Journal des débats 1985-juin-10 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Ferraro: It is with great regret that I speak my first words in this House on the subject of the unfortunate death of William E. Hamilton, Sr., who died last Saturday. Mr. Hamilton, the representative of Wellington South in this Legislature from 1945 to 1955, served as Minister of Reform Institutions and as vice-chairman of Ontario Hydro. Mr. Hamilton had previously served on the municipal council in Guelph as an alderman and as mayor.

I know all members of this Legislature will share with me the sympathy and condolences that are extended to his family and friends.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS

Hon. Mr. McCague: As Ontario's Minister of Transportation and Communications, I have been very impressed by the detailed presentations made by executives of the Ontario Good Roads Association, better known as OGRA, and by the Ontario chapter of The Road Information Program, a group consisting of roadbuilders and municipal engineers. Both groups have expressed their genuine concern about the problems facing transportation in this province of ours.

From my travels around Ontario, I too am concerned, whether such problems relate to Ottawa-Carleton and its transit and highway needs, to Kitchener-Waterloo and its requirements on Highway 401 and Highway 8, or to the extension of the new four-lane divided highway from North Bay south through Callander, where there are capacity problems.

There is also Highway 69, one of the primary tourist routes to central and northern Ontario, requiring expansion to meet year-round capacity requirements. In addition, there is the necessity of continuing to reconstruct the Highway 35-115 route to Peterborough as a four-lane divided entry to the Kawarthas. This, I do not have to point out, is critical to the support of that area's economic development. Then there is the Metro problem and its congestion, where we have half the entire province's motor vehicle population.

Faced with this kind of dilemma, and following instructions from the Premier (Mr. F. S. Miller), I requested that my former deputy minister, Harold Gilbert, who is with me today and to whom I would like to pay tribute on his retirement, review all our options with a view to alleviating such massive problems and to determining whether it was possible to free up funds committed to long-term transportation projects.

The Ministry of Transportation and Communications' major long-term financial commitment is to GO advanced light rail transit, requiring some $100 million annually. GO-ALRT was conceived as the total transportation system that would, over considerable construction time, guarantee mass transit for the greater Metro population, including the regional municipalities of Durham, Peel, Halton, Hamilton-Wentworth and York.

At that time there were critics who indicated that the Ontario government was ignoring the use of already-in-place Canadian National and Canadian Pacific trackage. There was no choice at that time, not when the costs of using in-place rail lines were considered. Both rail companies dictated the conditions under which rail commuter service could be introduced, and that meant GO Transit could not control service frequency or growth. We took the only alternative, namely, to acquire our own rights of way to extend and expand intercity service.

However, I now have been assured by the federal government that it is proceeding swiftly to draft commuter rail legislation that will allow all of Canada's provinces access to the national rail infrastructure at a reasonable rate and with a long-term commitment.

Specifically, as I understand it, the new legislation will give commuter service a high priority over freight traffic. The charges to GO Transit will be much less than the current arrangements with Canadian National and Canadian Pacific. Coupled with the necessity to provide much-needed services in the shortest possible time, it permits us to save tax dollars and meet a shorter implementation schedule.

Therefore, using the considerable funds committed to GO-ALRT, I am proposing the following:

The extension of GO rail services to Oshawa, employing rail with double-deckers as is done on the rest of the lakeshore run. That will proceed as quickly as possible, using the new grade currently under construction on the newly acquired right of way. The adoption of this approach will permit the introduction of systems much earlier than previously scheduled. Conventional rail will also be introduced in the existing CN rights of way to accelerate the western extension to Burlington.

With regard to service to Hamilton, the government will sit down with Hamilton and Hamilton-Wentworth to determine the appropriate service that will best serve their requirements.

GO Transit, too, has identified other urgent needs: the upgrading and increase of service on the Richmond Hill, Milton and Georgetown lines.

To turn now to other local transit initiatives, the Toronto Transit Commission will be presenting its priorities to Metro council in the near future, and my proposals will allow us to assist it to proceed with its transportation needs.

Then there is Mississauga's proposal for a busway linking the city centre to the Kipling subway station. To the north of Metro, where development is accelerating, there is a priority need to commence Highway 407 as funds permit.

I list these projects, never forgetting the points I made earlier that the available funds will also be used to remedy transportation problems existing elsewhere in Ontario, problems critical to every resident and business using our all-Ontario system.

Finally, this new proposal allows us to shorten drastically the implementation time, using GO Transit rolling stock, double-deckers to be built in Thunder Bay, and that means employment in the northwest.

TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION RECIPROCAL ACCESS LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Pope: I am today introducing the Transboundary Pollution Reciprocal Access Act. This bill is part of Ontario's continuing program of measures concerning transboundary pollution. It aims to provide more effective access to the courts in situations where pollution from one jurisdiction causes harm in another. Pollution does not recognize provincial or international boundary lines. The resolution of pollution problems therefore requires co-operation between different jurisdictions. The bill I am introducing today is an example of this cooperation.

Currently, technical jurisdictional barriers prevent Ontario residents from suing outside Ontario for pollution damage when the pollution comes from across a provincial or international boundary. The common law requires that court actions based on trespass, nuisance or negligent injury to land be brought in the jurisdiction where the land is located. Ontario residents who find their lakes, forests or farms affected by pollution from another jurisdiction must therefore sue in Ontario. A decision of an Ontario court, however, is unlikely to prove very effective against the polluter located in another jurisdiction.

2:10 p.m.

Similar difficulties face residents of other jurisdictions who are affected by pollution originating in Ontario. The other provinces of Canada and most of the American states recognize the same common law jurisdictional barriers. The Transboundary Pollution Reciprocal Access Act eliminates these barriers and provides equal access to courts and tribunals for persons affected by pollution originating in another jurisdiction.

These rights are granted on a reciprocal basis. In other words, rights to sue in Ontario are given only to residents of jurisdictions that give similar rights to Ontario residents. In this way, the act gives the people of Ontario access to courts outside Ontario if they are damaged by pollution coming from a reciprocal jurisdiction.

The Transboundary Pollution Reciprocal Access Act is not intended to create any new causes of action. It seeks to ensure that the technical rules do not prevent pollution from being pursued.

The act also provides that when court proceedings are brought in the jurisdiction where the alleged pollution actually originated, the local law of that jurisdiction will apply. This means an alleged polluter, sued in the jurisdiction where the alleged pollution originated, will be governed by the substantive laws of that jurisdiction.

In so far as the courts of that state are concerned, the defendant has the opportunity to defend the action on the basis of the substantive and procedural rules with which he is most familiar. For example, an Ontario company sued in Ontario by a resident of another jurisdiction would be governed exclusively by Ontario substantive and procedural laws.

In essence, the act equates the rights of an extrajurisdictional pollution victim to those of a victim who is a resident of the jurisdiction. The rights of nonresidents will be no higher than those of residents.

The Transboundary Pollution Reciprocal Access Act is the product of more than three years' collaboration between American and Canadian representatives. The act has been recommended by both the American and Canadian Uniform Law Conferences. The states of Montana, Colorado and New Jersey have already enacted the legislation. I hope Ontario will be the first Canadian province to do so.

The problems of acid rain and other forms of transboundary pollution are immensely complex and difficult. The enactment of this legislation will not eliminate these problems. Nevertheless, the Transboundary Pollution Reciprocal Access Act represents a significant step. It demonstrates that jurisdictions affected by transboundary pollution can work side by side towards the common goal of enhancing the quality of our environment. Together with other measures, it illustrates our clear and firm commitment to attacking the problems of pollution on all fronts.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the honourable members to refrain from or at least to cut back their private conversations.

ONTARIO FINANCES

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Under ordinary circumstances the 1985 Ontario budget, containing the interim results for the 1984-85 fiscal year, would have been tabled in May. As this year's budget will not be presented until June 25, I am pleased to table today the final quarterly Ontario Finances, showing the interim results for 1984-85. Final audited results will be published in late summer in Ontario's financial report.

I am happy to report that the deficit of this province is down once again. It is down both from its 1983-84 level of $2.3 billion and from our original budget estimate for 1984-85 of $2 billion. The net cash requirements of the province were reduced by more than $300 million from our original 1984-85 plan and currently stand at $1.7 billion, almost $600 million below the 1983-84 level. Stronger-than-anticipated economic performance and continued spending control were major factors underlying this performance.

Meanwhile, the total expenditures remained essentially on target and increased by $90 million, or 0.3 per cent, from our original budget estimate. This performance was achieved notwithstanding the government's expenditure increases of $162 million in the important areas of health spending and income support. Revenues, which have been projected at $24.8 billion for 1984-85, reached $25.2 billion by fiscal year-end, as economic growth improved yields. Higher-than-expected growth in corporate profits and strong growth in purchases of durable goods, particularly automobiles, were important factors behind this improvement.

Revenues from corporate income tax were up by $306 million. The yield from retail sales tax was increased by $187 million. The majority of the in-year revenue improvements were applied to the reduction of net cash requirements.

Ontario's recent economic performance has been remarkable. We are in the midst of a sound and substantial recovery. Furthermore, we are poised for a third continuous year of growth. In the face of record high real interest rates and worldwide uncertainty about the durability of economic institutions, Ontario's real gross provincial product increased by 5.2 per cent in 1983 and by six per cent in 1984. Last year's growth rate was the best since 1972.

The strong and continuing growth of the economy has generated increasing employment opportunities for Ontarians. As a result, unemployment in Ontario has dropped from 9.3 per cent one year ago to 7.7 per cent in May 1985. This is the lowest rate of unemployment in Canada.

Since the end of the recession in November 1982, Ontario has created 455,000 new jobs. Our job creation has been particularly strong in comparison to other parts of Canada. Since November 1982, employment here has increased by 11.4 per cent, while employment in the rest of Canada has increased by 6.1 per cent. Ontario by itself has accounted for 54 per cent of all the jobs created in Canada over this period.

Most of these new jobs have been full-time jobs. In 1984 more than 87 per cent of the employment increase in Ontario consisted of full-time jobs. Manufacturing made the largest single contribution to job creation last year in Ontario, accounting for 55,000 of the 147,000 new jobs generated by the Ontario economy.

Ontario's recent strong job creation record has helped to improve the employment outlook for the province's young people. While still intolerably high, the youth unemployment rate dropped by three percentage points in 1984, and that trend continues. Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed young people in Ontario has dropped by 39,000. This improvement lowered Ontario's youth unemployment rate to 12.9 per cent, again the lowest youth unemployment rate in Canada.

Improving the employment prospects for our youth has been and continues to be a priority concern of this government. In the speech from the throne we announced our intention to carry forward our funding commitment to Ontario Youth Opportunities under the new Ministry of Skills Development. We also announced our intention to include in the budget an additional $100-million employment and training supplement to permit the Ministry of Skills Development to take further action. Our young people are a major target group of this initiative.

The most recent evidence indicates that strong economic growth is continuing in this province. Since December 31, 1984, Ontario employment has risen by 114,000, an increase of 2.6 per cent. In the rest of the country the growth rate was one per cent. The recent announcement that Canada's real gross national product grew at a 3.7 per cent annual rate in the first quarter of 1985 is further welcome confirmation that growth is continuing.

The broadly based nature of the recovery in Ontario's economy bodes well for the durability of growth. Consumers are increasingly confident in their future economic well-being. A dynamic business sector is prepared to invest in that future. In addition, Ontario's healthy competitive position has produced a strong export performance. All these factors have been key components of our economic resurgence.

2:20 p.m.

Consumer spending was an essential ingredient in last year's impressive performance. The disposable income of Ontario households grew by 8.7 per cent in 1984, an increase of well over four per cent after inflation. This fuelled a strong increase in consumer spending, an increase reflected in retail sales growth of 10.2 per cent.

While our growth has been broadly based, there is no doubt the leading force in the first stages of the recovery was the increase in our exports. In 1984, exports of goods and services increased by more than 25 per cent over the previous year. The strength of our exports was closely linked to the health of the US economy, and in particular to our automotive sector. Last year, the production of passenger cars in Canada increased by seven per cent while truck production surged by more than 47 per cent. As a result, auto production reached an all-time high in 1984.

Also, the strength of the Ontario economy was evident in most of our other key industries. The steel industry showed strong performance. Steel production and shipments by the three largest producers increased by some 13 per cent in 1984. Anticipated strength in the energy sector and nonresidential construction are expected to provide a further impetus to this industry.

In the forestry sector, crown timber harvests reached a modern-day record of some 20 million cubic metres. This reflected a 10 per cent increase in Ontario's pulp and paper output, thanks to improved domestic demand and exports to the United States. Despite intense competition in the lumber sector, Ontario's lumber output also expanded last year.

In the mining industry also, there was strong growth during 1984. The value of minerals production increased from $3.6 billion in 1983 to $4.4 billion, an improvement of 24 per cent. Indications are that the industry will demonstrate further growth in 1985 as the price of major base metals shows signs of strength in international markets.

Ontario net farm income increased by 13 per cent last year, helping to strengthen this vital sector of our economy.

The fact that this economic performance is not transitory is demonstrated by the decisions of our manufacturers to undertake major new job-creating investments in Ontario. The Canadian auto industry is planning to spend about $1.2 billion on new plant and equipment in 1985. Most of this investment will take place in Ontario. These business decisions are based upon the reality of Ontario's strong competitive position and our secure access to international markets.

Other industries are also confirming their confidence in the Ontario economy through their investment plans. Last year, business spending for machinery and equipment grew by more than eight per cent while nonresidential construction increased by almost 14 per cent.

Most manufacturing industries have announced plans to further boost investment in 1985. For example, the primary metals industry intends to increase its investment spending by more than 160 per cent. Ontario's steel industry is in the process of modernizing and will be investing about $1.25 billion over the next few years. Overall, business investment plans for 1985 are up by more than 10 per cent compared with 1984.

The forces behind this resurgence include the continued growth of demand, improved corporate financial positions and rising business confidence. Moreover, the strength of investment will ensure that Ontario industry remains competitive in world markets.

I believe the policies we have implemented and our record of fiscal management have been an underlying source of strength in securing and sustaining Ontario's economic recovery. We have established in this province a climate of confidence and an environment for business growth and development that have allowed us to solidify our economic base and to capitalize on emerging opportunities.

As well, we have constrained the growth of government and reduced the size of our bureaucracy. In so doing, we have retained the flexibility to maintain and enhance the quality and standards of our social and economic infrastructure and to take discretionary action to assist economic recovery. In 1975 the government of Ontario employed 87,109 public servants. Today there are 80,131. Meanwhile, the level of our deficit on a per capita basis is the lowest of any province in Canada.

In summary, Ontario's record of fiscal and economic management is one of which we can be justly proud. The report I am tabling today fully supports that view.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO FINANCES

Mr. Conway: My first question is to the Treasurer. I note in the accompanying documentation to her statement that table 3 under General Government indicates there has been a $100-million reduction in the allocation to the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development account. Can the Treasurer indicate what that $100-million reduction speaks to?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: These are programs that did not need funding at the rate that had been established initially; it was primarily a delay in flowing funds which accounted for that.

Mr. Conway: The minister will know there has been great interest in this assembly with regard to the specifics of the BILD account. The assembly has waited with great interest for the third and fourth annual reports of BILD but such reports have not been made available by her predecessor. I am just wondering if she will give a commitment today to release an updated version of the BILD account so we can more particularly understand what projects have been favoured with support and what projects have been either cancelled or delayed.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We are working on that right at the moment. It is my hope it will be ready within a short time.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister explain to us why, subsequent to the announcements first made back in 1980 about Ontario improving its port facilities along the Great Lakes through BILD, none of those projects has come to fruition?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is my understanding those have been primarily discussed and will be developed through joint action at the federal-provincial level since the Great Lakes are international waters. There have been certain developments in certain port areas on the Great Lakes which relate primarily to private boating rather than to international shipping.

Mr. Conway: I just want to be clear. Can the minister explain why the assembly has not had the opportunity to review the BILD account? Where are these annual reports, which were offered so freely in the first two years of the new world? Can she be more specific as to when she intends to help us with the release of that information?

Mr. Nixon: My friend is embarrassing her.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh no, he is not embarrassing me at all. It is my understanding most of the information sought by the honourable member is currently available or was available last year through the estimates process; but I shall certainly explore that question and report to the House.

Mr. Conway: I have a second question for the Treasurer. I have been looking in the statement for some reference to an important aspect of the remarkable financial practices of this current government; and that, of course, is the Suncor account. I cannot find it, but it is probably here somewhere.

Can the current Treasurer bring the Legislature up to date on the Ontario government investment --

Mr. McClellan: They worked out of the same office.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Place your question, please.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Conway: Can the current Treasurer indicate, for example, whether she agrees with her immediate predecessor, the now Minister of Education (Mr. Grossman), who said on November 7, 1984, that the value of the Ontario government shares in Suncor was "at 60 per cent of the original purchase price"? Can she update that statement of the current value of our investment in Suncor?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am sorry, I cannot give a precise figure at the present time. It is probably somewhere about that or slightly lower, but I would have to explore the current figure.

Mr. Conway: While she is undertaking to inquire after those data, can she also confirm that, as of this weekend, the gross borrowing costs for this $650-million 25 per cent interest in Suncor are now running in excess of $325 million?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I will seek that information and report.

Mr. Rae: In accounting for the economic miracle the Treasurer has described in this quasi, would-be, could-be budget statement she has made today, and in talking about the reduction in the deficit of about $337 million, I wonder why she failed to observe the fact that payments from the federal government went up by some $320 million. Why is that not contained as an explanation for the miracle she has put forward in terms of the reduction of the deficit? I am a little surprised at her shyness in talking about the changes in transfer payments being the explanation of what happened.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is primarily because there was almost a balancing out by the fact personal income tax flow to the province was reduced by close to $700 million last year as a result of calculations and other activities. I am not the least bit concerned that I did not mention that specifically. It will be mentioned specifically in all the information that will be revealed at the time of the presentation of the budget.

There is one good reason and it is not a miracle. It has been by dint of very hard work by a large number of people that the economic performance of Ontario has improved dramatically over the past three years. That hard work has been on the part of a great many people in the private sector and a large number of people within the public service and within the government of Ontario. We have worked diligently to provide the kind of atmosphere that would encourage the private sector to do just what it is doing: invest in its industry in Ontario for the benefit of Ontarians.

Mr. Conway: It is now two and a half months since the Premier (Mr. F. S. Miller) indicated that, in his first step to sell off the province's share in Suncor, he would be "asking a prominent firm whether there is a market for the province's share in Suncor." Can the Treasurer indicate or report what the success of her Premier has been in seeking out that prominent firm, whether it has produced an assessment and, if such an assessment has been made, whether she is prepared to table it in the assembly?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I cannot provide that answer today because I have not asked the Premier, but I shall do that.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. Given the number of promises made in the speech from the throne it would be difficult to say something was left out, but there were some things not contained in it and one of them I would like to ask the Premier about is the question of extra billing.

Both the present Minister of Health (Mr. Andrewes) and his predecessor, now the Attorney General (Mr. Pope), have stated publicly on several occasions this is something the Tory party is having some second thoughts about and will have to review, given the cost to the people of this province of some $50 million a year.

How does the Premier explain the complete silence on extra billing in the throne speech, particularly given that there is a statement in it that "it is my government's obligation to maintain health care quality and universality by continuing review and new initiatives"?

Why has the throne speech said nothing about dealing with extra billing, which surely offends the principles of universality and the quality of health care in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: When I was in the lockup, and I assume that one of the honourable member's researchers was there before the throne speech was read in the House, that question was asked by the press, because they had recognized the absence of that item some weeks before the member did.

The answer I gave then was basically that a number of issues had to be considered. Currently about five per cent of the Ontario health insurance plan's gross billings are extra billed or not billed through the plan, although about 12 per cent of the physicians are opted out.

Second, when the federal government passed the Canada Health Act it allowed some three years for the provinces to change and comply with the act to qualify for the exemptions from the penalty clause currently in the Canada Health Act, i.e. that for every dollar of extra billing by a physician in a province the province shall forfeit a dollar of federal money.

Third, we were in the middle of negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association for its annual adjustment of fees. As a person who is a labour lawyer, the member opposite will understand there is often a need to keep as few distracting influences as possible away from the central negotiations. That was a valid reason. Those negotiations concluded after the throne speech was written, within a couple of days of its presentation.

Fourth, we needed to look at a series of effects of the abolition of extra billing. We had to take a look at the effect upon the physicians who might leave our province and the three-year time frame allowed for that. We had to take a look at the effect upon research funds in the case of those physicians who extra billed in hospitals and then gave the funds to the hospitals for research.

We felt the wisdom of the federal government in establishing a three-year transition period and the other considerations with regard to quality health care and the presence of physicians in Ontario merited the use of this negotiating time wisely to make sure we maintain the high quality of health care in Ontario.

Mr. Rae: I do not think the Premier has understood. I am asking for a simple answer to a simple question: Is the Tory party still in favour of extra billing or is it now opposed to it? What is the answer to that question?

Hon. F. S. Miller: All I can say to my friend is that if he is going to run the government, as I am told he is -- in fact, I understand that either he or the leader of the Liberals turns up each day; there is no need for both of them in the House on the same day, is there? He has been away for two days; the member opposite has been here. Pleasant.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: If the member opposite is going to have black and white answers like that to the health care system during the tenure of the "social alliance party" in this province, we are going to have a lot of trouble.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sweeney: May I ask the Premier how it is that the provinces of Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have successfully concluded arrangements with their doctors to end extra billing in those jurisdictions? Is it because they started earlier and were determined to end it? How were they able to do it while Ontario has not been able to do so?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I suggest to the honourable member that it is a function of the size and complexity of the health care system. There is quite a difference between our province and any of the ones he named. Indeed, we are fortunate enough in this province to have the highest-quality health care in Canada, the greatest diversity and the most highly skilled professionals in the whole country. Before the member jumps too quickly, he should make sure he does not send them out of the country.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I still think we are entitled to an answer to the simple, basic question. We were told by the now Attorney General, who was briefly the Minister of Health for the spectacular period during the election campaign, and by the current Minister of Health after the election, that there was going to be a serious review and a change of heart. We certainly had a lot of indications publicly that there had been a change of heart.

Has this change of heart taken place or have they simply gone back to the old, fundamentalist Tory view that there is a sacred relationship between a very few doctors and their wallets and they have no intention of extending universality in the health care system to ensure we have one price for health care in the province? Where does the government stand on the basic issues?

Hon. F. S. Miller: My friend did not listen to the first answer, which I thought was quite comprehensive and explained the existing situation. We concluded the negotiations on the Friday before the Tuesday of the throne speech and the two events were not overlapping in terms of negotiations on the positions. We have been reviewing it for about 10 months, since the Canada Health Act was passed.

Mr. Rae: I am delighted to hear negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association have concluded. Perhaps the Premier could take this occasion to tell us the results of those negotiations.

Hon. F. S. Miller: They were in the press. Where is the member's research department?

Mr. Rae: I am asking the Premier to explain to the House the logic of entering into discussions and negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association when the issue of extra billing is not put on the table. What logic is there in having a serious discussion in good faith with the OMA if the government is not even prepared to talk about those things? Is extra billing being considered or not? Why is it not being discussed? Surely that has to be part of the negotiations.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am mystified by the apparent lack of information today on that side of the House. The press carried the results of the negotiations for fees. It was a continuation of the negotiations the Treasurer of the day had two and one half years ago, in 1982. They had stipulated points at which negotiations should carry on regarding fees. They carried on and they were announced and published in the newspapers.

At the same time, almost since the day the Canada Health Act was brought in by the government of Canada, we have been discussing the implications for Ontario. I understand some $50 million is held in reserve for last year against that contingency, although one cannot say whether that is accurate. Obviously we have a vested interest in getting that money.

The quality of health care in this province is a very important issue. We believe we have the very best and we do not want to make a jump

Mr. Warner: You are sidestepping again.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not sidestepping it.

Mr. Warner: Sure you are and you know it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am protecting the member. He is the kind of guy who needs the odd specialist. The member should sit down and show a little decorum in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sweeney: Could the Premier indicate to what degree that $50 million in forgone revenue is responsible for the disastrous state of the relationships between his government and the hospitals of this province, to the effect that 187 hospitals indicated in a meeting about three or four weeks ago they are all going to be seriously underfunded, and that the present state of negotiations does not even include a provision for increases in salaries for their staff? To what extent is that a factor of not getting that $50 million plus?

Hon. F. S. Miller: If my colleague is accurate in his predictions he will have an opportunity to look at that from another viewpoint shortly. If one wants to look at budgets that have exceeded inflation in terms of transfers year after year after year, it is Ontario's hospital budgets. There is 7.5 to 7.7 per cent growth and the member knows it.

Mr. Rae: When the political events in this province became clear the government said: "Okay, let us take extra billing and any discussions of that off the table with the Ontario Medical Association. Let us reach whatever agreement we can with them while pretending this is not an issue. Let us not take a position and head into opposition." Thus it has left itself open to continue to oppose what is clearly in the interests of the vast majority of people of this province, what is desired by the vast majority of the people of this province, and that is an end to the practice whereby a very small number of physicians continue to impose user fees on patients who simply are there because they are sick.

While he is the Premier and in a position to do something about an issue, why will the Premier not finally come to grips with the fact the vast majority of the people of this province are opposed to that kind of user fee? They are opposed to taxes on sick people. Why does the Premier not do something about it before he leaves office, rather than simply arming himself, as he is? He is going to be allying himself with the OMA in opposition to what is clearly in the best interests of the people of this province, and that is an end to extra-billing in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Consistently I have had some cause at some time to differ with the OMA. If the leader of the third party goes back into my history as a minister, he will find this government has continued to maintain only one objective, and that is the guarantee of access to the finest health care system in this province. We have accomplished it. We have a very great group of physicians in this province. As citizens we have benefited; very seldom is there a case where a doctor extra bills an indigent person.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Epp: I have a question for the Premier. The Premier is surely aware government support for the production of nonprofit and co-operative housing for low income families in Ontario is shrinking to an alarming level. Since the federal budget of May 23 contained absolutely nothing in the way of affordable housing, can the Premier tell us what efforts he or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Timbrell) made with their Tory counterparts in Ottawa, if any, to include provision for affordable housing in that budget, and why they failed?

Hon. F. S. Miller: One never knows they have failed until the budget comes out, as the member may discover himself. Because the Treasurer and the Premier happen to be privy to most of the contents, I assume the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are.

If the member read the throne speech, and I hope he did, he would have noticed that Ontario has pledged $400 million over five years to the creation of rental housing, subsidized as required, to make sure there is a better stock of housing. The member will also find we encouraged the federal government to be a partner in that, as they have been in the past.

The member will also note that the moment the budget came out federally I pointed out that one of the shortcomings from my point of view was the fact it did not attack housing vigorously enough and, therefore, I said we would have to adjust our approach to do that, and we did so in our throne speech and would in our budget.

Mr. Epp: Since we are now looking at an all-time record high level of 14,000 people on the waiting list for affordable housing in the city of Toronto alone, and since the federal housing minister said only a week or two ago that he will not be spending any additional money on affordable housing in the near future, will the Premier explain how he intends to improve Ottawa's performance in that area?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I know the limits of my authority. As the Premier of this province, my responsibility is to bring our message to that government forcefully. Maybe we will do so. We took action almost immediately from our point of view. We will do it unilaterally if necessary, but one hopes it will be done bilaterally. Let me assure the member that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who feels very strongly about this, is continuing --

Mr. Sweeney: Davis did better with Trudeau.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: You are not doing very well with your kissing cousins down there.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member will have a lot of chances to find out if he likes their kisses.

2:50 p.m.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Labour related to the death of Michael Trudel, a young operator of underground heavy equipment at benison Mines, on Tuesday, May 28, when he was struck by loose.

Could the minister explain why the provincial Ministry of Labour still has not implemented the recommendations made several years ago to the Burkett commission that underground equipment be equipped with cages and sway bars? Does the minister not realize that the life of this young underground worker might have been saved if overhead protection had been installed in the scoop tram he was operating?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I know the member would want to express the same concern about the safety of all miners, not only those who happen to be in the scoop-tram apparatus. That is the very issue addressed by the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The member will recall that the Burkett commission, which was set up several years ago, made a number of recommendations, most of which, by the way, have been implemented. To make certain there was general agreement that the significant ones had been implemented, my predecessor, the honourable Russell Ramsay, held a joint meeting with management and labour over this issue and it was agreed that an ad hoc committee would be set up to look at certain areas. There was agreement there should be further pursuit of initiatives with respect to certain matters.

One of those areas dealt with ground control and emergency procedures. That joint management-labour committee will be reporting within the next few weeks on any recommendations it has from people on the job who are exposed to these risks so the government can deal with those things.

There were a number of other issues discussed over which there is still some disagreement, but we hope those matters can be resolved. With respect to the issue of ground control and underground safety, the report from management and labour is expected soon. I hope one of the things it will address is the issue the member is talking about. Recent events make it very important and place an obligation on all of us to make certain underground miners receive whatever protection is available from the technology available today.

Mr. Wildman: Is the minister aware that two years ago a recommendation was made as a result of the inquest into the death of Gary Guilbeault at Rio Algom in Elliot Lake that overhead protection be installed on underground heavy equipment? The United Steelworkers of America have been pressing the ministry for years to implement this proposal and as recently as a week or two ago passed an emergency resolution addressed to the minister requesting that cages and roll bars be installed on underground equipment.

Is the minister not aware this kind of proposal can be implemented by the minister without having to wait for the report of the commission on underground safety to which he referred?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: There is no suggestion the government is reticent about introducing measures that will result in increased protection for miners. As I said, management and labour have set up a joint committee and will be reporting within the next week or two, very shortly. We will proceed from there. I am not arguing about whether we should do anything; that never has been an argument. We will be proceeding with it in a matter of hours, days, weeks or months. How long do we have? Will the member tell me that right here?

Mr. McClellan: You have had 42 years.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am not talking to you. I talked to you before and I did not like what you told me. I do not like talking to you any more.

Mr. Wildman: Come on. A young man is dead. Do not play games with the life of a person.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the question has been answered. Order.

TIMMINS HOSPITAL

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health has a reply to a question previously asked, I am not sure by whom.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) posed a question to me last Thursday regarding alleged conflict of interest in the signing of a contract with an architect for the new Timmins hospital. On May 29 four firms were interviewed by that hospital board. The board unanimously moved to support the proposal of Parkin/Smith. A proposed contract was given to the ministry's representatives for formal review and approval.

I should explain at this time that a contract agreement is between the board and the architect. The ministry reviews these contracts for boards only to ensure the proposals are in general agreement with ministry guidelines for payment of the basic fee for service, reimbursable expenses and a definition of the scope of services.

Does the member want me to go on? Does he want a fuller answer than that?

Subsequent to the board's decision to engage Parkin/Smith, John Huggins, the chairman of the Timmins board, advised that certain individuals were claiming that Mr. Smith was given the job because he was the husband of Linda Smith, who was a member of that board. Ms. Smith is the former wife of Mr. Smith. After a long separation, it is my understanding that Mr. Smith has remarried, and that Ms. Smith is being remarried this summer.

It is my understanding that the selection of an architect is the board's responsibility. The board members have met and reviewed their decision; they have sought legal advice and they have reconfirmed their original decision.

Mr. Speaker: That seemed to be a very complete answer, but, supplementary.

Mr. Sweeney: I am almost afraid to ask about the next stage.

It is my understanding, and I would ask the minister to confirm or deny it, that when the application reached his office, or the office of whichever of his officials has to put his signature on it, there was no fee figure for the architect. When the architect was contacted, he indicated the official or the minister could put in whatever fee figure he wanted. There seems to be something highly irregular about the whole process. I still do not believe we have had an answer about the conflict of interest. Surely, under those circumstances, Linda Smith should have declared a conflict.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I have no way of commenting further with respect to the conflict of interest. The board sought legal advice and reconfirmed its decision after receiving that legal advice. From the standpoint of the ministry's involvement, I outlined that in a full way in my previous answer but, if the member so wishes, I will seek further information regarding that contract or the fee. The fee is subject to the board and the architect reaching agreement.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Does the minister not understand that one of the major problems in the planning of this hospital in Timmins has been the interference by the member for that riding? He appointed the interim board; he has now appointed the executive director. The conflict of interest and the problems of that board flow directly from the interference in this process of the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope).

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The honourable member is incorrect on three different points he just made.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That is a matter of opinion and certainly not a matter of fact.

Would the minister not understand that in order to solve the problems of the planning for this hospital he should ask for the resignation of that board and let a community board be appointed that would be representative of the community instead of representative of the member for Cochrane South and the Conservative Party?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I cannot comment on the political makeup of the board short of saying that my understanding is that the board includes a former Liberal candidate and the president of the local Liberal association. As far the ministry and I are concerned, the board represents the community.

TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

Ms. Munro: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment regarding toxic contaminants discovered on a Hamilton harbourfront site where it has been proposed a park be developed. Concentrations of lead as high as 23,000 parts per million were found in spots tested on the 69-acre site. High levels of cadmium were also discovered. The chemicals were found on the Lax brothers' property expropriated by Hamilton for $900,000. I would like to know why the Ministry of the Environment was so lax and why this apparently illegal dumping was not detected years ago.

3 p.m.

Hon. Ms. Fish: As the member doubtless knows, ministry officials currently are working with the city and the city's consultants to come up with a proper abatement and removal plan for the materials. Part of the difficulty was that the records of the particular site were inadequate and incomplete and some of the contaminants were found only by testing and are not available through the documents.

Examples of the problems found here are part and parcel of the responses developed through the Ministry of the Environment to the Blueprint for Waste Management which, among other things, has led to the major $100-million fund recently announced to deal with sites of this sort where there has been a concern about waste and refuse, whether it is simply municipal human waste or also involves industrial waste.

The concern here, as in other cases, is not only to have the opportunity through enforcement and inspection to review very carefully the formal records and documents on a site, but as well to be able to go in and undertake specific tests to assess the extent to which the documents reflect the accuracy of what is actually onsite.

Ms. Munro: I would remind the minister that the land was expropriated by the city exactly one year ago. It would be a great loss to Hamilton if the harbourfront park project was killed because of the toxic contaminants found in the Lax brothers' property soil.

We believe the mess should be cleaned up. I would like the minister's assurance that her ministry will provide all the assistance it can to the city of Hamilton and the Hamilton-Wentworth police who are investigating the matter.

Would the minister also report back on ministry plans to clean up the site?

Hon. Ms. Fish: I am pleased to give the member complete assurance of the ministry's interest in seeing this site is cleaned up, of our close working with the city and of our very firm intention to ensure that this site, as well as others, is cleaned up, prepared and properly used for the purposes for which the city expropriated it, which is a safe environment for appropriate park purposes.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Labour regarding Valenite-Modco Ltd. I am sure the minister is well briefed on this issue. Does the minister understand the history of the problem of 29 orders over 10 years to this company and that because of the neglect of his ministry and of that company a 28-year-old man, Larry Girard, suffers from hard metals disease?

Has the ministry made a decision on whether it is going to charge Valenite-Modco?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am not aware that a decision has yet been made on that matter.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Does the minister not understand that if charges are not laid against companies like this one, there is absolutely no deterrent at all? In fact, it is of financial benefit to the company not to follow the legislation because it knows there are going to be no financial consequences.

Does the minister not understand as well how strongly my community feels that the ministry is equally responsible for allowing this to go on? The community also regrets very much the way the minister's party handled this issue during the provincial election. The minister set up a public meeting, which he cancelled because he did not want any press and because of further controls that were being imposed by Pat Kinsella and others within the Conservative Party. They did not want this to become a public issue --

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member has come to the question.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Does the minister not understand that before that party leaves power a week tomorrow, at the very least it should accept part responsibility and take the honourable action, which is to lay charges against this company?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I presume you want me to respond only to the substance and not to the vitriolic nonsense that we heard? Is that true? Just respond to the substance of the question and ignore the other nonsense there?

Mr. Speaker: I would be glad if you could pick out the question.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Good; because the trouble is most of it is always mixed with nonsense from that member.

Let me say that I have no problem in agreeing that fines should not be looked upon as a licence to do things, and if the fines are inadequate then that has to be addressed.

Any decision with respect to charging, as I said, is a decision that has not yet been reached.

FREE TRADE

Mr. O'Neil: My question is to the Minister of Industry and Trade. With all the discussion and written information that is being put forth on the matter of free trade between the United States and Canada, particularly those views being expressed by the Conservative government in Ottawa, can the minister tell us where the Ontario government stands on this very important matter, which could have substantial effects on Ontario's economy?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Two weeks ago I attended a conference of all my provincial counterparts as well as the federal ministers in the economic area dealing with the very issue of free trade. I think the newspaper accounts of the comments I made have been relatively accurate.

Ontario's position is one of attempting in every way we can to assure access to export markets, primarily in the United States. But we have been extremely reluctant to support the concept of free trade as it is known to some spokesmen, which ultimately means a complete and unfettered opening up of the borders with respect to both the export and the import of products.

We are quite prepared to work co-operatively with the federal government to study the issue and to make absolutely certain that if we move towards some concept of freer trade or more open relations in the economic area with the United States, it does not create a burden and/or loss of jobs for Ontario.

Our position has been very clear. We feel there are sectors of our economy that can be badly hurt, as the honourable member indicated in the course of the question he has raised. We want to protect those industries. We want to make absolutely certain that if a free trade arrangement is pursued by the federal government, Ontario's interests are going to be protected in all circumstances.

In direct response to the member's question, we are very cautious about the issue. We want to move very slowly and be absolutely certain of our position before we agree to anything.

Mr. O'Neil: The minister may want to be very cautious and move very slowly, but it would appear the Conservative government in Ottawa wants to progress or to speed up this thing.

The minister may have had discussions with them. Does he have a commitment from them that they will not proceed with this until they have had full input from the minister himself and full approval from the Ontario government?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I wish I were in a position to take my views and superimpose them on the federal government in Ottawa. It is much like those days when there was another political regime in Ottawa. I recall some days of uneasiness and perhaps the difficulty a certain party had in getting its input through to those people in Ottawa.

Mr. Kerrio: How does it feel?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: It feels wonderful, in answer to the honourable member's question. I can only assure the member that we will put Ontario's interests first at all times.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Premier, if I can have his attention. It is on the Niagara Escarpment plan. Given the statement that was in the speech from the throne, and recognizing the unseemly delays during the last several years by the government of which the Premier was a senior member, will he now give a commitment to this House and to the people of this province that the Niagara Escarpment plan will be proclaimed in the next week?

Will the commitment that I hope he will give include a reversal of the two most objectionable features in that plan: first, the permitting of excessive aggregate extraction on the escarpment, even in the protection area of the escarpment; and second, the absence of any requirement for development permits, which may be issued by the municipalities to conform with the Niagara Escarpment plan, thus allowing them to subvert the whole plan if they so wish?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I thought there were about three questions there.

Will I give a commitment to proclaim? I will give a commitment to proceed as quickly as possible and, I hope, to proclaim. That was in the throne speech, so it is not difficult.

If one had sat 12 years ago and looked at the amount of work ahead for the Niagara Escarpment Commission, one would never have believed it would take so long to perform the task. I am sure the member, as a person from the area, recognizes that it has been an extremely sensitive and delicate task. Very often totally opposing forces had to be reconciled in some way or another.

Rather than answer any questions about the content of the plan, the member will have to await the final public distribution, which we would like to have the opportunity to do, to show how much work we have done.

Mr. Swart: I recognize the sensitive area of the plan. I also recognize the lack of courage on the part of the government to deal with it.

Does the Premier not realize that it is 12 years since the Niagara Escarpment plan was passed and six years since the first draft plan was tabled? It is two years since hearing officers on the Niagara Escarpment Commission made their final reports on the plan and it is now nine months since cabinet had the recommendations of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development and the final recommendations from the public. How can we conclude that this is anything other than deliberate stalling or gross incompetence by the government?

Does the minister not also recognize that any new --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe there were a number of supplementaries included in that supplementary.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Few governments in North America -- indeed I cannot think of another one -- have had the courage to tackle the protection of such a significant environmental asset as Ontario has done. We have worked on it with a diligence and courage that at times cost us seats. Let us not kid ourselves.

As a matter of fact, the member is probably one of the beneficiaries of that. If he goes back to why he won, he will find the very fact that we were willing to look at the Niagara Escarpment and to protect it at all caused him to win. Yet he has the hypocrisy to stand up here and claim we do not have courage.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Section 29 of the Constitution says that nothing in the Charter of Rights abrogates or derogates from any rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of separate schools.

On Friday I asked the minister the extent of that guarantee. I believe his response was that there was a division of opinion on the extent of that guarantee. When we are faced with considering legislation on this matter, I believe the key question will be whether the extension of separate school funding falls under the Charter of Rights. In order to answer that question --

Mr. Speaker: That was a very good question.

Mr. Sterling: Yes, it was a good question. I am coming to the conclusion of my question. In order to answer that question, we must determine whether the extension falls under section 29. Will the minister consider referring this question immediately to the Supreme Court of Canada so that we will know clearly whether the extension of separate school funding falls within the Charter of Rights?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As has been indicated earlier, the overwhelming balance of opinion offered by the Attorney General's office on the question before the bill was considered was that it was constitutional and, therefore, we have been proceeding without the steps that have been suggested by the honourable member.

Mr. Sterling: Since the minister is going along with the drafting of the legislation, I assume the advice received is that the extension to grades 11 and 12 falls within the guarantee under section 29 of the Constitution. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I believe what I said on Friday last and on other occasions was that it was our opinion the policy to extend the funding through the additional years was constitutional.

Mr. Warner: Since the legal advice is that it is constitutionally correct, what is today's lame excuse for not introducing the bill?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No lame excuses have been offered; the importance of consulting the public has been emphasized. If the honourable member is concerned about consulting the public, I invite him to turn predictably to his left and behind him and ask his Education critic why he is determined to cut off public consultation and debate.

FLOODING

Mr. Haggerty: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Natural Resources concerning the high levels of water on Lake Huron, Lake St. Clair and, in particular, Lake Erie. The water level is without doubt at its highest in a number of years, say, in the past 10 years. It has caused considerable damage in soil erosion along the shoreline and has also caused severe difficulties in land drainage in the Lake Erie basin.

Can the minister indicate to the House, as many others have indicated, whether one of the culprits for the high water levels in the Great Lake systems is control by Ontario Hydro, the New York State Power Authority and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority?

Hon. Mr. Harris: I am not sure I heard -- who are all the people who have control?

Mr. Speaker: Would the member clarify it for the minister?

Mr. Haggerty: It has been stated by many residents and concerned citizens in the Erie riding and in the Niagara Peninsula that one of the causes of high levels of water in the Great Lakes basin is that Ontario Hydro, the New York State Power Authority and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority are controlling the water at their gates on the Niagara River.

Hon. Mr. Harris: I think I addressed part of that question last week when we talked about it, when I believe it was brought up by the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) or the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes), or both. I am aware there are some people who believe Ontario Hydro and/or the New York state utilities commissions have a significant influence on the high water levels.

At that time I indicated to the House it was my understanding from briefings I have had on the matter that is a very insignificant possibility, involving less than one tenth of an inch as a result of any control mechanisms for holdback for power considerations; however, we were looking at those. I also indicated at the time I would try to get more information on whether it is substantially more or less than that.

I am also aware representation has been made to the International Joint Commission. We certainly support ascertaining the extent to which control of the lock system and everything else plays a factor. However, I have to tell the member that the information I have is that it is far more related to weather patterns and the amount of rainfall we have had over the past couple of years.

Yes, the water levels are high and we are looking at many remedial measures that can be taken to help the situation, but I do not think the member will find that different controls by the utilities are going to affect significantly water levels on Lake Erie.

Mr. Haggerty: A recent study has been done by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority on the fluctuating levels of the Welland River. There is every indication the power authorities do have some control of the area that is causing fluctuations to the water level in that basin.

It has been a long time -- I believe it was in the early 1950s -- since the government appointed a select committee to deal with high levels of water in the Great Lakes basin. Will the ministry or the government of the day now initiate a further inquiry or appoint a select committee to deal with the issues, because we have seen changes in the past in navigational needs?

Mr. Speaker: That is a very good question.

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Harris: I will be delighted to take it up with my colleagues to see whether they concur, and I will perhaps discuss it with members of both opposition parties. Perhaps we could have a select committee sitting in July, August or September that could work on it. I am not 100 per cent convinced that all three sides will agree at this time that this is the mechanism, but I think the honourable member has made his point, and I have concurred from my ministry's point of view --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Hold it in Europe or someplace. We could be there for the floods.

Hon. