagreeable colleagues.

Mr Conway: As my friend the member for Brant-Haldimand says, he soldiered through those last couple of years not only with an evident strain in his personal life -- those members who do not know about his brother's passing will recall that he had some very difficult moments. I certainly share with him the sense of accomplishment he must now feel, because he made an enormous contribution. It is no secret that the former member for Oshawa and the former member for Scarborough West on occasion could, in those years of opposition, make his time as leader of the party not easy. I say again, I in a very personal way want to congratulate him for the victory which, in large measure, was his. I know that my friends opposite would join me in that.

It is always an important and exciting time when governments change in a democratic society. I cannot share, but I can appreciate the feeling of exhilaration and excitement that must have been felt and that is surely still being felt by my honourable friends opposite. It is important to have these changes, however difficult and painful it might be for some of us on these occasions, for a variety of reasons, not the least of those reasons being for the party system itself. One perhaps would not say this, but one would think this: You join in party movements with the expectation that some day you are going to be favoured with the responsibility of office. I thought of how important it must have been on the night of 6 September for people like Ted Jolliffe or Donald MacDonald or Stephen Lewis. I think of Donald MacDonald most especially, someone I have known for a long time and someone I respect greatly, how he must have felt to have, at age 78, finally seen a day he worked so long and hard for.

I say again that it is, I think, an important day for our party system and for society generally when we see this kind of change in a democratic society. My friends to the left, the Tory party, came through the campaign with a certain sense of renewal. As one of the previous speakers indicated this afternoon, some 50% of this caucus is new. I have met a number of the members. Certainly they appear to be a spirited and lively group, and I am sure they are going to enjoy their five years here. The new leader of that party has come through his first electoral contest in, I think, an adequate position. I do not want to put the member for London North on the spot in that regard, but certainly the Tory party, with a substantial number of new members, can take some pleasure from the result.

What can one say about ourselves? Let me say it, because I have been here longer than just about anyone other than my friend the member for Brant-Haldimand. This was not the election result we had planned for. It has been said by others that this was a clear defeat for the Liberal Party. I think all of the post-election analysis makes plain that what we had on the night of 6 September was a government defeated, not a government elected, and I do not say that in any critical way of my friends opposite. I think we as a party are going to have to reflect very seriously upon the events that led up to the date of 6 September. A very strong and clear message was delivered to us, and I am sure it will be understood and addressed.

Having said all of that, I think the record will show that the Peterson administration in this province will stand very tall in the history of Ontario. I want to say a word about someone with whom I shared 15 years in the Legislature. For the last eight or nine of those years, David Peterson and I were seatmates together. He served, as I indicated, for some 15 years in this place. He led the Ontario Liberal Party out of long years of opposition -- I think it was 42 years altogether in opposition -- to its first experience in government in almost half a century. He changed and he changed significantly the public life of Ontario. He gave new direction and new emphasis to critical policy areas like education, health care, the environment, language and multicultural policy, to name but four or five. For this and much more, we thank him; and for this and much, much more, he will long be remembered by the people of Ontario and certainly by the members of this party.

I want to say some other things about the Ontario election of 1990 which, as I indicated, was my sixth campaign in this province. In the Ottawa Valley we had quite a remarkable campaign. The weather was good. I was favoured with four very fine opponents who soldiered very effectively and pointed out to the electors of Renfrew North the several deficiencies of the incumbent. We had all in all quite a good campaign. I really enjoyed it as one of the best I have experienced in 15 years. When I travelled in the mid- to later part of the campaign out of the Ottawa Valley unto parts of eastern and central Ontario, I began to encounter a reality rather different than the one I had been accustomed to since the early part of August 1990.

I want to make a couple of observations, one of which has to do with my own experience as a candidate in north Renfrew. That was what I will call the COR phenomenon. We had in our constituency, and I know many of you -- most of you, probably -- had the same, an interesting election in that new parties developed. In my part of eastern Ontario, the new party was the COR party, the Confederation of Regions party. The other parties -- and we have had the Family Coalition Party for some time -- all had their conventions in July and August. I think we had about 80 at ours, the NDP had about 60 at its, the Family Coalition had a relatively small number, the Conservative Party had 40 or 50, but the COR party had 450 people to a nomination in Pembroke in early August. It clearly was the dynamic event locally in the campaign.

