Journal des débats 1982-avril-20 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The proposed changes under this bill will permit the government to introduce a totally new motor vehicle registration system in this province. Since it represents a very fundamental change in the way the ministry conducts its business in this area, I would like to briefly outline the new system for the members of the House.

I should point out, first of all, that there are more than five million vehicles currently registered in Ontario, including cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, mopeds and trailers. More and more come into the system each year. It is, therefore, imperative that we improve our motor vehicle registration system if we are to provide Ontario residents with fast, efficient and economical service.

The new system, scheduled to come on stream December 1, 1982, will allow us to do just that. Under it, licence plates will follow the owner, not the vehicle. In other words, owners of motor vehicles will keep their plates, transferring them to a new vehicle when the old one is scrapped or sold.

This plate-to-owner system, currently in use in the majority of US jurisdictions and the majority of Canadian provinces, will enable my ministry to provide the public, police and the courts with more reliable vehicle information. It will also eliminate the problem of former owners receiving parking tickets and summonses which should have rightfully gone to the new owners; something which too frequently occurs under our existing system when motorists fail to transfer the ownership of their vehicles properly and promptly.

We are also moving to a system of staggered renewals, which will eventually eliminate our infamous February lineups for licence-plate validation stickers. As a matter of fact, the coming December 1, 1982, to February 28, 1983, licence renewal period will be the last time motorists will have to stand in long lines to get their stickers.

Beginning on December 1, yearly motor vehicle registrations will be based on the birth date of the registered owner. In the case of vehicles registered to a company, owners of the company will be able to select their own renewal date, or to assign several dates for a certain number of vehicles in their large fleets.

The new motor vehicle registration system will also enable us to deny a renewal of registration to motorists with outstanding parking tickets and to those who have issued NSF cheques for any vehicle-related transactions with the agent or the ministry. This will be of great assistance to Ontario's municipalities, which have had a difficult task trying to collect parking fines in the past. It is also expected to reduce the backlog in our courts.

At the same time, we intend to introduce a single registration fee for all passenger vehicles, with a lesser single fee for passenger vehicles registered in northern Ontario. We will also introduce a single fee for commercial motor vehicles under 3,000 kilograms, as well as flat fees for mopeds and motorcycles.

Finally, the new system will be precisely tied together by a new on-line computer system, permitting a broader range of services to the public at every licence issuing agent office in the province. In all, this new motor vehicle registration system represents a vast improvement in service in Ontario. I look forward to the speedy consideration and passage of this bill through the House in the weeks ahead.

DRAFT CONSTRUCTION LIEN ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, in a few moments I shall be tabling the report of my advisory committee on the draft Construction Lien Act.

In November 1980, the Ministry of the Attorney General published a discussion paper on the draft Construction Lien Act in response to numerous requests from the construction industry for both major and minor amendments to the Mechanics' Lien Act. The discussion paper contained extensive proposals intended to serve as the framework for, and to stimulate, discussions regarding reform of this law. I am pleased to say that all segments of the industry accepted my invitation to participate in the process of developing new lien legislation. The ministry received many briefs and submissions.

In May 1981, I established my advisory committee on the draft Construction Lien Act under the chairmanship of Stephen Fram of the policy development division of the ministry. The committee was composed of lawyers expert in mechanics' lien law and knowledgeable about the working of the legislation from the perspective of labour, material suppliers, subcontractors, contractors, owners and other consumers of construction improvements, commercial sureties, those who finance construction, municipalities, the crown and the courts.

I asked the committee to review the draft legislation in the discussion paper; to consider the responses the ministry had received from the construction industry; to prepare a report embodying its findings and recommendations; and to examine and approve draft legislation to implement its recommendations. I invited my advisory committee to develop its own proposals for reform, based on the experience and expertise of its members.

I believe the committee's report is a synthesis of relevant theoretical considerations as well as sound practice. It contains extensive and convincing explanations for the proposals put forward by the committee. The guiding principles underlying the report are that impediments to the flow of construction funds on a project must be minimized and there should be speedy resolution of disputes.

In transmitting the report to me the committee made me aware that it had considered and attempted to balance rights and obligations so that its proposed legislation would maximize the benefits and minimize the undesirable effects to all interests. The committee made it clear that these proposals should be considered as a package. Because the proposals are a balanced package, the committee informed me that no segment of the industry will find all that it sought in the report. However, the committee is of the view that its proposals should fairly meet the needs of all segments of the construction industry. I believe, given the diverse and often conflicting interests of those involved in the construction industry, no more can be expected. Obviously, the creation of new lien legislation will require a spirit of compromise, co-operation and realism from all sectors of the industry.

2:10 p.m.

Before I summarize the major recommendations of the report, I would like to express my personal gratitude to the members and substitute members of my advisory committee. There are those who allege that today professionals are unwilling to make personal sacrifices for the public interest. I would like to say on this occasion that the enormous contribution in time and effort made without remuneration by these members of the legal profession is proof that dedication and voluntary public service are alive and well.

The report confirms there is a continuing need for lien legislation to protect those who have supplied services and materials to the construction or improvement of buildings. The report, while containing very significant recommendations for change, continues the approach to lien legislation developed in Ontario over the past century. For example, the concepts of the lien and trust remedies and the requirements of holdback are retained.

The report recommends the reduction of the rate of holdback from the existing 15 per cent of the price of services and materials supplied to 10 per cent. While the report states the reduction is justified on the basis of the low margins of profit in the construction industry and the high cost of financing the holdback, the report also makes it clear that the reduction should not be effected without certain other measures to ensure that hardship does not result.

The report recommends the extension of the special priority afforded to workers' lien claims for wages from the existing 30 days to 40 working days. Since as much as 30 per cent of these wages are now paid into workers' trust funds to cover vacation pay and health and welfare benefits, it is recommended that the trustees for the workers' trust funds be able to enforce payment directly on behalf of workers. To make this realistic, it is also recommended that trustees for these funds have the right to obtain access to payroll records of the employer to determine whether there are arrears in the payment to the funds.

The report recommends that the time for preserving a lien be extended from the existing 37 days to 45 days. The committee found that 37 days is too short for a potential claimant to determine adequately whether to preserve a lien, while the 60-day period proposed in the discussion paper would delay payment of the holdback too long.

The report deals extensively with the expiry of lien rights to ensure that no legal impediment would exist to delay payment of the holdback. In this connection, the committee recommends that the concept of substantial performance introduced into lien legislation in 1969 be limited in application to the main contract, and that certification of substantial performance of the main contract be made known to the suppliers of services and materials by publication. The effect of these and other recommended changes should be greatly to speed payment of the holdback related to the substantially performed contract while providing protection for the finishing trades and their suppliers.

The report recommends that there be security for the holdbacks. Too frequently today, high interest rates on mortgages eliminate the owner's interest in a project, leaving lien claimants without any protection despite their contribution to the project and the fact that payment has been withheld from them by law. To correct this injustice, the committee recommends limited adjustments to the priorities of liens over mortgages. In the committee's view, this adjustment of priorities will accomplish, without administrative overhead and in a manner that is commercially reasonable, most of the major benefits that would have resulted from the joint trust account proposals to secure the holdback set out in the discussion paper.

The report's recommendations with respect to lien claims are designed to make the lien process more effective. At present, the act sometimes requires a prudent claimant to claim far more than the price of services or materials he has supplied. These exaggerated claims impede the proper flow of construction funds. The recommendations, if implemented, would permit a person to claim only the amount owed to him, without jeopardizing his right to claim a lien for additional services and materials he may supply.

The extensive recommendations with respect to court procedures for dealing with lien claims are designed to speed the resolution of lien actions. One of the key recommendations in this respect is that defendants be required to file a defence to a claim quickly or lose their right to defend. The present procedure is grossly defective in this respect and results in lengthy delays in what is intended to be a summary process.

The report contains a complete draft of legislation to implement the committee's recommendations. After a century of major and minor amendments to the lien legislation, there is little doubt of the necessity for a new beginning. While the complexity of the subject matter and the need for certainty of obligations do not make the draft legislation light reading, I believe major improvements have been made.

In the near future I hope to introduce legislation based on the report of my advisory committee.

ORAL QUESTIONS

VEHICLE REGISTRATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications with respect to his statement today. With the changes the minister introduced today, why did he not take the opportunity to introduce a special licence for the handicapped on a volunteer basis so that those people could have the privileges attached thereto with respect to parking and its monitoring to save them the embarrassment of having to try to negotiate special privileges with individual parking lot operators?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, that matter is in hand. When the new licence system is implemented, there will be a special licence available for the handicapped on their request at no additional cost to them. It will not be automatically issued to them. They will apply for the licence. I suspect one of the symbols in the licence will be the wheelchair symbol.

In discussions, I have found that some handicapped people do not want to have their vehicles identified in any way that would indicate to the public that they are handicapped. Others do request this, and it will be available to them free of charge.

Mr. Peterson: I am surprised the minister did not include that in his statement if, indeed, it is forthcoming. Would the minister not feel at the same time he would have to bring in companion legislation, enabling legislation, for municipalities to have standard bylaws in the various municipalities so that those people could be specially treated in those circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Again, we are well ahead on the matter of a standard draft and prototype bylaw to allow municipalities to deal in a uniform way with that. Some municipalities have now passed this type of bylaw. I do not believe there are many. In consultation with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and with the handicapped associations, we are preparing a draft prototype bylaw which we will be supplying to all municipalities so that if they wish at the municipal level to pass that bylaw, it will cover the requirement for parking spaces to be provided and also the authority to police these spaces to make sure they are reserved for the handicapped.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House why he is abandoning his policy of encouraging people to buy smaller cars consuming less gasoline? Why is he rewarding the gas guzzlers and increasing the fees of those who have bought small cars in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to reward anyone. Most reasonable people will understand that in the present system the number of cylinders in no way indicates the fuel efficiency of an automobile. There any many cases where the newer, more modern, small V-8 engines can very well be more fuel-efficient than a large six-cylinder or four-cylinder engine.

There are a number of reasons. The incentive to the motorist to buy a smaller, more fuel-efficient car is exemplified every time that motorist drives up to the gas pump. That is where one gets the real savings, not a few dollars once a year in a motor vehicle registration fee.

It is very important to have a uniform fee in this new system because the plate stays with the owner, who may very well be changing from a four-cylinder to a six-cylinder car or from an eight-cylinder to a four-cylinder car. From a reasonable administrative point of view, the uniform fee is necessary.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister knows it is a simple matter of computer logistics to build a kind of qualification into that licence fee. While we will agree that the number of cylinders does not indicate the kind of gas mileage that these cars get, surely the minister knows that the weight of the automobile is a very direct reflection. When we are doing this why does he not do the proper thing and base the amount of the licence on the weight of the automobile?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) and myself, I hope they do not rate other things on the weight of the members around here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And the member for Niagara.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The honourable member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) fits into that category too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Think how much the member for Halton-Burlington would have to pay if it were on a weight basis.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, over the past years we have been developing this system and the new computer programming for the system is very complicated indeed. We did look at a number of variations as to how this should be done. We considered the possibility of a cubic content of the engine regardless of how many cylinders it had. We considered cubic content, such as whether engines were under two litres, two to three, three to four, four to five, over six and so on. That would have come up with a very complicated system and of course people would be transferring back and forward. As I say, when the plate follows the owner, we would be continually asking for additional payments or would be making refunds.

Mr. J. A. Reed: You do that with trucks now. I'd just like some common sense.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I cannot hear the member's interjection, but if he wishes to ask another supplementary I will answer it.

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. The minister will recall on April 1, 1982, he said in this House, and I quote: "I have asked the Ontario Hospital Association, along with the Ontario Council of Administrators of Teaching Hospitals, to advise me on what steps they are taking to protect the integrity and quality of care of their institutions in the event that their committee structure is disrupted. I do not believe that hospitals can ensure patient care without the participation of physicians on these committees and I do not expect many doctors can boycott them."

Is the minister aware that the OHA has received no formal request or directives from him or his ministry to report on the effect of the doctors' walkout action on hospitals? Is the minister aware that according to the executive director of the OHA, Mr. Cunningham, the OHA does not consider it to be its function to do so?

The OHA is confining its monitoring strictly to neglect of inpatient care and deficiencies in emergency services. It is keeping no data on the cancellation of surgery, failure of hospital committees to meet, or refusal of doctors to sign patient charts. The OHA also advises its hospitals that a lot of elective surgery is not being done, some committees are not meeting and some charts are not being signed.

How does the minister reconcile these facts with his repeated assurances that he will protect patients when the OHA is not collecting this data or reporting it to him? He does not know the facts. My question is, how can he take that position when he does not know the facts? If he does know the facts, what are they?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Hospital Association undertook to monitor all the job action for us on April 1. I read the release the OHA put out on April I for the record that day and I would be pleased to read it again.

In point of fact, the OHA contacted us the middle of last week and indicated that they felt the system they had tried to put in place was not working quickly enough for the ministry's purposes since I was pressing them to provide us with information on an immediate basis. It was agreed between the Ontario Hospital Association and ourselves that we would do it directly.

Therefore, a letter has gone out from me to each hospital in the province requesting the kind of information the member has just outlined, so we can make all the accurate assessments with regard to the job action that has been taken so far and, if any referrals to the College of Physicians and Surgeons ought to result, we will be in a position to make those assessments when the information is received from those hospitals. I expect it will be received over the next week or 10 days.

I should also take this opportunity to tell the member we are in the process today of sending a telex to all hospital boards in the province to indicate that we would like them to call meetings of their boards to review the planned schedule for next week by the Ontario Medical Association, so that each and every hospital in the province can assure us it will be operating next week in a manner which meets the hospital's obligations under the Public Hospitals Act, and to ensure that all patients are adequately protected next week.

Mr. Speaker: Just before you ask a supplementary question, would the members please curtail their private conversations so we can hear the questions and answers?

Mr. Peterson: The telegram the minister has sent out today advising the hospitals they have to keep functioning next week is very interesting. Would the minister kindly advise this House how hospitals can function without doctors?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not usually use Dr. Reese as a source but he was on the radio this afternoon and he said: "The people who are in hospital will still have rounds made on them every day by somebody. It may not be the doctor who normally looks after them, but it is the same as on the weekend or on a holiday. All emergency surgery will be done. Babies will be delivered. Broken bones will be fixed. Bleeding patients will be looked after. People with acute abdomens will be operated on. Acute psychiatric problems will be looked after" -- the Leader of the Opposition can refer all those in his caucus to them -- "people with high fevers and infections will be looked after."

May I simply say to the Leader of the Opposition those are the words of Dr. Reese which indicate that, contrary to the impression which came out of the OMA's press conference yesterday -- and this is a problem the OMA has had on previous occasions -- the extent of the job action it is threatening is somewhat more extreme than what it intends to put in place. Because of the problem of interpreting the impression --

Mr. Roy: That is what you say.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am just comparing what Dr. Reese said yesterday to what he said today. All I am saying to the Leader of the Opposition is something very simple. As one can tell from Dr. Reese's statements today, there will be doctors in the hospitals next Tuesday and Wednesday. I am taking Dr. Reese at his word as of 12:15 p.m.

Whether there are sufficient doctors in those hospitals to ensure that patient care is not threatened in this province is precisely the reason I am sending a telex to every hospital in the province so I can ascertain what is planned for each and every one of them. Upon receipt of that information from those hospitals, which I expect to be back in my office by the end of this week, we will be able to determine whether hospitals have taken appropriate action and the extent to which each hospital feels the action taken by the doctors in that hospital leaves it somewhat short of the necessary number of doctors and services to protect patient care. That will be a great source of information to us and will allow us to act accordingly.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, does the minister feel that the two days next week when medical services will be withheld, and the three days in May when the OMA membership will be withdrawing services from hospitals, maintains, in the language of the Health Disciplines Act, the standard of practice of medicine in this province? If he does, will he explain how? If he does not, will he tell us whether he intends to exercise his powers with respect to section 21 of regulation 448 under the Health Disciplines Act, which defines failure to maintain the standard of practice of the profession of medicine in Ontario as professional misconduct?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I can simply assure the honourable member that all possible steps will be taken to ensure that the quality of care throughout this province is not threatened or endangered. As a result, all of the definitions in the act which put an onus on me, as minister, and this government to take appropriate steps to ensure that health care is present at all times will be put into place.

We cannot make those assessments on the basis of general statements made yesterday by the Ontario Medical Association with regard to the general strike action the doctors intend to take next Tuesday and Wednesday. We are now in the process of collecting specific information upon which we will act according to our responsibilities under the law.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on April 1, 1982, the minister stated, "I do not believe hospitals can ensure patient care without participation by physicians on committees, and I do not expect many doctors will boycott them." The fact of the matter is that physicians are not participating on hospital committees, and the minister has not given us his assurance today that he will make sure this is done immediately.

How can we take any kind of refuge in the empty promises the minister is making in this House today when he has not followed through with the promise he made on April 1?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated that we are assembling the information to ensure that all obligations were met by all physicians up until this day and that they will continue to be met after this day. I know the honourable member wants to put the proposition that no doctors in the province served on any committees over the last several weeks. With all due respect, that would be a quite inaccurate statement for her to make.

Ms. Copps: That is not what I said.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is exactly what the member said. She can read Hansard and perhaps stand on a point of personal privilege and correct what she thought she said. In any case, so that there is no uncertainty, we are checking each and every hospital to ensure that doctors continue to meet their obligations; where they did not do so, appropriate action will be taken. I do not know what else one can expect the Minister of Health to do. We are monitoring, we are getting all the information and appropriate action will be taken.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Health. When all is said and done, will the minister not admit that it is not only the responsibility of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, not only the responsibility of the Ontario Hospital Association and not only the responsibility of the doctors of this province but also the responsibility of the Minister of Health of this province to protect the patients of this province and not to punish those bodies afterwards if they fail to live up to the responsibilities.

In view of that, now that the OMA has announced a full five days of withdrawal of doctors' services, does the minister not see that as a threat to patient care in this province? Will he not accept his responsibility and take "the firm and decisive action in accordance with all of our legislative powers" that he promised this Legislature yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Again, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is putting the proposition that if the government puts in a piece of legislation, the doctors will work next Tuesday and Wednesday, but that if we do not put in that legislation, they will not work and will risk their patients' health. In other words, the member believes that it is a greater motivation to doctors to have a piece of legislation in place than it is a motivation to doctors to look after the health and safety of their patients.

I suspect the proposition put by the member goes to the very fundamental roots of his view of the health care profession and the doctors of this province. I, for one, believe that the doctors put the health of their patients far above any piece of legislation that we might enact in terms of an inducement to stay on the job and protect the health of their patients. Until we see evidence to the contrary, we will continue to act as we have done up until the present.

The honourable member must be aware of the fact that I think doctors at some stage -- and this has not become clear -- have to come to grips with this very fundamental proposition between now and next Tuesday.

Last Friday, when the most recent OMA offer was put to the government, it was important to note that the OMA offer was entirely consistent, for the immediate period of time, with the offer implemented by this government on April 1. In other words, the OMA had a six-stage proposal as one it could live with.

Stage 1 of that proposal was for 11 per cent to run from April 1, 1982, until October 1, 1982, which is precisely what the government has implemented. Doctors are not being asked to take extreme action next week because the OMA disagrees with this initial adjustment of 11 per cent; the OMA now agrees with that initial adjustment.

What the doctors around this province are being asked to do, and I am not sure they have understood this completely, is to take this action next Tuesday and Wednesday which will affect their profession because they believe a further adjustment of 8.8 per cent should be made in October instead of the adjustment increase of three per cent on January 1, 1983, offered by the government.

That gap represents a lot of money to the government, let me make that quite clear -- in Dr. Reese's estimate, $39 million. I have to say --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Which question is the minister answering?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: For those who were here Monday, I will have more information. May I say --

Mr. Roy: Just answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I caution the honourable member not to do that again.

Mr. Roy: Well, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: You are not to argue with me.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The minister has not finished his comments.

Mr. Speaker: I realize he has not. I did not cut him off in any way. I was speaking to the honourable member who was interrupting.

If you do not want to listen to the answer, you do not have to; but the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) put forward a question which I presume he wanted answered fully.

Mr. Roy: An answer; not a statement. You know he should not abuse the system.

Mr. Speaker: I will be the judge of that, not you. I think the minister has not finished his answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in order that my friend may have --

Mr. Roy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Roy: There is, Mr. Speaker. Listen to my point of order before you make a ruling on it.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Roy: I want to raise a point of order. Listen to my point of order. If it is out of order, tell me.

Mr. Speaker: Go ahead.

Mr. Roy: My point is simply this: You, Mr. Speaker, have admonished members on this side for asking questions which are not supplementary, for abusing the question period. What I am saying to you very simply is that you should enforce the rules fairly on both sides. The minister is making a statement now.

Mr. Speaker: That was a very interesting speech but it was not a point of order, and I object to that.

Mr. Roy: Obviously you want to make that sort of decision.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) was interested enough to want to hear the full answer.

Does the minister wish to continue?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am making an honest attempt to provide as much information to this House as possible; I think that is important.

Mr. Roy: Well, make it by way of a statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I caution you, that will be the last interjection I will accept from you.

Mr. Roy: You don't accept interjections.

Mr. Speaker: You are right.

Mr. Roy: Does that apply to everyone?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: You are embarrassing your leader. He is completely embarrassed by your conduct.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: According to Dr. Reese's figures he has acknowledged that the difference -- which does not refer to the period between now and October, because the government and the OMA are in agreement on that, but for the period from October to the end of this fiscal year -- is $39 million, spread among approximately 14,000 practising physicians.

2:40 p.m.

While $39 million is a great deal of money to this government and would be in addition to the $23 million we offered additionally last Friday, I must say that in order for all physicians to make proper and fully informed judgements with regard to what they wish to do next Tuesday they should be aware of the fact that the OMA and the government agree on the schedule adjustment as of April 1, 1982, and that the difference for this fiscal year between the OMA position and the government position now relates to how much money is going to be paid after October 1, 1982, not after April 1, and that amount is approximately $39 million, spread among 14,000 physicians.

When you get to after-tax dollars for those 14,000 physicians, I believe the medical profession would have to think long and hard over whether the request being made to them to take some action, which by their own admission will have a serious impact on the reputation of the medical profession, is warranted given the current situation.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister not aware that this party believes it is not the responsibility of the Minister of Health to slip and slide in the way he has been doing? The buck stops somewhere and the buck of responsibility for the protection of patients stops with the Minister of Health. Does he not consider it his duty and responsibility to prevent occurrences such as happened in the case of Mildred Lloyd, whose entry to intensive care in Scarborough was delayed because she was not able to see her doctor as a result of a one-day closing of the office?

Does the minister not think the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario needs guidelines and regulations from him which would classify concerted action by the OMA as professional misconduct, as serious as reduction of a bill for prompt payment by a patient, which is currently considered professional misconduct?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is precisely because the buck does stop here that the government, in responding at various stages during these negotiations, has to be a lot more careful and considered in its responses and its public utterances than those who do not have the responsibility of ultimately making these decisions.

I acknowledge immediately that the members opposite have a lot more freedom and a lot less responsibility in terms of this matter, as they acknowledge, than we do. They are entitled to exercise that freedom, to take extreme positions and to put pressure on the government. Indeed, they have done that.

The buck does stop here; the honourable member is quite right. As Minister of Health, I am prepared to say that I will live up to my responsibilities under the legislation. I am also aware of the fact that ultimately reaching an agreement with the profession, which is in the best interests of both the taxpayers and those same taxpayers as patients, is my ultimate goal. To do that, obviously I have to handle the government's position in a way somewhat different from the way that the members opposite can and are able to discharge their responsibilities. I have never made any mistake about that, nor have I hidden that fact.

I know there are options open to us. I am well aware of those options. But the member knows and I know that when the Minister of Health outlines what those options are, immediately it is translated throughout the province to many physicians, with whom I hope this government can have an ongoing relationship and with whom I hope we can ultimately achieve agreement. When that is translated out there, it will become a situation where the Minister of Health is threatening A, B, C and D.

The reason I have chosen not even to outline those options is, as I have indicated --

Mr. Foulds: Because you don't have any.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is not because they are not available; my friend knows what those options are, as do many members of this House, and I do not have to spell them out.

Ultimately, I do understand three things. First, the buck does stop here; I am held responsible for protecting patient care, and I accept that responsibility. Second, that responsibility fundamentally lies with the medical profession; I believe that the medical profession are so honourable and so dedicated to the health of their patients that they will ensure that their patients' health is not threatened.

After all, the Attorney General has a long sequence of laws in place that prohibits a great number of things, but that does not stop those who see fit to break those laws from breaking them. Let us not put any special aura over a piece of legislation, for those who wish to test the system break legislation. Ultimately, I think doctors would be a lot more hesitant to threaten the health of their patients than to break the particular law.

Third, let us understand that while I am concerned and have asked the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to review with us and satisfy us on the procedure they are going to follow with regard to any of the cases we have referred to them, to the present time they have acted expeditiously on the 36 or 37 cases we have referred to them and have met fully all of their responsibilities under the legislation.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, you are a very reasonable person. I say to the minister, whose reasonableness should be echoed in this chamber with background music, he may be fooling some of the people but he is not fooling us on this side here. Understanding that his leadership aspirations are riding on this issue and that what he is waiting for is public opinion -- and probably he is polling, if not by day then hourly on this issue -- does he not understand that the issue here is not so much his leadership aspirations or public opinion but the integrity of the system?

Given the fact that he, as Minister of Health, is supposed to take care of the integrity of the system, and given the fact that his predictions most often have been wrong, how can he say that a five-day work stoppage will not affect the integrity of the health system? When is he going to accept his responsibility as Minister of Health?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Did you really want an answer?

Mr. Roy: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, so as not to abuse the privileges of the House and not to use up the time of question period, I will not repeat the answer to a question that was asked of me in the member's absence last Monday, the Friday before that, and on several other occasions, because that is a side question.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister tell us why the full initiative he has taken has been a sloughing-off of responsibility to other organizations in the province such as the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario? Why will he not take the initiative and why will he not provide orders in council that would give him authority to deal with transgressions and with professional misconduct?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The acting leader of the third party is free to bring legislation or private bills into this House suggesting that the College of Physicians and Surgeons no longer be appointed as the disciplinary body with lay members on it to police and govern the medical profession. The honourable member has been free to do that for very many years. I do not know, quite frankly, whether he has introduced any of that. I suspect he has not.

In view of the fact that yesterday he shed his party's policy, as Mr. Rae fell out of the gallery when he heard what the former leader's position had been, the member may tomorrow want to introduce legislation changing the procedures that this assembly, duly and democratically elected, has agreed upon for more than 100 years, as I recall. His party has been here for a lot of those 100 and some years -- too many of them -- and he is free to introduce later this week a private member's bill suggesting that the college no longer be the body authorized to exercise this discipline.

As Minister of Health, I must say that I refer to the body authorized by this Legislature to be the body to exercise discipline in all cases that require discipline. To do otherwise would be to flout the legislation passed by all members of this assembly.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Martel: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister makes reference to my leader. I draw this to the Speaker's attention, because there is a slight dilemma. None other than the Premier (Mr. Davis) stated categorically one year ago to a large audience in Sudbury that doctors could not strike. How does that rest with the Minister of Health?

Mr. Kerrio: That's a new question.

Mr. Martel: The minister had better find out what the Premier's position is before he shoots off his mouth.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

SUNCOR PROCUREMENT POLICY

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy about Suncor's dealings with a firm in Ontario called Fahramet, a casting firm located in Orillia which lost a contract for centrifugal castings to a West German company. The order was worth $1.3 million and was let by Suncor for work on its Fort McMurray oil sands operation.

Can the minister explain why Ontario's three directors on Suncor did not see it as part of their responsibility to get the May I deadline either phased in or postponed? Will they not see it as their responsibility in future to insist that Suncor tender such contracts early enough so that small companies such as Fahramet will have time to supply the contract and thus create jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) was quick in drawing this to my attention yesterday. He was on the job, was in touch with Suncor and received the following information from the company in connection with the matter to which the acting leader of the third party makes reference.

The parts referred to are replacement tubes for the hydrogen reforming furnace which was destroyed in the January fire. The order was for 344 units at a price of $1.3 million. The member for Simcoe East was advised that only about five companies in the world produce the tubes and Suncor contacted three of them in March, the company to which the honourable member makes reference being the Canadian one. The others were a United States firm and a German firm. They were all contacted at the same time.

All three companies got a one-day notice, I am advised, because delivery on the parts was critical and only the German firm could meet the delivery requirements. That firm's price was 20 per cent less than that of the competition; that is, the price as delivered to the plant. The claim to which the member also makes some reference, that their price was only 10 per cent higher, was based only on materials. As noted, the differential was 20 per cent. Under those circumstances, I assume that is the information the member wants.

Mr. Foulds: What I want to know is why the minister does not consider it a matter of policy. In Ontario's submission to the first ministers' conference, it argued for a Canadian procurement program "that would play an active role in efforts to change procurement practices that limit the ability of Canadian suppliers to land orders in capital projects."

If that is the government's policy, why do its Suncor directors not try to make that a matter of policy for Suncor, and what benefit do we have from the purchase of our share of Suncor if the government cannot even land jobs for the people of Ontario through that firm and its procurement policy?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The benefits of the involvement of the people of Ontario in Suncor have been listed in this House on many occasions and, indeed, how important it is that we be --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I simply direct the attention of the member to the speeches that have been made in this House which list these benefits and which will read very well in so far as the development of the energy policy of this country is concerned.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, is it not apparent to the minister that the whole Suncor thing is the biggest embarrassment, both financially and politically, his government has ever walked into? Now the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) wants the minister out of it, in addition to the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman). All the back-benchers are embarrassed by what he has done, as well as the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and half the cabinet.

When the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) stands up in this House and cries about $20 million or $30 million, saying it is a great amount of money, and the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) dissipated $650 million on that purchase, which will return nothing to the province, why does he not heed the call of intelligent people everywhere, sell Suncor and use the money properly here in this province?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is really --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I am not sure whether the honourable members really want an answer; but if they do, I ask them to please settle down and be quiet so the minister may be heard.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is a very sad sight to sit here and watch the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), like his predecessor, continue to tie a political noose around his neck on this issue. I hardly need to remind the Leader of the Opposition of the cogent reasons that have been shared with members of this House on several occasions with respect to this very sound energy investment. We are proud to be part of the catalystic approach to the Canadianization of this very important industry, and history will treat that decision extremely well.

Mr. Foulds: I would like to ask the Minister of Energy how all his rhetoric will help the 120 employees at Fahramet who have been laid off.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I do not see any connection between that supplementary and the main question. The acting leader of the third party quite properly has asked a question about 24 hours after our member raised the same question with us with respect to this contract. I provided him with the information and I assume, under the circumstances, that the management of that company has made a decision based on all those particular factors about which I shared the information.

CHILDREN'S GROUP HOME

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), I will address this question to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

Will the minister investigate the tragic case of 16-year-old Brad General, a young man under the guardianship of Ontario, who on February 8, 1982, was removed by force from D and G Group Home in Acton and taken to a group home in Hamilton? Will the minister find out why, after Brad was taken at his request to Milton by the people who run the new group home, they dropped him off on February 12 and he was not again given shelter by the province until March 29 of this year when he was arrested and jailed?

Why was he removed from D and G Group Home in the first place, a home where he had apparently established a healthy relationship with the staff? Is it standard procedure for the official guardian to prevent the natural building of emotional security that is part of any normal home life?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that particular situation, but I certainly will immediately ask for more information and will share it with the honourable member.

3 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Reed: When the minister ascertains the facts regarding this, would she tell us if the removal by force of Brad General was standard procedure? Will the minister then investigate the wisdom of such procedure? If it was not standard procedure, will she take steps to prevent any such recurrence and will she report her findings to this Legislature?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: With no knowledge of that particular action, I do not think it would be very responsible for me to make any comment at this moment, other than to assure the member that we will look into it immediately and I will make the House aware of the situation.

LIVESTOCK DEPREDATIONS BY RAVENS

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Is the minister aware of the rather bizarre developments in northwestern Ontario and neighbouring areas of Manitoba where ravens are picking out the eyes and the rectums of cattle so that they bleed to death?

Quite apart from the fact that it looks as though Edgar Allan Poe and Alfred Hitchcock are combining to impose the ingredients of a classic horror film upon us here from the great beyond, will the minister indicate what conclusion his field staff and his research department, individually or together, have come to with regard to this development? Will the minister indicate whether it is the intention of the government to revise the current legislation to add ravens to the predators for which farmers can get compensation when livestock and/or poultry are killed?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) drew this to my attention within the last 10 days.

Mr. Sargent: What about the cow-calf program?

Mr. Speaker: Just proceed with the answer, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: About the same time our agricultural representative had sent in his monthly report indicating that this was a local issue. I have asked ministry staff to pursue the matter further. I have not yet had a report from them on the extent of the problem or whether they agree or not that ravens are involved so they can substantiate the reports to date. I did see a report in the press this morning or yesterday morning indicating a similar report in Manitoba. Once I have the report back from my staff, I will be glad to share it with the House.

Mr. MacDonald: If it is confirmed that ravens are the predators, as the evidence seems to suggest, will the minister consider my suggestion that he amend the existing legislation to add ravens to those predators for which farmers can get compensation for the loss of cattle or poultry?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That request has been made of the ministry by one farmer. Once I have a report from staff to indicate whether or not the claims can be substantiated, then we will have to consider that along with other options.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had occasion to speak to a couple of students from the University of Western Ontario who are residents of northern Ontario. Considering this problem, they wondered if one of the government ministries might devote some time and energy through a summer program, which would help to employ some students in the far north who are looking for employment, and find out to what extent this really is a problem.

Will the minister speak to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) or to the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) with a view to extending some investigation into this serious problem?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes. This issue has only been raised within the last week or 10 days and I have asked for reports from staff. I am prepared to consider any reasonable suggestions to address the problem, once we know the extent of it.

WINDSOR CHRONIC CARE FACILITY

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), I will place my question to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, who is always so concerned about the welfare of citizens throughout the province.

I would like to ask her about the 11-year-old promise of a chronic care bed facility in our hospital in Windsor. The minister will be aware it was back in 1971 that final approval was given to a 296-bed chronic care facility in that city. She will further be aware that 11 years later the shortage is such that acute treatment beds are regularly taken by chronic patients with the effect that in Metropolitan General Hospital up to 28 patients have been forced to lie in beds in emergency rooms or in hospital corridors at one time. Dr. Robson, the chief of staff at that hospital, says some patients have spent as long as three days in a hospital corridor waiting for a bed.

When is the government going to stop all the talk and come up with the money to build a facility that is 11 years overdue? Why is the Ministry of Health still talking with local officials about a project whose need has been identified for more than a decade?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of those specifics. I am sure the Minister of Health is very much aware and has had a report from the local health council. Perhaps he will respond to that question as he is now entering the House.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has just come back into the House, perhaps I could very briefly put the question to him. Would that be acceptable?

Mr. Speaker: If the Provincial Secretary for Social Development wishes to redirect it, and she does.

Did the minister hear the answer or the question?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I did not even hear the question, let alone the answer.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member state the question briefly.

Mr. Wrye: When is the government going to stop the 11-year-old discussion and come up with the money to build the chronic care facility that is so overdue in the city of Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have it here somewhere as I thought the member might be asking that question.

Mr. McClellan: It's filed under "B" for broken promises.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A very short list of broken promises.

I might say to the honourable member that if he would like to give us a 20-minute advance notice that he wanted to discuss the hospital situation in any given community, it would be very easy for us to have a complete discussion in this assembly.

On the chronic care situation in Windsor, I am told that at present Metropolitan General Hospital has 116 chronic care beds staffed and in operation. The ministry approved 100 additional nursing home beds last year for the Windsor area. Ten of those beds are already in place, 41 will be in operation later this spring as will another 49 this fall. These new beds will help alleviate part of the situation to which the member is referring.

I want to say also that, having looked over this situation, he will know there is a placement co-ordination service in place in Windsor which is helping to alleviate the problem. As he knows, though he neglected to point out in his question -- at least as he phrased it to me; I do not know about to my colleague -- the chronic home care program has been in operation in Windsor for about two years. The chronic home care program is something that very many municipalities are hoping to get this year, and I hope to be able to provide for many communities. As he knows, that does alleviate a lot of the pressure on chronic care beds.

The member will also be interested to know that the hospitals in his area, Windsor, have more acute and chronic care beds than the provincial average. Windsor hospitals have 98 beds above the provincial guidelines for chronic care beds. I did not hear all of his premise relating to broken promises, but if one looks at the Windsor area, it is above the provincial average in chronic care beds. It has a chronic home care program which very many areas do not have and is above the provincial average in terms of acute beds as well. All in all, it is fairly well serviced in terms of chronic care facilities.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us why even the least expensive capital projects are being delayed for years on end? Specifically, could he tell us why no action has been taken to establish a satellite service of the regional children's centre in the town of Leamington? I am sure the minister is aware that this proposal is now eight years old and was given approval in principle back in 1975.

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am sure that is supplementary only to the extent that the member is from an area close to that of the previous questioner. I will look into the facts relating to the facility in Leamington and will report back to the House.

Mr. Cooke: I wonder whether the Minister of Health would simply answer the question asked by the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye). He said that the district health council has recommended that a new chronic care hospital be built on the grounds of Windsor Western Hospital Centre and asked when the minister is going to approve the funds to build that hospital.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Obviously we will be looking at that district health council report, as we shall be doing with respect to many other communities represented on the member's benches as well as mine, with a view to determining what is a proper allocation of funds over the next several years. We shall be taking that into consideration. When those decisions are made, the member may not be the first to know but he will be notified.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can he indicate if Wilco Canada has met the deadline of April 16 set by the ministry to meet the standards under the lead regulation and has undertaken the lead assessment required under the regulation? Would he inform me whether Wilco Canada has implemented a lead control program at Wilco Canada?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier in the House, as a result of comprehensive orders issued on February 24, another inspection of that particular industry was to be held Friday, April 16. This has been done. A thorough inspection of hygiene and an air quality assessment was undertaken by my ministry's occupational health and safety branch.

We asked the director of the branch to accompany the usual inspector. Although there was a significant move by Wilco towards complying with the orders relating to assessment and lead control programs, the inspector and the director found that the company was still in default of the regulation requiring implementation of a medical surveillance program. Therefore, orders were issued to stop work on the afternoon of April 16 at 4 p.m. This action had a direct effect on 30 employees and possibly an indirect effect on some of the other employees.

The company had scheduled a shift for Friday evening and two shifts for Saturday. Those shifts were cancelled. A portion of a shift was also cancelled yesterday morning before the appointment by the company of a physician, who has discussed the regulatory requirements with ministerial medical staff. As a result of the compliance by the company with respect to the medical surveillance program, the stop order was withdrawn.

Mr. Martel: Since 1978 or 1979 this company has failed to meet the lead regulations or to establish a health and safety committee. It attempted to intimidate the workers by its threatening letter of December 16. Workers were told that they must return to work; otherwise they would lose their jobs and would not be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits or welfare if they quit, even though in some cases the workers had been ordered by their doctors not to return to work. Does the minister not feel that charges should be laid against Wilco Canada in view of these offences?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: In fairness to the owner, the orders that were issued on February 24 had a three-month deadline that would have expired on May 24 and the owner voluntarily set a date of April 16. When my people went in there last Friday, I felt that they had taken significant action.

It gives me no pleasure or comfort to issue a stop work order, especially in these difficult economic times. It means that approximately 30 people will have a reduced paycheque, and that does not excite me at all. If I have to err in a matter like this, I should like it to be on the side of safety in the work place, and that is what I felt I was doing on Friday.

I would like to tell the honourable member opposite that the investigation is still active and a review of the work place to determine compliance with the lead regulation is being undertaken by a ministry hygienist. I would also like to indicate to him that I have arranged for a personal meeting with the owner of the company, which will be held in my office a week from this Thursday, to go over the whole chronological list of events.

Mr. Wrye: I would like to get back to the question my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) asked and which the minister did not answer. Particularly in view of the attempts at intimidation of the workers in this occupational area, why were no charges laid and what will it take for this ministry to lay charges?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am sorry if I gave the honourable member an incorrect impression. When I stated that the investigation is still active, I thought I was responding to that question, and also when I stated that the gentleman will be coming into my office a week from Thursday and that a review of the work place is being undertaken by a ministry hygienist. The investigation of this plant is not closed by any stretch of the imagination.

On Friday a stop work order was issued in the interests of bringing this thing to a head, and that is what we are attempting to do at this time. There could well be further action taken, but I am certainly not going to promise anything at all until we have gone through all of these steps. Please bear in mind that we are working on a speeded-up timetable. The plant had until May 24 and we speeded it up until this past Friday. For that reason, I think the plant is entitled to this further schedule of events.

MUNICIPAL REASSESSMENTS

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: On March 17 I placed a question on the Order Paper addressed to the Ministry of Revenue and on March 30 there was an answer that there was no answer available. At that time it was suggested that I was going to get a reply to my question by about April 15. This is April 20 and still there is no answer. I wonder if you could advise me, Mr. Speaker, when I might be able to get an answer to this important question.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the minister will have taken note of your inquiry and will respond at the appropriate time. It seems he has an answer now.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, either the answer has been tabled or will be tabled in a few moments. As you know, the minister himself does not ordinarily table an answer directly; it is usually put through the House leader and he has it.

Mr. Epp: When there was no answer, the minister communicated with me directly to say there was no answer. That was back on March 30. I think he could communicate directly with me today to tell me when he is going to give me an answer.

Mr. Speaker: The answer to question 14 is here today and will be tabled.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I wish to draw to your attention the length of ministerial answers to questions during question period. I know we have done this on many occasions but it happened again today. Today the four questions from the two opposition leaders took approximately 42 minutes, I believe. The first question from the leader of the third party -- and I certainly agree that this was an important matter -- took some 12 or 13 minutes alone, much of that time taken by the answers provided by the Minister of Health.

I just wonder if you might outline why it would not be more appropriate, as my friend the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) has suggested, to deal with these matters, especially the kind of detail as to the government's offer, in a ministerial statement under section 26 of the standing orders regarding ministry action, rather than have ministers give this kind of detail within answers. It simply cuts down on the number of questions.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, to make a brief comment on the same point, I think we will all recall that in the middle of his answer to my latest question the minister went into a long digression about the cost of the settlement, which had not been in the original question or any of the supplementaries. I think the point of my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich is well taken and we appeal to you to confine the answers as you so ably confined the questions.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: That is an interesting point and it has been brought up before. However, I think the urgent public concern and the importance of the topic at this time also has to be given some weight. Obviously, not all the members thought the answer was lengthy. The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) stood up and appealed for the minister to continue. I keep track of the time the answers take, but I think when we are dealing with something of such importance as this topic, maybe we should devote a bit more time to it.

Something else should be kept in mind. I have pointed this out and I am not pointing the finger at anybody, but a multiple question will take a more lengthy response than a one-topic question.

Having regard for the importance of the topic, I think everything was in order. I do not really see that anything was out of order. To say a ministerial statement should have been made is to refer to something we really do not know, nor does anybody else, until the question has been asked.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I thought it became patently obvious, both under questioning by the leader of the Liberal Party and under my own questioning, that the minister should have made a statement. Surely, when that is obvious, it is entirely within your power to do one of two things, either call the minister to order because he is straying beyond the strict bounds of the question or add time to question period so that back-bench members can get in their legitimate concerns.

Mr. Speaker: I can only repeat the importance and the great interest everybody has shown, plus the fact the member for Riverdale did appeal that the minister be allowed to continue.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) concerning urea formaldehyde foam insulation. This matter will be debated at 10:30 p.m.

Mr. Riddell: I can hardly wait.

Mr. Bradley: I can hardly wait.

Mr. Speaker: I think you can.

Mr. Bradley: I will be here for that.

Mr. Speaker: I will be looking for you.

PETITION

SUNDAY OPENING

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit a petition signed by some 47 furniture and appliance store owners in Scarborough and surrounding areas, requesting amendments to or further consideration of the Retail Business Holidays Act in Ontario such that the issue of Sunday opening may again be addressed. The petition seeks that the matters of uniformity of enforcement and a reconsideration of the act to allow the Sunday opening of such establishments receive urgent attention in light of difficult economic times which would make it more attractive to flout the law at this time.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 84, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

POLLING PLACES ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. Cassidy, first reading of Bill 85, An Act respecting the Establishment of Polling Stations in Residential Buildings.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require that a polling station for a provincial election be provided in all residential premises in which more than 250 voters reside. The bill also requires that every landlord of residential premises in which more than 250 voters reside must make the premises available for such a polling place during a provincial election.

FUEL PRICE DISPLAY ACT

Mr. Samis moved, seconded by Mr. Di Santo, first reading of Bill 86, An Act respecting the Display of Service Station Fuel Prices.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, you will note that this bill is seconded by my cosmopolitan, conservation-minded colleague from Downsview.

Mr. Roy: There is a contradiction in terms.

Mr. Samis: This bill provides that where the operator of a service station posts a sign displaying fuel prices to motorists, the price of every kind or grade of fuel for sale at that station must be shown. May I add that I have persuaded my colleague from Downsview not to rise on a point of privilege.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the answers to questions 14, 19, 20, 22, 23, 52, 72, 74 and 75, and the interim answers to questions 24, 25 and 26 on the Notice Paper (see Hansard for Friday, April 23).

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONCLUDED)

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

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, in calling the first order, I would like to indicate to the House that it has been agreed that the time will be split among the three parties. We would ask if the table could keep track of the times, to be split equally, with the vote on the motion and amendments to be called at 5:45 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend a few minutes this afternoon talking about the economic problems we are facing in this province right now.

I would like to begin by talking about a couple who live in my riding. Their names are Don and Debbie McMinn. They live on Tourangeau Road in my riding. They have two children: Jody, 8, and Mandy, 8 months. Within the next week this family will lose its home. Canada Permanent, which now holds their mortgage, has taken power of sale of this home. The family bought the house on February 1, 1981. They put $10,000 as a down payment on a $49,000 home. The mortgage rate at the time was 14 per cent and they had a one-year mortgage.

In December, Mr. McMinn was laid off. He is an auto worker in the city. They fell behind starting in December. They applied for federal assistance when their mortgage was to come up for renewal, since Mr. McMinn had been called back to work and does have 14 years' seniority at Chrysler Corp. It appeared that he would have a job for a lengthy period of time since the demand for some of the cars we are now producing in Windsor has increased.

However, they found that with the interest rate increase and since Mr. McMinn had taken wage concessions at Chrysler when they were in financial problems, there was no way they could afford the monthly payments at a mortgage rate now running at 19 per cent.

As I say, they applied for the federal program but they found, because they had missed payments in December and January, they did not qualify for it. Now they are faced with the fact that they have put $10,000 into a home and real estate prices have collapsed. They have no equity in their home whatsoever and they are going to lose it in a matter of days.

3:30 p.m.

In the case of another couple in my riding, Larry and Judy Bondy who live at 1923 Francois, their mortgage came up for renewal on April 1, 1982. Their payments are now $559 per month on a $37,000 mortgage. Mr. Bondy is also a Chrysler worker and, therefore, has also taken wage concessions and his cost of living allowance has been eliminated as well.

There is a small contractor in Harrow in the riding of Essex South whose name is Rulic and he had his business for 19 years. It was a small contracting firm with 10 employees and it used to use subcontractors. It had a loan for $33,000 and the interest rates went as high as 25 per cent. It declared bankruptcy on November 1, 1981, and now, through other legal problems that are being pursued by the owner of the loan at that time, that contractor may even lose his personal home.

There is also a motel in the Niagara Peninsula, the Terrace Motel Court. The owners are Mr. and Mrs. Olab. Last year they grossed $60,000 and right now they are paying $3,000 a month in interest payments alone.

The fact is that people all across this province, whether they are small businessmen, home owners or farmers, are losing their properties because the federal government has allowed high interest rates to increase and because this government has taken the attitude that, rather than show economic leadership, it has decided to pass the buck to the federal government and show no leadership whatsoever.

Now we are in the situation where, in communities such as St. Catharines and in my home community, the labour councils have taken the position that if the government will not act to protect the people of this province they will act on the people's behalf. We have a group set up now in both those communities, so that if someone is going to lose his or her home the so-called flying squad will go to that house and occupy it and prevent the sheriff or whoever from taking possession of it.

I for one feel, and I think my caucus members agree, that in the absence of any government leadership at all, we support this kind of action on the part of labour councils in this province. If this government cannot see fit to put in the kinds of programs that have been proposed by small business groups and home owners groups and by this political party, if it cannot show that kind of political leadership. If instead it decides in a throne speech to devote two thirds of that speech to bashing the federal government instead of proposing positive programs, then I believe people have to take these kinds of actions on their own. It has been proven to them that government is no longer interested in protecting the ordinary middle-income and low-income family.

We should be able to rely on government but the Premier (Mr. Davis) and his government have become complacent. They have become arrogant and they have become very distant from the people of this province. They are obviously tuned out of the problems of most of the people in this province. I offer my wholehearted support to the flying squads that exist in both St. Catharines and Windsor to protect home owners. I hope they go all across this province. This government will have to accept any of the consequences that follow from those actions that people have been forced to take.

Let us take a look at some of the communities and some of the problems existing. In Cambridge, unemployment in February 1981 was 4,316, and in 1982 it was up 29 per cent to 5,560. We have had plant closures at Millhaven Fibres, which was closed on May 29, 1981, and which had 270 employees. We all know about the Canadian Admiral case. It has closed in Cambridge. There are layoffs at Braemore Furniture, Croyden Furniture Systems, Cambridge Brass, Butler Metal Products. All of those plants have laid off significant numbers of workers in the last few months. Right now 950 people are receiving welfare in the city of Cambridge.

In Chatham, unemployment was up 20 per cent in February 1982 over February 1981.

Companies like Canadian Fram, Dover, Eaton Yale, Rockwell International and Motor Wheel have all had significant layoffs in the last year. Welfare is up 41 per cent in the city of Chatham. I am disappointed that once again the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson), who is here so rarely and has never participated in any of the emergency debates on unemployment or the auto industry, is not here today. He is typical of his government and its lack of involvement in this crisis.

In Smiths Falls, unemployment was up 39.1 per cent in February 1982 over February 1981. There were layoffs at Croydon Furniture Systems, at Atco Controls, at Miner Rubber and at Air-Care. Welfare was up 25 per cent in February 1982 over February 1981.

Other communities are experiencing the same problem. In the county of Brant, welfare payments were 8.09 per cent as a percentage of the municipal budget in 1979. In 1982, they are up to 13.64 per cent. In the county of Elgin, welfare payments as a percentage of the municipal budget were 6.5 per cent in 1979. In 1982, they are up to 9.2 per cent. In the county of Oxford, welfare payments in 1979 were 14.8 per cent of the municipal budget and, in 1982, 17.8 per cent.

In my home community in 1979, 8.06 per cent of the municipal budget went towards welfare and in 1982 it is up to nearly 17 per cent of the municipal budget. As the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) and the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) stated during the throne speech debate, Great Lakes Woodlands Division has laid off 1,600 in the north; Abitibi is laying off 400; MacMillan-Bloedel, 200; Boise Cascade, 775; Umex mines, 160; Abitibi in White River, 180.

The fact of the matter is unemployment in Ontario continues to increase and this government has indicated it is unwilling, does not have the imagination, does not have the programs or perhaps does not have the will any more to put programs in place to create jobs for the nearly 600,000 people who are currently unemployed in this province.

I say 600,000 because Statistics Canada indicates clearly that when one takes into consideration those people who have given up because of the lack of any opportunities for jobs in this province, the total figure is really 600,000 people unemployed. Unemployment among women is now up to nine per cent and among the youth of this province it is now nearly 18 per cent

The costs of unemployment are rather shocking. In one year in the city of Windsor unemployment insurance costs look as if they are going to run to about $200 million and welfare to $15 million. In Oshawa, unemployment insurance could reach $100 million in costs and lost wages could reach $300 million.

When one combines the two cities of Oshawa and Windsor for lost wages, taking the total lost wages minus what they are getting through public payments, we are talking about well over $200 million of lost wages for those two communities, lost money to the economy and therefore a lost demand for products. The spinning continues so that more and more jobs are lost.

What has this government's response been since it was re-elected? We had the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, which I have always said was a political document and certainly not an economic document. In the auto industry, an auto parts technology centre was announced. It was originally promised to Chatham and the entire Niagara Peninsula; then the election was called and it was also promised to the city of Windsor. In effect, it was promised to almost all of southwestern Ontario and all of the Niagara Peninsula. If that is not an election gimmick, I do not know what is.

We still have no comprehensive mandate as to what that auto parts technology centre is going to do and the location of the Centre was announced only in February of this year. That was the entire response to the crisis that exists in the auto industry, which is located about 95 per cent in this province. No other initiatives were taken by this government whatsoever.

BILD says on page three: "New jobs must continue to be created to meet the challenges of technological and structural changes in the economy. In particular, there has to be new emphasis on training in skilled trades." What that translates to in the last year is a demand for the weakening of FIRA and cutbacks in community colleges.

3:40 p.m.

In food processing, in the BILD program it states, "To stimulate the necessary capital expansion in products, such as canned peaches, tomato paste, specialty meat products and other imported food products, Ontario is prepared to co-invest in new enterprises." Translated, that means we will give grants to large multinationals such as Heinz -- $6 million -- to bribe them to force them to do what they should be doing on their own.

On mining machinery, the BILD program says, "The province is prepared to make direct equity investments in existing machinery companies to aid new companies to establish and to encourage resource companies to invest in creating a more vigorous resource machinery industry." Translated, that means set up a committee in Sudbury to study a problem we have known has existed for years.

The fact is, 15 years ago we imported about 50 per cent of our mining machinery in this country. Now we import 75 per cent and in 1980 the deficit was $1.5 billion.

In reforestation, how can this political party or the people of the province take this government seriously when it talks about reforestation when in 1977 this Premier (Mr. Davis) promised to plant two trees for every one which was cut down? Now they say it is still a problem, yet in 1981 they promised forest management agreements. BILD was 99 per cent a political document and it had virtually no substance whatsoever.

I want to turn to the speech the Premier made last week in New York, because I think some of the quotes I want to use from it will show how wishy-washy this government is and how it lacks any kind of direction or substance when it is talking about an industrial strategy. I quote:

"We in Ontario have always welcomed foreign capital that is accompanied with a resolve to advance the economy of our nation, but as I have said, we are also concerned that this investment be of maximum value domestically, that every dollar, no matter what its source, contribute as fully as possible to our economic recovery."

He goes on: "Unfortunately, this has not always been the case. A significant number of foreign-controlled Canadian businesses have in the past often been restricted to servicing the Canadian market, discouraged from undertaking any research and development programs, or reasonable measures of independence in decision-making or technological innovation. Some foreign-controlled firms in Canada have tended to source their requirements of goods and services from their own countries even when such goods and services are available in Canada at competitive prices."

We have no difference of opinion if that is what the Premier really believes. We have been saying that for years. However, the Premier goes on to say the following:

"Nevertheless, as a provincial government, we in Ontario are concerned about the implementation of this screening process" -- and he is referring to FIRA -- "by our federal government. Tensions can and do arise when decisions concerning investment are screened out or even diverted by our centralized bureaucracy. As such, we have suggested that the very desirable goal of increased Canadian ownership must not undermine other economic measures designed to foster investor confidence."

Add to that comment the comments made in the throne speech that FIRA must be streamlined, and the comments made in the London Free Press by the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker), where he said. "New investment should not be screened by FIRA; only takeovers should be screened." Based on the White Farm issue, we know how the government stands on even takeovers within this province.

Clearly, by looking at the Premier's comments in New York, by listening to what the throne speech says, and by what the industry minister says, no one in this province could possibly understand what this government's strategy is with respect to foreign investment. But the facts speak for themselves.

A recent study by Statistics Canada states, "The results support one of the themes of earlier studies that foreign direct investment involves a relatively high amount of purchases from home countries." The study they conducted covered 90 per cent of all Canadian imports in 1978, or $43.7 billion worth of imports. The results showed the following:

1. Foreign-controlled firms accounted for 72 per cent of our imports.

2. US-controlled firms accounted for 80 per cent of the total foreign-controlled portion of the imports.

3. US-controlled companies source 87 per cent of their imports in their home country, the United States.

Foreign companies' ratio of imports to sales was 22.4 per cent, which is almost five times that of domestically owned companies here in this province. The result of that kind of structural problem in our economy is clear. This country imports $236 million worth of nuts and bolts. We import $1.5 billion worth of mining machinery. We import $119 million worth of power tools, and we are all aware of the problems and the deficits that exist in other sectors as well as in the auto industry.

Summarizing the problems, in the short term we have a very serious problem with high unemployment. We have an incredibly difficult problem with high interest rates which is resulting in more jobs being lost, people losing their homes, communities being devastated and small businesses and farmers losing their businesses as well.

In the long term we have to come to grips with the huge trade deficits that exist in the manufacturing sector, we have to have a strategy to overcome the problem of foreign control and we have to develop a program to deal with the large number of branch plant closures which have occurred and which will continue to occur.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about my party's position on these matters. For quite some time, this party has advocated that a community adjustment fund must be set up in the short term. This fund would provide assistance to communities that are experiencing excessively high unemployment and therefore have excessive demands on their social services. It would also provide assistance to restructure the local economy and create jobs, both long- term and short-term. This program would also provide direct aid to laid-off workers.

With regard to interest rate relief, this party believes very strongly that a program at the provincial level is not only appropriate but incredibly important and must be brought in during this budget. We would advocate grant assistance to home owners who are paying more than 30 per cent of their monthly income towards housing.

When this question was raised to the Premier and to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) by this party, both indicated there was a federal program in place to provide exactly that kind of assistance, but the fact of the matter is the federal program is so narrow in scope it eliminates so many people. The only statistics I have are that in the community of Windsor only nine people have qualified: three of them for the grant program and six for the interest rate deferral program. The federal program was more window-dressing than anything else. Therefore, it is this government's responsibility to bring in a program of its own.

We advocate and encourage this government to bring in a program for small business. We have suggested that a $50-million program of grants and loans to small business is very important in order to reverse the trend of increasing bankruptcies in that sector.

In the farm community, the Conservative provincial program is much too restrictive and again, many farmers have not qualified for assistance. We suggest there has to be a $100-million program to aid farmers. This program would expand on the Ontario program in two key areas. It would loosen up the restriction on debt equity that the provincial Conservative government's program has and, second, it would provide assistance for long-term loans, and not just the short-term loans the provincial program now has.

In the housing sector. again there are significant problems. In the city of Toronto and in many other communities the vacancy rate is well below one per cent. That is driving up the rents of those buildings that are not under the rent control program.

Therefore, we have advocated a $150-million program to stimulate the housing sector. The program would provide $10,000 in interest-free loans for every unit constructed or converted to the co-op sector. It would stimulate 15,000 new units and, equally important, it would create 18,000 government construction jobs directly and 14,000 jobs in the furniture, carpet and drapery areas as well.

3:50 p.m.

We feel that type of program would serve two areas. It would serve in the provision of housing in places like Toronto, Hamilton and Oshawa, but also it would create the jobs. It would create 18,000 more jobs than this provincial government has created since it was re-elected.

Further, this program would provide revenue of $8 million in provincial sales tax, $500 million in wages, $20 million in provincial income tax, $50 million in federal income tax; so it would not be simply a program where government is spending, it would also produce government revenue.

Further, we would reintroduce the speculation tax in order to keep down the prices of homes, especially in the city of Toronto. Interest rates combined with the rising prices of homes in this city have meant that many people simply cannot afford to buy a home. In order to purchase the average-priced home in the city of Toronto now would require a $61,000-a-year income, which eliminates virtually all people in the middle-income and low-income groups.

An hon. member: Even MPPs.

Mr. Cooke: Even MPPs, that is right.

The most important aspect of this program of our party is one that was instituted in Saskatchewan, and that is a moratorium on foreclosures. There is no reason why this provincial government could not bring in that kind of legislation; it has been done in Saskatchewan. This government uses the excuse that it would chase out mortgage money and new people could not get in the market, but when one needs $61,000 a year to get into the market, our major objective has to be to allow people to keep their homes at this particular time. So a moratorium on foreclosures is something this party believes in and will continue to push for.

The sixth aspect of our program in this area is one we have talked about time and time again, that is, the protection of workers. It is inexcusable that the severance pay program instituted last year by this government has helped only five per cent of the people who have lost their jobs within the last year; five per cent.

There was one case in my home riding which was raised in this House by our Labour critic: there were 49 employees, and it was very clear that this company had laid off six months earlier in order to avoid the severance pay legislation. Surely on that evidence alone it should be obvious that the government should bring in amendments to the severance pay legislation to provide better protection.

Also, we believe very strongly that longer notice -- and six months' notice is what we have advocated for any plant closure -- should be brought in by this provincial government. That would allow for a system of justification before plants are allowed to close.

In the long term, we must come to grips with the structural problems that exist in our economy. On many occasions since this House resumed, we have talked about the problems in the auto sector and I want to spend just a couple of minutes reviewing some of our suggestions to reverse the trend of job loss in that sector.

It is not good enough for the Premier of this province to say that all the problems in the auto industry would be solved completely if the Japanese import problem was eliminated. That simply is not the case at all. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you recognize that problem because when you were not in the position of Speaker you did support my private member's resolution, for which I am very thankful.

Mr. McClellan: He will pay for it.

Mr. Cooke: I think he already has.

We are looking at programs at the provincial level to attack the structural problems that exist in the major manufacturing industry in this province. One major problem is ownership. The fact that the assembly companies, as well as a major share of the auto parts sector, are owned by foreign interests means that, as the Gray report and the Statscan report indicated, their tendency is to source parts from their home country. That has to be one of the major causes of the huge auto parts deficit which currently exists.

Our reliance on assembly as a result of ownership, our deficits, as I pointed out, the lack of research and development and the lack of adequate sharing or mix of skilled trades and of adequate investment by the auto companies, these are all structural problems that have meant the loss of 30,000 jobs in the auto sector and they have had no significant response by this government.

In northern Ontario also we have to look at the structural problems and the lack of government strategy. It is simply ridiculous that so much of our enormous wealth of raw natural resources should be exported and then imported in the form of finished goods.

It should be possible, through the tax structure, to obtain sufficient revenue for developing secondary industries for the exploitation of our resources. From 1975 to 1979, revenues as a percentage of production averaged 16.53 per cent in Saskatchewan but only 2.98 per cent in this province. If we were to receive our fair share of revenues in the resource sector we could have a mining machinery industry in northern Ontario, one that was owned by the crown, by the people of this province, and which would create jobs for northern Ontario.

In the food processing industry we have permitted the sellout of our Canadian interests over the last two decades and now that industry is dominated by foreign multinational corporations. The result is that this province is now a net importer of food.

The Tory answer is to bribe companies when no bribe is necessary. The government is giving the Heinz operation in Leamington $6 million to produce more tomato paste when it should be doing that in any case. If they will not do it, we should threaten to set up a crown corporation to go into competition with them. I think Heinz, along the other multinationals, would find that sufficient incentive. If Heinz or Del Monte do not want to follow our suggestions, why does government not join with farmers or other interest groups in a provincial co-op in order to keep the profits here in Ontario? Perhaps then we can once again become a net exporter of food as in the past.

Ontario needs economic leadership now more than ever before. Deindustrialization is causing increased unemployment in all sectors of the economy over the entire province. The situation cries out for government leadership. But the Premier seems to have lost his interest in governing this province. Two thirds of the throne speech is devoted to fed-bashing and although we have been back in the Legislature since March 9, it will be May 13 before we get a provincial budget. All this is clear indication that this government has no idea where to go, that it is directionless; and in the meantime thousands more lose their jobs. This government must recognize its responsibility to create jobs and turn the economy around.

We have a majority government that has become arrogant as well as without direction. Our party believes that everyone who wants a job should have a right to a job, and that people with jobs have the right to work in a safe environment. My colleague from Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) will continue to pursue the problems of health and safety with the same force as he has done ever since the beginning of this session. Ontarians have a right to expect access to health care and other social services when they need them. They should have proper day care and housing and, as I have already said, an interest rate relief program.

This party will soon release its economic plans for what it believes should be part of a provincial budget. We shall be looking at investment in certain sectors and coming out with specifics. We shall be providing the kind of leadership that this government has failed to provide in the last number of years.

4 p.m.

For all the reasons that we have expressed during this throne speech debate, the fact that unemployment continues to increase, the fact that health and safety does not exist in many plants across this province and the fact that unemployment, as I say, continues to increase and interest rate relief is absent from this provincial government, I will be supporting, as will all my colleagues, the no-confidence motion this afternoon.

I doubt whether many members in the back row of the Conservative Party will. I see the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) is now back. He knows the situation in his community. The member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) and members for other communities that are hard hit by this recession know the problems, and I suggest that while we know we are going to lose the no-confidence motion this afternoon, they had better get their act together in that government and push their Minister of Industry and Trade, their Premier and their Treasurer to get these programs in place.

The people of this province are looking for direction. They know they are not going to get it from Mr. MacEachen and Mr. Trudeau and thus far they have not received it from the Premier. Both levels of government have responsibilities, and I hope over the course of the next few weeks leading up to the budget this provincial government will listen to our suggestions and implement some of them on May 13.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to bring to your attention that during the remarks of the financial critic of the New Democratic Party not a single member of the cabinet was in the House. I think it is really disgusting. There is not much you can do about it, but it is still a fact.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt my colleague and friend but, on behalf of my party, I want to express our profound disappointment with the government party for the contempt they have displayed during the course of this throne speech debate and their sheer and utter discourtesy here this afternoon.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay my good friend the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), but one of the things that has bothered me over the past 10 years is the way the Premier (Mr. Davis) has not considered the Legislature to be an important forum. It is my understanding that the Premier will be winding up for the government party this afternoon. In my memory, he has not had the courtesy to come in for any portion of the windup speeches of the opposition party for a considerable number of years and that is indeed an insult to the Legislature.

Mr. Nixon: The press is just as bad.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour for me to rise in this debate and conclude on behalf of my colleagues the presentation of the Liberal Party with respect to the speech from the throne. I must tell you in advance that I will be speaking more positively and more favourably in response to the amendment which this party put as opposed to the government's address as read by the Lieutenant Governor here on March 9.

In the past number of weeks, in consideration of the responsibility that was given to me to wind up this debate for my party, I have endeavoured to participate in the House and to listen to as many honourable members in their contributions as I have had time for, and I have tried to make time. On a number of occasions, having missed some very fine addresses, I have done what I do not often do, and that is to repair to the quiet of the library and read speeches made by honourable members.

I simply want to indicate that, having been here for the past number of weeks and having watched and listened, I too am somewhat distressed at the rather awful attendance that has characterized this debate. My colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) has noted, as has the acting leader of the New Democratic Party, the rather insignificant attendance of members of the cabinet throughout the entirety of these throne debate speeches. I just want to note that. As a member of this assembly, I understand the time pressures we all function under and especially appreciate the burdens of being in the executive council. But I think it is a sad comment about just how relevant this place has become in the eyes of the majority of its members.

Quite frankly and somewhat sadly, I note on all sides a tendency that increases apace in these debates, and that is the tendency of honourable members to stand in their places and read written speeches. Some of the very best speeches I have heard in this debate were written speeches.

After the adjournment hour last night, I was chiding the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren). I thought his contribution was excellent, but I was somewhat surprised to see the honourable member, whose oratorical skills and whose political presence in this place are well known to all, none the less stand in his place and read what, as I said earlier, was an excellent and very thoughtful speech.

I saw my good friend the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson), who has been here a longer time than I and perhaps a longer time than I can ever hope to imagine my being here, stand in his place about a week ago and read, endlessly, a speech that was not the kind of speech I normally associate with the very colourful member for York North.

Quite frankly, on that occasion I was distressed as well to have noted that we have now got to the situation where, while very few people come to the throne speech debates, those members who come to read written speeches avail themselves of what I think is a rather unparliamentary photo opportunity. The half dozen members who are here gather around the honourable member reading his speech so that a photograph might be taken, undoubtedly to send back to the local Trombone so that a perhaps somewhat more favourable impression of the milieu in which the great oration was made --

Mr. Nixon: Misleading, that is what it is.

Misleading advertising --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. No honourable member misleads in this chamber.

Mr. Conway: I know from my personal experience of the great capacity of the member for York North to stand in his place and tell it like it is. I was just noting with some sorrow that a senior member of the House was now reading more of his speech than in my estimation had been traditionally the case.

I listened with great interest to the very excellent speech made by my colleague and my leader, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson). I thought, and members will undoubtedly agree, that in his remarks he gave an excellent overview of what is essentially wrong with this government's plan as set out in the throne speech and how it might be substantially improved upon.

I listened with great interest to my friend and colleague the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) set out in great detail the rising tide of arrogance that is associated with yet another Davis majority government.

I listened with great interest to my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) talk about the incredibly negative impact of the downturn in our auto industry upon his home community.

I listened with great interest to my colleague the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) as he talked with feeling about what is happening to the nursing home sector and, as a result, to the provision of quality health care to the good people of his riding.

I listened with great interest to the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), who I thought made an excellent contribution, setting out his views of the new order, the new economic requirements, that face this province.

As I said earlier, I thought the member for Nickel Belt was excellent last night.

The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), though he went on at unusual length to tell us about what is happening to the high school in Schreiber, also drew our attention to something I want to spend some time with a little later, what has happened to a young forester in the member's great riding.

I listened as well with great interest to two members on the government side: the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson), who made a thoughtful speech, and my friend the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn), who endeavoured to tell us what he thought about certain issues as they affect his constituency.

The member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) was entertaining us last night with views that, while somewhat different from those expressed by his minister, the Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson), I found refreshing and, as always, interesting.

I listened with sadness to the biting negativism of the new member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), from whom I had expected, quite frankly, more than the diatribe that he offered us when he spoke here some few weeks ago.

4:10 p.m.

I listened to the incomparable, indescribable contribution of the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams), about which I promise I will say no more. Even though Lent is over, I stayed for that additional punishment, which is a lot more than I can say for the other 69 members of the government caucus.

But when it came to members of the government party, none was more interesting than the very colourful new member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman). I want to commend him briefly for the kind of independent spirit that he once again revealed in this House.

I know the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the administration are always interested to know about apparent inconsistencies on this side of the House. I do not intend to stand here today and embarrass my good friend the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) about his recent public comments about the decision taken by the Premier, Hugh Segal and Allan Gregg in terms of Suncor. I do not intend to embarrass the member for Cambridge about comments attributed to him about the apparently heretical views he now has with respect to his government's own initiative.

But I can say to my good friend the member for Leeds that I am wondering who speaks for this government on one of the great issues sweeping Ontario, apparently as far as my Tory friends are concerned: metric. Just a few days ago I heard the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) set out again in very firm detail that this government in Ontario endorses four-square and without equivocation the metric commitment entered into some 10 years ago by the government of Canada. He said it without equivocation. He said it without so much as breaking stride.

Mr. Nixon: Or anything else.

Mr. Conway: Or anything else.

Yet the member for Leeds stood in his place the other night and talked about this federal madness, this metric madness, this unilateral madness that Ontario ought to resist at every turn.

I ask my friend the Premier, the leader of this government, who is it who speaks for the government of Ontario when it comes to the whole metric issue? I know my good Tory friends in Gananoque, Brockville and Athens want to know the answer to that question. They assume that, having elected the member for Leeds a year ago, he is here to keep that promise. If one were to read the Brockville Recorder or other eastern Ontario newspapers, one would get the impression that this is a government which is at best mixed up on the whole question of metric.

My good friend the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) set out in eloquent form, in a press release dated April 7 -- something I know you have read, Mr. Speaker -- the views of the Ontario government 10 years ago on metric. I will not bore my friend the member for Leeds about the ringing endorsation of John White, Darcy McKeough, Grossman Senior and latterly the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) as well as a host of other Tory provincial members in Ontario.

Without wanting to embarrass the member for Cambridge about this whole business about consistency, I noted with great interest the speech of the member for Leeds and how it differed sharply and openly from the most recent pronouncements of the Minister for Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Later I want to make some comments about the speech of the government House leader (Mr. Wells), whose contribution here last Thursday night, which unfortunately I was not here to hear but which I read with great interest, in some ways was the most remarkable contribution of the whole five-week debate.

I know I am under some serious time constraints. I want to deal with the matter at hand as I know, Mr. Speaker, you in your very precise interpretation of the rules in this place would want me to do. I want to talk about this document which we were all entertained with about five weeks ago.

I have been here to hear seven or eight speeches from the throne. In some ways this speech was unlike most of the others that I have heard, when one thinks about the reading of the speech and being here to hear it. I read it a couple of times afterwards, and a number of general impressions struck me about this document, particularly when I compared it, as I did knowing what interest there would be in these matters, with other speeches from the throne.

This speech from the throne was probably the most different and the most diffident of all I have heard. It was a speech that had good things, to be sure, and I want to give the government some credit.

My friend the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) would applaud, as I and other members in this place would applaud, no less than the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) would applaud, the stated ambition of this throne speech to improve French-language services to the people of Ontario in three significant areas. I applaud them for that.

I certainly applaud the initiative which is going to install a nuclear diagnostic system at the Princess Margaret Hospital. I applaud the initiative which is going to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to the protection of children under five years of age or 50 pounds as they travel in automobiles in this province.

There are good things, and I have named most of them in that short list. I must say to the member for York North and others that the GO service to Stouffville and Agincourt is, I believe, a good thing, although as one of my friends commented, and I thought it was an interesting reflection on this throne speech, it is pretty interesting when the highlight of the Ontario speech from the throne is a sort of bus route through north Toronto into central Ontario. In effect, that criticism speaks not to the shared enthusiasm for those initiatives but to what was not there in other respects.

Basically, it was a speech that was vague, imprecise, negative, despairing and despondent. It was such a contrast to the throne speech in 1980, which went on for so many pages, singing a veritable paean to the optimistic view and the provincial capacity of this administration, talking about X number of dollars, to take one case, for the employer-sponsored training program; that was not a vague, imprecise promise but a specific $5 million.

It was a great speech on energy security and what specific initiatives were going to be taken. I know the member for Renfrew South applauded as we all did the stated commitment in here, not only to eastern Ontario but also to the great constituency of Prescott-Russell, to the provision of a French-language agricultural college. It was not a vague promise; it was a specific commitment.

There are some great lines on page 28 of the document about freedom of information and opening up the government without delay to the fresh winds of public scrutiny.

It was a positive and upbeat kind of document, which I suppose was notable for the significant lack of what is generally known around here as fed-bashing. To be sure, one paragraph lamented the federal high interest rate policy, but that was it. One can find one paragraph in this document of 32 pages in 1980 which is negative fed-bashing and the rest is so uppy, so positive as to contrast remarkably with this vague, imprecise, negative, despairing, despondent throne speech, saying in effect, "Let us throw up our hands; it is all somebody else's fault and responsibility."

When I look at and think about this March 9 throne speech, which in many ways has a negative and, dare I say, bitchy quality, I have to think about last March's election campaign. I thought specifically of how, when he came with his great entourage to the Ottawa Valley for his once-every-four-years visit, the Premier stood in Pembroke and said: "Well, I note the Liberals in this campaign have nothing positive to say. They are so negative. Dr. Negative is going around the province with nothing to say of a positive kind."

Well, how does the Premier's contribution in this throne speech debate square with the promise to the good people of Pembroke, Cobden and Renfrew that marvellous, sunny February Friday afternoon in the middle of a provincial election campaign?

Mr. Roy: What hypocrites.

Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Ottawa East talks of hypocrisy and there is no other, no better, no more appropriate word.

I got to reading the old clippings about the Premier's visit to my riding.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Boudria: He never came to mine.

Mr. Conway: Count yourself among the blessed. If you were spared an intervention from the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) in that campaign, I must say you were even more blessed than those who were not.

When I reviewed the clippings about the Premier's visit to my riding that day, I came across something that was of some interest to me. I noted that when he was in our part of the province -- and my friend the member for Renfrew South will well recall this -- the Premier made an announcement that February afternoon that the Ontario government committed itself to a major park on the Madawaska River, a whitewater park, the first of its kind in southern Ontario. That was the promise made by the leader of this government, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, to my people one year ago.

I found it very interesting that on the first anniversary of the Premier's announcement there came to my office in Pembroke, from the local Ministry of Natural Resources, a two-paragraph statement that said the master planning program for the newly designated Madawaska River Provincial Park was being temporarily delayed because of shifts in priority of ministry work programs and fiscal constraints which have resulted in the postponement of park master planning across the province.

Granted, that is one small local example; but I have to say to my friend the Premier that those people who gathered to hear him 14 months ago took that promise, and it was presumably made in good faith. What does this announcement, dated February 1982, say about the worth of the word of the Premier of Ontario, and what does it say about the value of the promises made? That is a question which I put to my friend the Premier, and undoubtedly he will want not so much to answer me but to answer the people of the Ottawa Valley who are wondering about the worth of the promise made them.

Those of us who are here know more fully what it is to expect something from the Tory election promises. In 1977, I remember the famous two trees planted for every one cut, I know my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) remembers it perhaps more keenly than others, because one night some years later, when the Crown Timber Act was before this assembly, it was the very alert member for Sudbury East who stood in his place and moved an amendment on the floor of the assembly to entrench and incorporate that great stellar promise of the Brampton charter made in the course of the 1977 election campaign.

I cannot, using the colourful language at my disposal, convey to any member of this House who was not present that night the utter angst, the apoplexy of the then member for Leeds, the Minister of Natural Resources, who teetered on the edge of cardiac arrest at the idea that somebody would seek to legislate that promise.

I will let the member for Sudbury East talk in his turn at greater length about the kind of cynical disposition of that promise, because there was one thing that was only too clear: they had no bloody intention then or ever of incorporating that promise. That speaks eloquently to this government and this party's view of the political process.

In the speech from the throne and many other times in the last four or five years, the government made a commitment regarding freedom of information. We now are treated to the pathetic spectacle of the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling), the Provincial Secretary for Justice, trembling in his place, wondering what the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) are going to think of him and paddling like one cannot imagine to get out of a commitment that the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) spoke so heroically of but 18 months earlier -- and all of this after we spent $3 million in trying to give effect to that particular promise.

I was reminded of something last night -- and I am sure my friend the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), if he watched last night's news, would have been reminded of it too, which would have been the experience of anyone who watched last night -- when the New Democratic member for Burnaby, Svend Robinson, was on his feet in the House of Commons yesterday talking about the fate of Messrs. Cooper and McNamara with respect to their dredging trial.

It was more than five years ago that no less a person than the leader of the administration, the Premier, stood here and said, "Oh, be assured, member for Riverdale, be assured, Leader of the Opposition, be assured, anyone who seeks assurance, that once the cases are disposed of in the courts, I will make available the private internal investigation of retired Justice Campbell Grant."

Last night, five or six years after that all began, we were treated to the spectacle of the defendants leaving prison. The trial has long since evaporated into the legal history of this province, and what of the Premier's promise? I hope when he comes here today he will bring the member for Riverdale and me up to date on whether and when, on this side of the millennium or the other, he intends to give effect to a promise made in this assembly some five years ago.

My leader, in his very eloquent address some three weeks ago, reminded us of what the realities of March-April 1982 are as compared to the realities of March 19, 1981. I want to give credit to a number of members in this respect, but I certainly want to begin where one ought to begin in this place, with the very sensible intervention and commentary of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson).

I am quoting from my leader's remarks of March 16, 1982. He was talking about the realities of the late winter and spring of 1982. He reminded us that "the Ontario Economic Council predicts that if present trends continue we will lose 44,000 permanent manufacturing jobs by the year 1990."

He reminded us that, "according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, 80,000 small businesses in this province are at risk today."

He reminded us that "the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) suggests that about 6,500 farmers are in serious financial difficulty."

He reminded us that "up to 10,000 families in this province are in danger of losing their homes" because of mortgage renewals in the current situation.

He reminded us that there are nearly 380,000 people unemployed in this province -- people such as Joe McCullough, whose tragic personal circumstances were so eloquently spoken to by my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh).

The member challenged the Premier not very long ago in this House to tell him what to tell Joe McCullough in Whitby, who spent 25 years working for Firestone and who has now been thrown on the endless unemployment heap.

What does the promise of 1981 mean to Joe McCullough and the 380,000 other unemployed Ontarians? It means one heck of a lot. It is a very different reality from that which faced, for example, Omer Déslauriers, who too found himself involved in the great deliberations of a year ago and who well understands what the government meant by keeping the promise, because now he is ensconced in western Europe in great splendour and very happy about it, undoubtedly chosen because of his unique skills.

My defeated Tory opponent understood what it was to keep the promise. Indeed he does, sitting, as he now is, on the board of the Eastern Ontario Development Corp.

Jim Auld, a good member and friend that he was, understood what it was to keep the promise, happily ensconced as he now is in his recent appointment to the St. Lawrence Parks Commission, though I understand that keeping the promise in terms of employment opportunities for the former member for Leeds is soon about to take on a much more creative, a much more remunerative reality.

I know Joe McCullough in Oshawa is greatly impressed at the kind of treatment that has been accorded to various people in the Ontario economy, and I certainly want to applaud the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Oshawa, both of whom in their presentations brought these facts and figures to light.

Certainly it will be greatly appreciated by the young people of Ontario, in Unionville, in Mississauga and in Niagara-on-the-Lake. They will love to know that the Experience '82 program offers them a net 1,200 fewer jobs than were offered a year ago. They will be very happy.

4:30 p.m.

The young people of Ontario will be endlessly pleased to know that of the jobs the Ministry of Natural Resources has to offer there is this special category of 500, thank you very much, that will be meted out on the basis of political referral, which undoubtedly will help explain, as I said to some of my friends yesterday, why between May and October there are more Tories than deer in Algonquin Park. Those kinds of realities and those kinds of commitments about "keep the promise" have been shown to take on very diverse realities, depending on what one's affiliation is.

Since so many other members have talked about it, I want to talk briefly about the hallmark of this lovely document that the poor Lieutenant Governor was force-fed and forced to read here about five weeks ago. I cannot recall in my time a speech from the throne that had as much anti-Ottawa bias, so much fed-bashing, as is contained in this lovely little exercise in throne speech debating.

Do the members know what I found so interesting? Eviscerating, hounding and laying waste the federal government as this throne speech did, there is tucked away in the early part a little pious prayer, on behalf of the government of Ontario no less, that it is so sorry co-operative federalism is dying. I have seen a great amount of paradox and hypocrisy in my day, but whoever the poor minion was who had to write those 10 pages of anti-Ottawa tripe, at the end of it all it says: "Is it not awful? We now lament the passing of co-operative federalism."

All this throne speech proves is what any observer of Ontario politics for the past number of years would well know, that Ontario Toryism has no permanent allies or enemies, only the permanent interest of perpetual political power. I hope this throne speech sets the record very and endlessly straight on that.

I know the members opposite will have read a book they helped publish, by the distinguished Ontario academic, Dr. Christopher Armstrong of York University, entitled The Politics of Federalism: Ontario's Relations with the Government of Canada, 1867-1942. I want to tell the poor soul who authored this high-planed, cooperative federalism document that the Lieutenant Governor read on March 9 that he was not really following too much of the best of George Howard Ferguson and, I must say quite frankly, the best of Mitchell Hepburn, but that anti-Ottawa diatribe was really nothing new.

What is remarkable is the sharp turn in the relationship with the Ottawa government. I want to say we understand a little more now about that change, about this remarkable volte-face spoken of in this throne speech, because my uncharitable, bedroom friends always talk about the cosy relationship behind closed doors between Ontario Conservatism and federal Liberalism on a number of important matters.

Poor Joe Clark is still at the Red Cross blood donor clinic in Ottawa trying to pry loose from his emaciated being the many daggers of his Brutus-like friends in this lovely centre of Toryism, but that is another issue.

We got a good, inside look at how this government really operates in respect to its relationships. I know the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) and others will have read this intriguing article in the weekend edition of the national newspaper entitled "Tracking the Voters Right to the Polls" by Rosemary Speirs, dealing with the incomparable Allan Gregg. Tattoos and earrings at the Albany Club? What else can I say but "incomparable"? I hope those members opposite, and that includes the 90 per cent in the cabinet who did not know anything about Suncor, read this to find out what their political bosses really think they are worth. It is an extraordinary article, which if they read it, ought to make their blood boil and their spines tingle.

I know you, Mr. Speaker, setting aside your great business responsibilities 15 months ago to let your name stand in the purest and the best of parliamentary tradition, will be rendered nauseous when you find out what the pollster that charts the every course of this government says. I quote from the article and from Allan Gregg in it -- this master planner, this Richard Werthlin of the north. You will be very happy to know what he thinks of you.

"'A lot of people find what I do frightening,' he concedes. 'I don't. A businessman starts with the philosophy that a dollar spent wisely is better than a dollar spent poorly. In the same way, votes are worth different amounts. So you identify the votes that can be swung and you allocate your resources there.'" It is a pretty obvious statement about what modern politics means to the Conservative, the small lemminglike core in the Conservative dynasty over there.

It gets better. The newly appointed associate secretary in the Ontario cabinet, Mr. Hugh Segal, puts you in even better light, Mr. Speaker. He says: "A year before the March election, Mr. Gregg's firm had begun tracking 25 ridings that Tory strategists identified as bellwether ridings for the election. Mr. Gregg was able to tell them what kind of candidates to run in each riding -- in general, strong local candidates, not identified with big-C conservatives, who could appeal to the moderate middle vote as well." This is Hugh Segal speaking about Gregg: "He helped us to understand that these days you can't just run good old Bob because he has been on the local Conservative executive for years and come up with a winner." That is the end of Mr. Segal's quote.

I hope that all the good old Bobs over there know what the power centre of modern Ontario Progressive Conservatism thinks of them. Who on this side of the House could not privately, if not publicly, bleed yet again and more profusely than ever before for the disconsolate former Minister of Energy, for the very unhappy former Minister of Community and Social Services, the now just plain old Bob, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor), who talked about what it was like to get mugged in the corridors of power by these kinds of people?

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to destabilize your stomach unduly by just reading the new insight this article provides on the Carleton by-election strategy. Tough partisan that I can sometimes be, I would not want in this august assembly so soon after a nice lunch to try to read of what that speaks because it is unspeakable as far as I am concerned.

I will say that the article in the Saturday Globe and Mail certainly speaks of a new democracy in this great loyalist land, among these, the first and the last of the Queen's loyal subjects. We certainly understand that these new democrats certainly march to a very -- sorry, my friends; I will rephrase that -- it is a new democracy derived not from Edmund Burke and not from Churchill, but from Ronald Reagan, Richard Werthlin and Pat Caddell.

Oh, what a lovely tribute this all is to the lovely loyalism that is so dear to the palpitating heart of the Deputy Premier and all others who gather around the Queen and the flag and preach that, faithful in the beginning, so let us remain -- poor souls, thinking "faithful to the British parliamentary tradition"; as I said earlier, we understand that Ontario Conservatism has no permanent allies and no permanent enemies, only a permanent interest in its own power.

Mr. Breithaupt: They do not know much about parliamentary tradition; that's for sure.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Conway: My time is slipping away. I am glad that the charming, avuncular Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) is here. I would enjoin him stealthily to make his way to the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) so that they can decide which of them speaks for the government on metrics. The minister said some things about the member which would bother the most independent, nonpartisan soul here present. What the member does about that is, of course, his own affair.

In some of the time remaining I want to apply my remarks to a subject that was brought up by the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) and very well, I thought, namely, the whole issue of the public service in this democracy. We are aware of the Neil Fraser case, the discharge by the federal government of one of its employees who made some public comments which the government of Canada felt were inappropriate and unacceptable. A lot of coverage has been accorded to that.

I listened to the member for Lake Nipigon some days ago when he referred to this assembly the case of Donald MacAlpine, a young forester in the Nipigon area, whose situation should be of concern to this assembly. But I do not want to have to wait for a committee of this House in order to dissect the issues involved. There are those in the press gallery and their editors downtown who find nothing of interest to report from here. I invite them, starting with the Toronto Globe and Mail, to dip into the case of Mr. Donald MacAlpine and his ethics and integrity and to look at what the Ontario government asked that idealistic young civil servant to do.

I know my fair-minded friend the member for York East (Mr. Elgie) will be appalled to read of the impossible situation in which the young forester was put. He was asked -- in effect, to "keep the promise" for a few of this government's big lumbering friends in northwestern Ontario -- to do something which that young, idealistic and certainly naive forester considered in the ethics of his profession was most unprofessional.

The member for Lake Nipigon has already amply covered the guidelines introduced not long ago by the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) and intended to encourage public servants to communicate with members of the assembly, so I will not dwell on this. Yet this young forester found himself fired for following, as he believed, the directions of this government. It is a very interesting study in ethics.

Mr. McAlpine's case is of real interest to me because I am, I am prepared to admit, someone who believes very much in the British tradition of an independent, professional, neutral and nonpolitical public service. I know the member for York East will want to associate himself with those remarks. Here is poor McAlpine, hoist because his sense of honour and duty compelled him to believe that something needed to be done and that he could believe the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) who in October 1980 encouraged openness.

Then I thought of the two recent political conventions in Ontario and became angry. I remembered watching the coronation of the New Democratic Messiah, and what a marvellous and delightful coronation it was by a party which has for 40 years eschewed the messianic politics which, as the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) would quickly point out, in the estimation of all the Socialist academics in the province have bedevilled and held back this great liberal reform party.

I found interesting in the spring of 1982 which party it was that was completely given over to the search for and the triumphal coronation of the new Messiah who would lead it out of that distasteful --

Interjections.

Mr. Conway: I just want to say I view with great interest that it was that party which was interested in a new Messiah.

More important, I sat at home and watched one of the most unpalatable, distasteful demonstrations I have ever seen. What was that? I was watching the newly appointed associate secretary for the Ontario cabinet with special responsibilities for federal-provincial relations -- Mr. Hugh Segal for anyone over there who does not know whom I am talking about. He carried on in a more rankly partisan and political way than any politician I saw at either convention. Poor old Doug Fisher on our broadcast had to keep bringing a big wet blanket, trying to settle down the partisan instincts of one of the most well-paid, senior public servants in this province. I have to wonder what Donald MacAlpine thought, sitting in Nipigon, when he watched that spectacle -- a spectacle which, in my view, was despicable if not dishonourable.

Interjection.

Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I was told I had until five o'clock.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: The next speaker is the Premier (Mr. Davis). He is not here and he has not been here all afternoon. Maybe he will scuttle in after he is informed he is about to go on; I do not know. My honourable colleague was instructed by the table that he could speak until five o'clock. That is what he is planning to do, and I hope you are not going to interfere with that unduly.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): It was indicated to me that 46 minutes were allotted to each party and there were 13 minutes remaining for the third party to use.

Mr. Conway: On a point of order: I have a note from the table, "Your speaker," the Liberal speaker, "over at 5 p.m.," and I have tailored my remarks accordingly.

The Acting Speaker: I do not want to interfere, but is there any dispute on the 13 minutes?

Mr. Breaugh: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker: I always thought that parliamentary tradition indicated the chair was not a party to any arrangements about time-sharing. It would be my understanding that the honourable member has the floor and will continue to have the floor until he has finished speaking and the chair has no right to tell him that there is a time limit. There is nothing in the standing orders and nothing in our traditions that provides for that.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to recite chapter and verse of the comments recently made by the pristine, the ultimate in public service in this province, Mr. Hugh Segal, newly appointed associate secretary of the Ontario cabinet. Suffice it to say that it renders the policy of this government with respect to the political participation of public servants a laughable nullity when somebody like Hugh Segal holds nothing but a political hat, but does not have the guts to get out from behind those oak-panelled doors to let his name stand and come into this place and take a position as a politician. As long as he is ensconced in that cabinet office he is, in my view, a public servant and I am not about to see one policy for Donald MacAlpine and another policy for Hugh Segal.

What he had to say about the leader of the New Democratic Party, and the kind of advice that he has offered the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), is incredible. In one Globe and Mail editorial I noted it was even observed that no less a personage than the Premier had to tone down the remarks. I say to the Premier that if he believes the Donald MacAlpines and the public servants of this province are supposed to follow the dictates of the Ontario Public Service Act and the Ontario manual of administration, he had bloody well better start with the Ed Stewarts and the Hugh Segals.

Maybe somebody in the government would comment about something that appeared in the Globe and Mail the other day just before the Newfoundland election when a John Laschinger, who on that day, so far as I know, was an acting deputy minister of this government, was quoted. It may not be the same John Laschinger and, if I am wrong, I will completely withdraw and apologize.

Mr. Nixon: It is a very common name.

Mr. Conway: If the John Laschinger who is quoted in that article is the John Laschinger who is currently an assistant deputy minister in this government, then it adds yet more evidence of the disgraceful travesty that is at work in the government. In my view and that of anybody who watched that unbelievable spectacle last February when it trotted out the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development panoply, it gives one a clear understanding of how a public service could be perverted, if not corrupted, by 40 years of one-party government.

4:50 p.m.

I know that my friend the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis) in his defence of two "of the finest public servants I have ever known" will want to set the record straight on just how this policy in the public service defines itself. Perhaps the loyal subject of Her Majesty the Queen, the great monarchist from Brampton, will want to comment on the article that appeared in the November/December issue of Policy Options in which the associate secretary of the cabinet sets out a very American-style congressional view of the relationship between senior public servants and the administration. Was Mr. Hugh Segal, in writing in that document at that time, speaking for the government? If so, undoubtedly the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague) or the Premier will want to stand and tell us how this new policy has evolved and how one policy might affect Mr. Hugh Segal and another policy might affect Mr. Donald MacAlpine.

I will not bore anybody with poor old Richard Gilbert, the alderman for the city of Toronto, who actually last year tried to hold the Civil Service Commission to some kind of accounting for the disgraceful conduct, the abuse of the public service, at that time by the Premier's deputy minister appearing in government ads. I always remember Peter Raymont's excellent film. What Ed Stewart allowed himself to be quoted as saying and doing in that film is absolutely extraordinary. I do not, for a moment, imagine that people working so closely with the leadership of the government are not drawn into that kind of enthusiastic relationship.

I do not doubt for a moment that when Michael Pitfield and Michael Kirby go to the polls they do certain things. But can members imagine the outrage and the furore if Michael Pitfield appeared before a national television audience offering political comments about the racist tendencies of one of the members of Parliament? Can members imagine how that would be viewed? Can they imagine if Michael Kirby did the same on national television as spokesman for the Tory Party or the Liberal Party? It really speaks to a rot within this dynasty that will be rooted out only when the dialectic of democracy begins to work in this place and those rascals are run out of office.

With just six minutes left and a lot more to say, I will have to restrict myself to the last issue on my agenda. I want to say, because I am not going to have an opportunity to do so, I thought the best speech in this throne speech debate was the contribution made by the government House leader. He was eloquent, he was feeling, he was sensitive and he was understanding of the great issues that face this province in a new Canada. I want to say to my friends in the government party, I hope the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) speaks for the best of Ontario Progressive Conservatism when he makes that kind of commitment.

I hope I never ever again have to put the minister's eloquent speech in the same context as the trash I read in the Saturday Globe and Mail about how Hugh Segal and Allan Gregg plotted to make the Tories stand in Carleton. I want to believe the minister is speaking for the best of a great tradition and for the best of a great province when he makes the kinds of statements and the kinds of pledges he made in his place a week ago. I want to congratulate him because I was not here when he made the speech. I read it and I applaud him for doing it. It took courage and it was obviously something in which he had invested a lot of himself.

When I was looking at how Hugh Segal, Allan Gregg and Norm Atkins plotted to win the day in Carleton -- reading that on the one hand and reading that speech by the government House leader on the other -- I sat there and I was in some ways stupefied. I was thinking about the great challenge because I was reading that moments after the proclamation of the new Constitution. I was thinking of something Lloyd George once said when he was talking about why he tried to take privately, if not publicly and publicly in many ways, a conciliatory approach to the defeated European powers after the First World War. If my memory serves me correctly, Lloyd George said that his conciliation grew out of what he believed to be the greatness of Britain and the greatness of the Allies. He said that fundamental to their greatness was the generosity which underlies any greatness.

In the speech of the government House leader I found the generosity of greatness. In the comments of that article and in the practice of this government in the national capital 15 or 18 months ago in that by-election, I found an utter abject want of either generosity or greatness. I wanted to take the opportunity today to congratulate the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells) for his very high-planed remarks.

As I sit and take my place, I want to say to my friends opposite that though they in the Tory party may be worn out by their dynastic stay in power, we in this party have been revived with a great leadership convention. We have renewed vigour. We have not only a new leader, we have a new leader in his place in this House and we are not making the surreptitious entreaties of people on the second, third or front bench, "Will you please stand down to let the Messiah through and in?" We have a new leader in his place who is going to lead this party in the spirit of reform from which this party developed.

When I look at the government's throne speech, I see a tired, bankrupt, "we don't know what to do" government. We see a government and we see a Premier succumbing to the politics of anaesthesia. I hope the Premier read Professor Nelles's lovely article in Saturday Night a couple of months ago about what incredible practitioners the Tories are in this respect of the politics of anaesthesia.

There was a lovely little quote there from Nelles. He talks about whether or not Bill Davis is a "huckstering circus barker." He says not really; Bill Davis is not a huckstering circus barker; he is a kind of a circus barker in reverse. He means that the Premier says at the outside of the tent, and he says it softly, "There's nothing going on in there that would interest you."

I have to commend the leader of this administration because for six years of minority government he zapped this place with more tranquillizers and he zapped more obstreperous issues and obstreperous back-benchers. I hear that the new member for Humber (Mr. Kells) scarcely voices a syllable in the sacred precincts.

I want to tell my Tory friends that we in this Liberal Party intend to discharge our sacred duty in the opposition, to hold this government accountable for the outrageous conduct it has engaged in, conduct that is embarrassing members all the way from Hespeler to Brockville. We certainly intend to do everything in our power to ensure that three years hence, Hugh Segal, Ed Stewart, Allan Gregg -- Pat Caddell and Ronald Reagan notwithstanding -- the rascals over there will be thrown out in the interests of a better, more positive Ontario democracy.

5 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is with some regret that I look over to my left and I see, with one exception, that the NDP members have absented themselves from the House. I want to say that I understand their frustration.

I want to point out that during the speech of the spokesman for the NDP there were no government members in the House. It was only when provoked that the Premier (Mr. Davis) walked in to hear the last 15 minutes of the remarks of the person winding up for this party. The government members do not take this House seriously, as indicated by their presence today during the speech. They all walk in here in here like a bunch of trained seals to clap appropriately for the great dispenser of goods.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, you must exercise some of your responsibilities in the private chats you have with the Premier to make sure that the House you preside over is taken far more seriously than it is by the government.

Mr. Speaker: Now, may I hear your point of order? Did you have a point of order? Was there a point of order?

Mr. Nixon: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker: I draw your attention to every member of the NDP being absent as a matter of protest. Surely it is better for us to use our voices to protest to you, sir, about the functioning of this chamber which is being brought into disrepute by the Premier and his colleagues in the government.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order. I would like to take --

Mr. Nixon: Doesn't somebody pay you?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to take about 10 seconds and assure all honourable members that I do not have private conversations with anybody. I want to make that very clear, and I want to make it understood; and I do not want to hear that kind of allegation towards me again.

Mr. J. P. Reid: Maybe you should have.

Mr. Speaker: You are obviously not listening.

Mr. Roy: We are listening. You are paranoid.

Mr. Speaker: No, I am not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, just to deal very briefly with the observations made by the House leader of the Liberal Party, I personally regret that I did not hear in the House all of the observations of the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), but I want --

Mr. Nixon: The debate has been scheduled for two weeks.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, parts of it have and there was some doubt about it even then. I would say that I did hear some of it elsewhere. I would also point out to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) that it has always been my understanding that question period was a very important time to the members opposite, and even though I was to wind up the throne debate today I was here for the total question period, unlike the member for Renfrew North. I am not being critical.

Mr. Nixon: So far you are third rate.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I just thought I would make the point that I was here. I would also point out --

Mr. Conway: You're better than that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on. He feels a little guilty, that is his problem. I have to tell the member for Renfrew North, if he wants to get a little bit partisan I am quite able to do so.

Mr. Roy: That is something you know about. Nothing is sacred.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, there is no question about that, and that is why they are over there and we are over here. It is because we know how to do it.

I listened to the observations of the member for Renfrew North, which I found stimulating, and I say that very kindly, after several months of hiatus. He adds a dimension to this House although I do not always agree with him. Some days I find his remarks have more style than substance. None the less I enjoy listening to him.

Mr. Riddell: You have neither.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have always been modest about my own abilities and I shall remain modest. Some will say I have a lot to be modest about. I have never apologized for that. I look back over what is now close to 11 years and will retain that modesty because I think it is appropriate. That is something the former leader of the member's party did not quite understand and that the present leader has yet to understand.

Although the member for Renfrew North takes a somewhat statesman-like approach to this debate, he concludes by attacking a couple of individuals who cannot rise in this House to answer for themselves.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The only violin the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) plays is a small one. We welcome him here every Tuesday and Thursday. It is wonderful to have him present. But I say to the member for Renfrew North, I do not think his attacks upon those two particular individuals add to his stature or contribution.

To the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) I say that I have been involved in government slightly longer than he has. I know the principles and policies that apply. I would not refer to this if the member had not raised it, but in that I have great respect and affection for my deputy minister, I want to say he discharges his responsibilities with talent and integrity.

As to Mr. Segal, with whom the member for Renfrew North loves to chat in the hallways but attacks here in the House, I know of the conversations the member has had over the years with Mr. Segal.

Mr. Conway: There have not been any in two years. I found out what a viper he could be.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I could tell of some things that go back a little way but I am not that kind of person. But certainly Mr. Segal has a partisan interest. Certainly he is a Progressive Conservative. He has never apologized for it.

Mr. Conway: He is a public servant.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, he is a public servant and a very able one.

The member talks about those on our benches who may have ambitions to assume the leadership of this party and the premiership of this province. When we have our convention -- and we will, although it will not be soon -- we will have several extremely able candidates offering themselves. I am not critical of those who offer themselves in that party but I must say after listening to the member today, I got the impression that the campaign for the Liberal leadership convention in 1986 had begun and that he is now a candidate.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not interrupt you. I know I struck a chord. I know I have uttered a truth.

Mr. Nixon: Of course you didn't interrupt him. You were not here.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Who knows, I may not be here then but I am sure it will be a great campaign in 1986. Who else among you will be there?

Mr. Conway: I will take defeat with honour and integrity rather than a --

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is nonsense and you know it. Your great problem is you cannot take a defeat. You do not like being beaten. You can't take it.

Mr. Conway: You have a rank Tory in the senior public service and that is the issue.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure this is very entertaining, but it is not very constructive. I am sure the people who are sitting in the public galleries are not being overly impressed.

Mr. Conway: The Premier has sold out the public service to partisanship.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on. You are not that naive. I'll give you some personal advice. I think you have some talent; I do not know --

Mr. Conway: You had better find out.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I didn't interrupt the member for Renfrew North --

Mr. Nixon: You weren't here. You were smoking your pipe down at the other end of the hall.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I wasn't.

Mr. Nixon: Well, I'm glad you've got some good habits.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now, having said that, the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I was just trying to tidy up one other little loose end, because the member raised it. He very appropriately referred to Mr. Laschinger, who in fact is the acting deputy minister. He made some reference to him and told some story -- I do not recall the exact wording of it. But I say to the member, if he is concerned, Mr. Laschinger was not involved in the Newfoundland election. I just want to make it abundantly clear. I know he will sleep better tonight as a result of that, but that is my information and I happen to believe it is correct.

As one looks at the results of the Newfoundland election and the near destruction of the Liberal Party, one has to get the impression that, no matter who had offered advice, that was going to happen in any event. I think the member knows that.

Mr. Conway: The issue is your prostitution of the Ontario public service to your partisan end. That's the issue.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on. Don't belittle those men. Don't do that.

Mr. Conway: You are perverting the senior public service to your end; that's the issue.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come one. That's utter nonsense.

Mr. Conway: You are perverting --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask for the co-operation of the member for Renfrew North.

Mr. Conway: You have it.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Sweeney: The Premier was being provocative.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the candidate from Kitchener-Wilmot suggests that I was being provocative. You know, sir, that I am never provocative. I can be provoked, but I am never provocative.

Mr. Nixon: Bring out the platitudes one more time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I only say to the member for Haldimand-Norfolk and wherever that if one talks about platitudes there is no one in this House who does it more effectively than he does. I say that with some genuine measure of respect.

Mr. Nixon: Bring in the Argos next. Or the Lord's prayer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would feel badly if the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Oxford-Brant and wherever did not share my views on the Lord's prayer. Knowing his background and his traditions, I doubt very much that he would go home to --

Mr. Nixon: What do they say about Pharisees praying in public?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will make a prediction. He will not go home to St. George and say anything different with respect to the Lord's prayer.

Mr. Nixon: You know about Pharisees.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know about the member, and I know him well. I know his traditions. I know he too supports the Lord's prayer -- he may not want to admit it here in the House, but I know better -- and what's more, so does his wife. I will not deal with the wife of the Leader of the Opposition today; he does not want me to do that, because it upsets him.

There is one other matter I would like to refer to. I thought the member for Renfrew North was not only accurate but also constructive in his observations about the excellent contribution made by the government House leader. I have to say to him that his assessment as to the content of it was totally accurate. Not only do I share what he said, but also I hope other members of his caucus share what he said about that contribution.

Mr. Bradley: Did you say that in Carleton?

Hon. Mr. Davis: You can see what I said in Carleton any time you want.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not write pamphlets --

Mr. Roy: Oh, no.

Mr. Wrye: You didn't do it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That's fine. I say to the member for St. Catharines that he interprets things the way he wants to interpret them; if he wants to carry those wounds, he can be my guest.

I will come back to some of the leadership things. I will not embarrass the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), but I will give him some advice. If he had asked me at the outset, the greatest single mistake he made was selecting the campaign manager that he did. Without any question whatsoever, that was his fundamental error. I say that with some regret.

Mr. Conway: What did Darcy McKeough say? No class.

Mr. Nixon: He was right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, endeavouring to --

Mr. Riddell: Can we expect any substance, or are you wasting our time?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I intend to get to some substance if you do not interrupt us too often.

Mr. Roy: Stick to fed-bashing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am going to deal with the government of Canada for a few moments, I warn you right now.

Mr. Bradley: Where did you spend the weekend?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am again being provoked by the member accusing me of being in bed with the feds all weekend. I have to tell the members I was there Friday night with 2,500 people. It was a great event; I was delighted to be part of it. But I could have been at a hotel in downtown Toronto and I would have felt I was at a Liberal fund-raising dinner. Do not speak to me about patronage and Tories and all the rest of it; I am sure every poll captain from Renfrew North was in attendance; every Liberal poll captain, that is.

Mr. Conway: Did they have the cardinal?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The cardinal was there Saturday night and it was a great thing that he was there Saturday night.

Moving on to issues of substance, because talking about the leadership across the House is not talking about substance --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do you want me to go into some of the quotes, chapter and verse? I would be delighted. I shan't.

I want to deal very briefly with the events of the past weekend, not in terms of the symbolism but in terms of the change that we will be seeing taking place in this country. I confess that for me, and I am sure for all of us, it was a very emotional moment at about 11:37 -- in spite of the weather -- when the proclamation making this country independent was proclaimed by the Queen of Canada.

As I sat there, without umbrella, I could not help but think of the process that had brought us to that point; the discussions that we were having just about a year ago now in this Legislature; the divisions that existed across this country with respect to the old litany of the Group of Eight, the Group of Two, the Prime Minister, the Group of Three, depending on the feelings of members opposite on any given day.

I said to myself that the event of Saturday morning said something about this country.

While these differences were there, and while I believe the other premiers believed many of the things they were saying during that period of time, when it came to the ultimate crunch we were able to find an accommodation, a compromise, whatever terminology one may wish to use, that led to the accord reached on that Thursday morning and, as a result, the proclamation on Saturday last.

There was a certain sadness because I am sure all of us there were disappointed. I guess we were concerned about the absence of one of our sister governments. I do not think anyone in this government minimizes the concern all of us feel. At the same time, to have made a decision that it should be delayed or not take place because the government of Quebec would not participate, I think would have been a fundamental mistake.

I guess it is fair to state that while that sadness was there, that disappointment, none the less it was more than offset by the genuine response of the people there. These were not all monarchists. These were not all people from Ontario or from the nation's capital. They were people from Quebec, from many parts of the country. They stood there, excited; they gave a tremendous welcome to Her Majesty, something I think says another thing about our country and about our new Constitution.

I know other members across the House shared the perspective we brought to bear two and a half years ago when there appeared to be some modest doubt as to the continuation in the same form of the role of the monarchy or the crown or the role of the Queen in our government.

5:20 p.m.

There was no doubt in my mind as I watched that gathering and saw the response that one of the unifying factors, one of the things that gave that ceremony Saturday morning greater substance and meaning for me, was the participation of Her Majesty the Queen. I would like to take this occasion to put on the public record how much I, as the first minister of this province, appreciated her participation, her understanding, knowing full well that, very normally, her heart and mind were perhaps in other places.

It demonstrated to me once again not only the necessity of the tradition that is part of our way of life, but the very personal way in which Her Majesty discharges her obligations as Queen of this country. I wish to express in this House our great affection and respect for her.

I would also like to make it clear that while Saturday in my view was a great day for this country, history will assess it. I am not sure what historians will say. I do not propose to attempt to add to the documentation of that period, but I think I should remind all members that while that particular proclamation accomplished the basic objectives of patriation -- our right to amend the Constitution and a Charter of Rights -- there is still work ahead, not only in terms of our Constitution but in terms of making the spirit of our new Constitution work across this country.

I do not mean to provoke the members opposite. I really say from my heart that I am concerned that after the November meeting, after the accord that was achieved, I somehow have sensed in federal-provincial relations that the spirit of enthusiasm and co-operation is tending to diminish, and that the groundwork is perhaps being laid to revert to situations which can lead to rhetoric and debates between the levels of government and perhaps even in relation to parts of this country.

I think our task as politicians is to try to seek ways and means to bring the people of this country together. I recognize that as provincial premiers we cannot avoid or abdicate our responsibilities of putting provincial positions, but increasingly we must make a genuine effort to feel and sense that as Canadians we are all part of this nation, and that as Canadians we are being treated with equity in terms of the various regions or provinces of this nation.

This leads me to a brief discussion of the economy. It would be easy for me on this occasion to attack with some vigour, and I think with reason, some aspects of federal government policy. However, I will not deal with that in great detail on this occasion except to touch upon it in a general sense.

I went to the last first ministers' meeting. I went there perhaps with a little of the euphoria of last November, perhaps with the anticipation that the heat of the constitutional debate had dissipated and that we would see that same sense carried forward into the federal-provincial deliberations on the economy. But that was not the sense of that meeting.

Ontario had some specific proposals. I am not going to take any great pride in authorship, I am not going to say they represented solutions to many of the issues that confront us; but I do say, and this has been supported by many members of the business community, they did represent at least a step or some ideas that were worthy of consideration and pursuit.

At that conference I ran into the mentality that used to exist prior to the final constitutional discussions: the government of Canada really predetermining its point of view. I really got the sense the government of Canada was kind of anxious that the premiers go home after the first half-day, that it would suit its purposes if we would leave in high dudgeon and not continue on with the discussions; because, quite honestly, I sensed it did not want to come to grips with some of the constructive suggestions being made by the various provinces across this country.

Mr. Epp: That is the way you treat the municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, it is not the way we treat the municipalities, and the honourable member knows it.

I have to say that I sat there -- and I said it publicly, so it is not a question of betraying any confidences -- but when, and I must confess that I initiated part of it, I suggested that we should tackle equalization in order to make it easier for some of our sister provinces to adjust, the Prime Minister said -- and he was not hiding it -- "Yeah, we might put a little more into equalization, but we want to keep it for ourselves to do our own program in our own way." That is a paraphrase, I would say to the member for Renfrew North, but it is relatively accurate.

You see the mentality we are now beginning to deal with. There is the question of credit, the question of who gets his sign on the front lawn of a new building --

Interjections.

Mr. Sweeney: What about the Toronto streetcars with the Ontario logo on them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to tell the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, when he sees a new streetcar going by, it was the initiative of this government that provided 75 per cent of that. I made an offer to the Prime Minister of this country that if they wish to get more visibility for their involvement with the post-secondary institutions they can put a red and white sign on the front campus of the University of Toronto, they can put one at Ottawa University. I have no quarrel with this whatsoever; I would be delighted to see it.

But what I am saying to the members of this House, and to the public of Ontario, is that sort of approach, that sort of attitude, will in fact not resolve the economic problems facing this province or this country. I refer in a specific way to the auto sector. We got no real response in a public way to our concerns about the auto sector.

We read about the megaprojects. I listened to Senator Olson -- and he is a sincere man, I do not quarrel with that -- saying the federal policy seems to be that the megaprojects are going to solve our economic problems. I have news for him: the megaprojects in fact will not solve the short-term or the long-term economic problems of this province.

I have to say to him, and I have to say to all of the members who I know communicate with him daily, that the auto industry for this province, with 500,000 people directly affected, in my view is a megaproject. It is something that has to be considered by the national government as a major priority. It cannot be sloughed off by saying, "We are going to build this project or that project and we don't worry about the auto sector."

I say to the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) that he should be concerned. I would say to the members from Windsor that they should be concerned, because it is fundamental to economic wellbeing.

I know some object to the points of view I have expressed with respect to the importation of primarily Japanese automobiles.

Mr. Bradley: Who objects to that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I do not say it is the honourable member. The member should not take it so personally. He should not be so arrogant as to think I am talking about him all the time.

Mr. Bradley: Who on this side?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not talking about the people opposite. He should know I am not talking about him. He should relax. I did not say "on that side." Listen to me. I said "some object." I have to tell the members, those involved in the business object, those who happen to be dealers object, and I understand that, I am sympathetic.

Mr. Nixon: They object to paying --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member for Brant-Oxford-Haldimand-Norfolk, I look at his leader's contributions so far -- and I shall get around to those -- and one of his very insignificant contributions was trying to raise that issue with the Treasurer. I thought it was very belittling and very demeaning. It is not like him to do that.

Mr. Peterson: You don't understand the implications, that's your whole problem.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know. I understand.

Mr. Nixon: It's just like when you used to fly around with Gerry, the same attitude.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know who the honourable member flies with, and I know who his new leader flies around with; I understand it. But I have to tell him it was that sort of mentality that probably kept him from being the Premier of this province, and it is a very regrettable attitude. The member believes in him anyway.

5:30 p.m.

Dealing with the auto sector, the point that I think has to be made and clearly understood is this: no one is quarrelling with the quality of the product. No one is attempting to alter our relationships with Japan. But we are not talking about just another industry; we are talking about something that is 25 per cent of the economic base of this province. I know the argument presented by some, that we have to be competitive, and I do not quarrel with that. I know we have to compete in terms of quality.

I know people point out to me that the workers in Japan receive something less and so they will be able to produce their vehicles at a lower price. I also know this about Japan: their politicians earn less, their doctors earn less, everybody in Japan earns something less than we do here in Ontario. When some of my friends who happen to be in professions say to me, "You should have free trade, you should allow unfettered importation," I say to them, "Your patient" -- I do not say that too often these days -- "your client could be a member of the United Auto Workers who is employed at American Motors, who is facing the need to survive on the basis of the importation of these vehicles."

Mr. Conway: What about Jim Taylor's Lada?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I made my observations about that. The honourable member may not share them and, if not, then let him say so. I would be delighted to have him support that.

Mr. Conway: The contamination is in your party, not mine.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member wants me to point out for him the differences of opinion in his party, then I have to tell him I could spend the rest of my few moments just pointing out those contradictions.

Mr. Peterson: We are tired of talking about Suncor.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understand. I recall how vigorously the honourable member opposed the acquisition of Fina by Petrocan. Let us compare the figures some day. Some day the member should remind me of just what he said in those days. He did not say one word, and he knows it. I know what he said to the YPOs. I say to the member for London Centre that we share too many -- not friends, but common acquaintances. I know what he says to the YPOs and I know what he says to some others on some of these relevant issues. I get this sort of communication with some regularity.

To get back to it, we are not talking about just the survival of an industry; we are talking about a lifestyle or a way of life. I have said to the Prime Minister, and I have said to Mr. Gray and Mr. Lumley, that this country had to become -- aggressive is not the right word -- firmer in terms of its relationship with some of our trading partners. Go to western Europe, see what the quotas are in terms of Japanese imports of autos in many nations in that part of the world. Even the Americans, the great free traders, have without any question negotiated an unwritten deal that is superior to what we have. In fact, we have nothing in any way, as of April 1, not to protect but to give our industry an opportunity to survive.

I go on from that sector to mention one other small matter -- because I know the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) is not in his seat; he was not here earlier -- just to express a regret. I read these stories in the paper. I know the politics of trying to prove that the Urban Transportation Development Corp. is a failure because it is a government initiative and that, in the minds of some opposite, I have been rather directly related to it.

I guess what disappoints me -- and I think the members opposite could do themselves some small credit, because we are competing in high technology in this field, and it is a Canadian accomplishment -- is that the government in the United States has signed a letter of intent with respect to Detroit, approving that project, while all others have been set aside. We did this in competition with nations from other parts of the world, and yet the member for Wentworth North seems to take some great delight in trying to undermine the capacity of UTDC to effect the implementation of this exciting new technology.

Mr. Conway: The member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) wants to sell Ontario Hydro. You had better be careful.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member for Renfrew North that in following his leader's position on Suncor, which was different from his position on Fina and many other things, he will want to sell Hydro next. That will be his next position.

Mr. Peterson: You are on thin ground on this one, are you not?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. With great respect, I would tell the member for London Centre not to exaggerate that issue. He will be making a fundamental error, in my humble opinion.

Mr. Peterson: Don't give me that --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just be patient; time will tell.

I am quite prepared.

I want to touch briefly on a noneconomic issue, the question of our present situation with the medical profession. I want to make it quite clear that I and this government have complete confidence in the way the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) is conducting himself and representing the views of the government on this most difficult and sensitive issue. I want to make that abundantly clear.

I am not going to belabour the Leader of the Opposition but, since the member for Renfrew North talked about leadership, I have to tell him, if I can offer him some friendly advice as I did to his predecessor, he cannot get away with getting up day after day and saying, "What are you going to do about something?" if he is not prepared to take a position himself.

It is not sufficient to say to the press, "That question is unfair." I have watched him perform for several days. I do not know what he is going to do when one of his researchers puts the question before him. He will read the 23rd psalm and the question will be, "Now what are you going to do about it?" When is he going to initiate some questions on his own? When is he going to do something by himself?

Mr. Nixon: You have flunkies and speechwriters over there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on. I do not use speechwriters.

Mr. Nixon: What do you pay them for?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have a lot of material here I have not even touched.

Mr. Conway: You would not dare.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Ask my staff how frustrated they are that day after day they prepare excellent material for me and I never use it.

Mr. Conway: What about the Brampton charter? What about two trees for every one?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it was not. I have to say that shows how wrong the member is again. He just cannot keep up with things. It was the Bramalea charter. One has to draw a distinction in my community between the Bramalea charter and the Brampton charter. I will show him the difference some day.

Mr. Conway: What about two trees for every one?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Two trees for every one? Listen, by the time this administration is finished in 1995, there will be four trees for every one. He knows that; I know that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Why did you say 1995? It is 2010.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I am sorry. The Minister of Colleges and Universities is upset by my using the term 1995. I retract that. It is 2025. Is that better?

I want to refer to the throne speech itself. I know I will not succeed in convincing the members opposite to change their point of view. I have learned after 11 throne speeches --

Mr. Conway: What about poor Barlow and poor Runciman?

Hon. Mr. Davis: What about them? I will tell the member what about them; they will be voting in support. If his caucus had learned, on issue after issue --

Mr. Conway: No doubt about it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me give the member one quotation from the member for Kitchener when his leader trotted out, and I do not blame him for trotting it out, some interest solution. What did the member for Kitchener say? "It is the dumbest thing I ever heard of." That is what he said about t. I did not say it; he said it.

Mr. Conway: What did Havrot say about the Indians? Do you and Havrot have the same multiculturalism policy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does the member want to know what the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) said about it? I have that here too. Does he want to know what his --

Interjections

Mr. Speaker: The member for Renfrew North --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does he want to know what his own leader said about his own party? He says he --

Mr. Roy: What did you promise on Inco four years ago?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not question period.

Mr. Roy: He is asking the questions.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I cannot embarrass the Leader of the Opposition any further. I have some of the most quotable quotes one will ever see, even some from the member for Kitchener-Wilmot as he went through that exercise. I went through it 11 years ago myself.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Conway: Remember what Norm Atkins said about you 10 years ago? Old baggy-pants Davis. You ought to talk about anybody.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do not get so exercised. If the member for Renfrew North had wanted to be a participant, why did he not run?

Mr. Conway: Because you are the prize -- and some prizes I don't want. If you are what it takes to win, I don't want it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Renfrew North might have won. Look at what the member for Hamilton Centre did in nine months as a member of this House. She came from nowhere and she nearly made it after nine months. The member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) had been campaigning for four years.

Mr. Peterson: Is that sort of like your leadership victory?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly it is. Listen, it was 44 votes. It was wonderful.

Mr. Bradley: Where is Al Lawrence when we need him?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know where Allan is, and he is doing very well. The Liberals will never take that seat from him.

Mr. Peterson: So you hope.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I do not pay much attention to the polls, but I hope the member read the latest Gallup. They even had some provincial figures there. I have to tell the Leader of the Opposition that there is no question the leadership convention of his party altered those figures. It altered them by about one per cent; that is where they have moved since then.

Mr. Peterson: Up or down?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Now he wants to know "up or down." I do not want to spoil his evening; so I will not tell him.

Mr. Conway: You don't break wind without Allan Gregg telling you how, when and where.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You wouldn't part your hair without Martin Goldfarb.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member for Renfrew North --

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Renfrew North please come to order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will not get into what Vickers and Benson said to the new leader of the Liberal Party as to contact lenses and hairdo. Obviously I take a lot of advice on that.

Mr. Haggerty: You have four minutes, Bill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have four minutes. Are you listening to me?

Mr. Speaker, to be serious in conclusion, I know that during these debates sometimes we do not get to all the matters of substance we would like to, and I have another half dozen.

I do not minimize, nor does the government, the present economic situation that confronts the people of this province and of Canada. It would be very simple for me to say -- because it is true -- that the responsibility primarily rests with the government of Canada. It is also fair to state that there are international situations that impact upon this country over which the national government has no control. I do not minimize that for a moment.

At the same time, I will not be one of those who for whatever reason in any way diminishes the opportunity or minimizes the confidence we, as Ontarians and Canadians, have in our ability to deal with these issues. I will not give members comparisons with other nations of the world. I will not give them comparisons with the states of the union, except to make this observation: Partly because of policies initiated by this government, partly because of the general directions taken by the throne speech and what will be forthcoming in the budget, the people of this province have every reason not only to be optimistic but also to be confident about the future that lies in front of them.

That does not say there will not be a period of some difficulty. It does not say the members opposite will not have opportunities to constructively press suggested alternatives to present government policy. I should forewarn them that it may take me two weeks or two months to seize upon any good idea from members opposite, but if they are good ones they had better believe they will find their way into government policy, being ours at some point in time. That is the way we do it, because I have never closed my mind to constructive --

Mr. Conway: The Premier is a larcenist when it comes to policy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member's great mistake is that he has never taken a good idea, because he cannot recognize one when he sees it. That is his problem. It is true, and he knows it.

Mr. Conway: Poor old Joe Clark is still at the blood donor clinic for his last stand with you over federal energy policy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am enjoying this exchange, but I have to tell members this: We may have had our differences on some matters of policy with our national leader, but when the chips are down, unlike the opposition members' former leader, I was there when the polls were good, and I was there when the polls were not so good. I have been with our national leader every single time. That is more than the provincial Liberals have been. Their party would not even have the Prime Minister of this country to breakfast. They would not even have him to breakfast in the midst of that campaign, because he embarrassed his party. I think that is regrettable. It is disloyal, but it is typical and it is shameful.

Mr. Speaker, may I sum up my observations by urging the members opposite to support what is one of the great throne speeches of this decade; it outlines a pattern which will enable us to provide the kind of leadership and direction that will give to the people of this province the economic recovery and the economic growth they so rightfully can expect.

I realize I have talked to a group of people and the message will fall upon deaf ears, but I am also confident that because of the great men and women in the caucus on this side of the House, that excellent address by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor will be supported and the business of this government and of the people of Ontario will continue Thursday next at two o'clock.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the member for Renfrew North not hear me?

Mr. Robinson moved, seconded by Mr. Harris, that an humble address be presented to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

"To the Honourable John Black Aird, an officer of the Order of Canada, one of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law, Bachelor of Arts, Doctor of Laws, 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."

Mr. Peterson moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon, that the motion be amended by adding the following thereto:

"This House, however, regrets that the speech from the throne fails to recognize the most serious and fundamental problems facing Ontario today, and condemns the government for:

"Failing to develop programs to ensure adequate job creation and to protect Ontario workers from the continued decline in employment prospects;

"Making no new or increased support towards the preservation of Ontario's health, social and education sectors, specifically towards hospitals, day care, services for the elderly and post-secondary institutions;

"Presenting no specific programs to help small businesses, farmers and home owners to deal with the record high interest rates;

"Refusing to recognize Ontario's need for massive retraining programs for Ontario's workers."

Mr. Foulds moved, seconded by Mr. Martel, that the motion be further amended by adding the following thereto:

"This House further regrets that the speech from the throne fails to recognize the province's own authority and jurisdictional responsibility to take action to relieve the social and human consequences of our economic situation, or to combat the devastating effects of the federal government's high interest rate policy and the resulting unemployment.

"And, further, this House condemns the government for failing:

"(a) To create a crown corporation in the auto parts sector to achieve Canada's fair share and which would take as its first responsibility the formation of a consortium with Massey-Ferguson and Chrysler to create a diesel engine facility in Windsor;

"(b) To move into an ownership role in the resource sector;

"(c) To take steps to initiate an interest rate relief program for farmers, small business and home owners;

"(d) To establish a moratorium on foreclosures of property, as has been done by the provincial governments in Saskatchewan and Manitoba;

"(e) To safeguard and enhance the health care and social service systems of this province.

"Finally, this House condemns the government for failing its responsibility to protect adequately the community and work environments of its citizens. It specifically condemns the government for exempting from an environmental assessment Ontario Hydro's project for an underwater cable to export electrical power to the United States. Therefore this government has lost the confidence of this House."

5:54 p.m.

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

Ayes

Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Copps, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, Lupusella, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel.

McClellan, McEwen, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Roy, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Spensieri, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McLean, McMurtry.

McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Ayes 51; nays 67.

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

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

Resolved: That an humble address be presented to the Honourable John B. Aird, 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 recessed at 6 p.m.

20 avril 1982