1720

If I were being fair, I would have to say that the COR party's campaign was a very significant part of the election, and in fact on election night the COR party pulled 5,600 votes and got 18% of the vote cast. That was a dramatic departure from anything we had experienced previously. I take very seriously what the voters of Renfrew said. I know my friend the member for Lanark-Renfrew and certainly my colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry experienced similar COR results. It cannot be put any other way than to say that the COR vote was a profound and passionate protest about a number of the language and constitutional positions being advanced by, shall I say it, certainly the Liberal Party, but the mainline parties, if I am being honest -- a profound and passionate protest.

I would go to campaign meetings, to all-candidates meetings, and I would meet the COR delegation there by the score, in some cases more than l00 people, more than 60 in many cases, and in some cases shaking with rage about what government and the old-line parties had done: 5,600 votes, 18%. It was, for me, a very real education. In my own home poll in the east end of Pembroke, which would be taken by many of the members as a very typical middle-class suburb, I think my vote was 120; the COR candidate got 90. It was very interesting who was protesting and why. I think those of us from the old-line parties, if I can sound like Réal Caouette for a moment, will have to take stock of some of that protest. I certainly do not mean to suggest for one moment that we ought to accede to some of it, but I learned something in the summer of 1990. Not all of it was very pleasant, not all of it was very happy, but I certainly intend to at least take some stock of what I heard and what I saw.

I just want to quickly touch on some of this phenomenon. In Lanark-Renfrew the COR party got 3,000 votes. In Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry it was 3,500. In Sudbury it was 5,400; Sudbury East 3,700; in Nickel Belt 2,800; in Cornwall 4.600. Then, of course, in much of the rest of the province we saw another not new party, but the Family Coalition Party. I was struck to see, for example, that in Bruce 3,600 votes were for FCP, in Middlesex 4,000, in Lambton 3,500, in Waterloo 3,000, in Halton North 2,500, in Peterborough 3,600. In many of these cases that vote was decisive.

I noticed the other day in reading the provincial press, as I often do, the paper in Exeter, the Exeter Times-Advocate of 14 November 1990. The NDP held a seminar. I was quite struck, because a certain Harold Koehler, I think it is, says that the FCP was the best friend the NDP had in electoral terms in southwestern Ontario. I think he is right. If you look, for example, at the Middlesex result, who would ever have thought we would see a day when you could get elected to this place with 32.7% of the vote? I congratulate the new member. I know she will do a good job. But the member for Peterborough and the member for Lambton were elected here with 31% and 33% of the vote.

The interesting thing about many of these results is the decisive factor. In the case of many of these results, the FCP -- I think we would all admit privately and perhaps even publicly -- would not embrace a lot of what the NDP stands for; in fact, I think you could argue that the NDP would probably represent anathema in the minds of many in the FCP. Yet there is no question that the FCP was absolutely decisive in this election in many ridings, particularly across southwestern Ontario. I am not complaining about that. I am just observing that in 1990, for example, 37.6% was enough to elect a comfortable majority government. Five years ago, Frank Miller was thrown out of office having commanded 37% of the vote.

In my more mischievous moments, I imagine that one of these days a dispassionate observer of the Ontario scene, someone like Desmond Morton, is going to rush into print with an essay saying how antidemocratic it is that 37.6% can give you a comfortable majority government. It was in that respect a very, very interesting election.

I want to say as well a couple of other things having to do with the election, one of which has to do with the role of the special interests. Now, we saw in this regard, I think, some new developments in an old game. I have been around politics for most of my adult life -- which is not very long, as my friend the member for Brant-Haldimand might observe -- and over the course of several campaigns I have seen lobby groups and special interest groups participate before, but I have never seen anything quite like what I saw this time.

Who will ever forget that day in early August when the doctors, the teachers and OPSEU got together to form the great coalition? Who among us will forget some of the tactics and some of the advertising engaged in by those special interests? I must say the result of 6 September will undoubtedly make many of those special interests feel vindicated, and I suspect they will be emboldened.

I can say only that my friends at the Commission on Election Finances -- the current chairman, who has talked and worried aloud about what we are going to do about third party participation, third party advertising -- have been given a new diet on which to feed for the next few months.

I suppose the good thing, however, about the special interests is this: The wheel has finally come full circle. Gone will be the day, I am sorry to say, when election party platforms will be simply larded up with all of the special requests of the special interests, held up as something for the commonweal. That is perhaps a very significant long-term benefit, though I suspect that for the next few years my honourable friends opposite will anguish over that which was committed in the summer of 1990.

I want to say a final word about the campaign, and that has to do with the advertising. I simply want to say this: I will never forget that night in August when I came in off the trail and saw that television ad from the New Democratic Party, the ad with the television news, the ad that impugned the integrity of the then current administration. I was really taken aback, because I thought, "This from the party of Woodsworth, Jolliffe, MacDonald and Stephen Lewis, this kind of ad?"

I thought for a moment I was in North Carolina or in California, and I am not being funny. I have to believe that over there there is -- somebody earlier talked about one of the finest members ever to serve here, Jim Renwick. I knew him well. I will tell members, that ad and the spirit which informed it I think is a sad discount on the legacy of a great party, a party which has always held itself to be better than the rest.

When I think back 15 years ago to the speeches that Stephen Lewis would give and the lectures that Donald MacDonald gave about integrity in politics, honesty in politics, and I saw an ad that reminded me more of Jesse Helms than J. S. Woodsworth, I began to realize that it was in fact a new day.

1730

But we have a new day. I must say we have a new government, a newly democratic government. I am happy to see the leader of the government here, because in the last three or four days I have had the occasion to hear him on one radio interview, and last night, to my surprise, I heard him on Angelo Perschilli's MCTV interview, I think it was -- channel 47. I could not see him on Friday morning but I did hear him.

I saw him last night and I was struck -- because I have got a lot of regard for the leader of the government; he is a smart, sensible, pragmatic politician. I heard him say last might, "In opposition we said much that was rhetorically satisfying, but a lot that was not very practical." I heard him say last night, "Our job now is to do that which is possible, to do the right thing." I heard him take a tough question about what he was going to do about the Canada US free trade deal and I saw him skate, Barbara Ann Scott-like, into the Mexican free trade deal and bury poor Angelo in a mass of verbiage that even in Italian must have been something to behold.

Well, the interview was quite fascinating. My friend was giving the interview in both Italian and English, and I do not mean anything but a compliment -- I was marvelling at the honourable Premier's capacity in Italian.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Talk about verbiage.

Mr Conway: The verbiage -- well, my friend the Minister of Labour can see with his glasses what he wishes to see. I want to simply make this point, that we have a new government, that we have a new Premier who was quick to tell Peter Gzowski on Friday morning that people should not expect too much, that there were great expectations he could not fulfil. I have to say what my friend the member for Fort William said earlier this afternoon: Who created the expectations? Who made the specific commitments about child care, about social housing, about environmental protection, about gas prices, about financing for health, education and social services?

My friends will be judged in these and other matters by their standard, the standard they have set. Those of us who are in other parties have always marvelled at the view the New Democrats have had that they are a different party.

I see my friends the Solicitor General and the Minister of Mines sitting side by side. I remember back a couple of years ago, not even two years ago, when certain contentious social policies were being deliberated and they made, in one case, a beeline for the door that I can well remember.

Now I see the Minister of Health in her inimitable way make very plain the social policy of this government in key areas. I watch the members for Sault Ste Marie and Lake Nipigon and Cambridge and Essex-Kent and Sudbury, and I am impressed by the discipline of power and the rigours of office, notwithstanding the most interesting speech just offered by the member for Dovercourt.

So we will look to the new government for the fulfilment of its promises. We will judge them by the NDP standard that we know to be a better and higher standard than any other standard seen in this province.

As my friend the Premier knows, I am a fair and reasonable person. I want to say on this occasion that I, for one, intend to give this new government time and opportunity to develop in very specific detail its Agenda for People. I do not expect in the first few days or weeks that we are going to see the true colour of this new administration. I want to give this government time. I want to see that first budget. But by about next May or June, I will be tuning back into this channel to see how promise is going to be translated into performance. Like the people of Ontario, I certainly will be expecting the NDP to be as good as its their promise across the waterfront of its several and most interesting commitments.

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate. It is the first debate that I have fully participated in, apart from the rig ours of question period, as the leader of the government. I want to begin by congratulating the movers and seconders of the throne speech. I was very moved by the presentation by the member for York East, but I also think that it is a statement of how this province has changed. I do not mean this in any partisan sense, but I just think in the sense that we now accept purely as a matter of fact that two interpreters are here, very much a part of our enlarged family. I think it has been an opportunity for all of us to recognize just how far we have still to go as a province to make sure that all of our institutions are accessible to all the people of the province.

I have had an opportunity to listen to the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Conservative Party. I heard them while I was in the House. I did not have an opportunity to hear all the speeches that have been made by members from all sides, but I have read a great many of them and I have had a chance to listen to some of them on television in my office.

Mr Elston: He wrote a number of them.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for Bruce says that I wrote several of them. He knows better than to say that. My own speeches are not even written down so how could I write anybody else's? But sometimes it would be better, perhaps, if they were.

I heard the member for Renfrew North speaking with great eloquence and in fact it was partly in response to that eloquence that I decided to get into the House as quickly as I could from a cabinet committee. I understand he is now going on a six- or seven-month extended vacation whereby he is going to give the government a chance to do its job, and then he will come back in May or June and revisit us on that occasion. I look forward to seeing him on his return when he comes back to judge us, as he puts it.

I want to say to him and to all the members of the House that I think question period is an opportunity for us to be held accountable on a daily basis. It is one of many ways in which governments are held accountable by opposition parties. The standard he seemed to be setting was saying that he wanted us to carry out every one of the commitments we made during the election and that he wanted to make sure we were going to do it by May or June. I would suspect that if we were to do that, he would be the first to criticize us for doing the things he disagrees with. So I say to him and I say to the members of the opposition parties that we think we signalled in the throne speech what it is we are going to try to do as a government and the kinds of changes that are going to be required to make a difference in this province.

I think it is fair to say that the extent of the difficult economic circumstances in which we find ourselves troubles all of us. There is not a member in this House who has not had to face constituents who have been laid off, unemployed, who are facing a very difficult time because of the economy in which we now find ourselves. Of course, as we have said on other occasions, the recession and the economic downturn we are experiencing, which has been very sudden and dramatic in its impact on revenues and dramatic in its impact on people, is something which has two major effects on us as politicians.

1741

First, its major effect is that it dramatically changes the communities in which we are all living. It is important for us to remember that the first thing a recession does, apart from affecting municipalities and provinces and the federal government, is that it affects people. It affects communities and it affects the community's ability to provide hope and to provide jobs and to provide a sense of the future to many people who are less secure than they were just a few months ago in terms of their thinking.

That is why I was very proud of the fact that one of the first things the Treasurer did when he took on his responsibilities and one of the first things we as a government did when we took on our responsibilities was to say that we were going to take the steps that would, in the short term, help very substantially those communities that have been affected by the recession.

We have already been criticized by some in the opposition. The opposition parties, the two wings we encounter on a daily basis, really have at least two voices. The first voice is Dr Spend. Dr Spend is somebody who comes out and says: "You said you were going to do this and now you should do it. You shouldn't do it today, you should have done it yesterday. You shouldn't have done it yesterday, you should have done it four months ago or you should have done it six months ago." So we have all the Dr Spends who are out there. Everybody who has been on this side of the House -- and we now have all three parties that have, un a sense, been on this side of the House -- knows the interests that are out there, that are waiting for the dollars, that are waiting for the expenditures.

All I can say is that we are doing the best we can to meet the needs of all the people of the province within the means we have. It would be irresponsible of us to do otherwise. All the members on the other side would be the very first to criticize if we were to do otherwise. So we then have Dr Save.

Dr Save has many manifestations. In fact, even in one question, you can get Dr Spend and Dr Save vying for who it is who is going to get to the mouth of the honourable member in asking a question. A first question will be Dr Spend speaking and the next question will be Dr Save speaking. The member for Burlington South was out here today. His first question was, "You didn't spend enough." That was his first question: "You said you were going to spend $300 million and you only spent $100 million in your first announcement. Where's the other $200 million?" As if that is what he really wanted us to do, because the next question from the member was Dr Save. What he was saying was, "When you spent your $100 million you ended up costing the municipalities something and you shouldn't have done that either."

We accept this criticism. We expect it. I cannot say I am mesmerized with surprise that members all got their copies of An Agenda for People. I cannot say that I am doubled over with shock that they have looked at the various statements and speeches I have made since 1982 -- in fact, even long before that -- and said, "This is what you said you would do," or, "This is what you said you might do," or, "This is something that you said." The terrifying thought that one's every thought is in print is enough to make any politician wary.

But I say to all members of the House, first, that I appreciated the debate, I appreciated the contributions that have been made.

Je peux dire, en tant que chef, que je vais faire de mon mieux afin de participer à toutes les discussions dans cette Chambre, d'écouter les points de vue des députés et de faire de mon mieux, en tant que chef du gouvernement, pour répondre aux besoins de toute la province. Nous avons l'obligation de le faire. Je crois qu'il serait irresponsable de faire autrement que d'offrir notre hon jugement et d'exercer notre hon jugement pour le bien-être de la province.

I just want to say one last thing. It was Edmund Burke, who was not a member of a tradition of which I am particularly a member, who said just about 200 years ago, speaking to the electors of Bristol, that while they might disagree with him, he was elected to provide his good judgement. And so I say to all the members of the House that we are trying to provide enough information so that we can all exercise our good judgement. That is what we are trying to do as members on this side of the House. We have a reform agenda which we are trying to carry out in difficult circumstances, and that is precisely what we intend to do. We will do so in a spirit of fair play, in a spirit of wanting to listen, in a spirit of wanting to learn and in a spirit of wanting to lead.

The Speaker: On Wednesday 21 November 1990, Mr Malkowski moved, seconded by Mrs Mathyssen, that an humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

"To the Honourable Lincoln M. Alexander, a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada, Knight of Grace of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, one of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law, bachelor of arts, doctor of laws, colonel in Her Majesty's armed forces supplementary reserve, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us."

On Thursday 22 November 1990, Mr Nixon moved that the address in reply to the speech from the throne be amended by adding the following words --

Mr Elston: Dispense.

The Speaker: I beg the indulgence of the House. I take this to be an important occasion on which all three parties have had cause to comment. All three parties are represented in the statement, and I think it fitting that it be read in its entirety.

"This House regrets that the new government has failed to put forward a legislative agenda which deals adequately with the issues facing the province, and that this House condemns the government:

"1. for its failure to fulfil commitments made in its Agenda for People, specifically those social reforms which the new government advocated so forcefully while in opposition, such as child care, social assistance rates and legislative reforms;

"2. for its failure to respond adequately to the worsening recession, particularly the absence of any initiatives which would encourage new investment and new job opportunities for the people of Ontario;

"3. for its total failure to clearly establish policy priorities and funding commitments in such fields as the environment, health, education, agriculture and northern development."

On Monday 26 November 1990, Mr Harris moved that the amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne be amended by adding the following words:

"4. for its failure to commit to a policy of restraint designed to control the growth and cost of government and to reduce the tax burden on its citizens;

"5. for its failure to recognize and act on the necessity of building a new financial partnership with Ontario's municipalities;

"6. for its failure to articulate any measures to respond to the aging of Ontario's population;

"7. for its failure to advance a coherent regional development policy;

"8. for its failure to recognize the crisis facing Ontario's agricultural community and its lack of commitment to preserve farm land and provide interest rate relief for farmers."

The first question to be decided is Mr Harris's amendment to the amendment to the motion.

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

Ayes-37

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Elston, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Jordan, Mahoney, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, Morin, Murdoch, B., Nixon, Offer, O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Ruprecht, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson, J.

Nays-67

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren;

Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The House divided on Mr Nixon's amendment, which was negatived on the same vote.

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

The Speaker: It is therefore resolved that an humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

To the Honourable Lincoln M. Alexander, a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada, Knight of Grace of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, one of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law, bachelor of arts, doctor of laws, colonel in Her Majesty's armed forces supplementary reserve, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us.

The House adjourned at 1805.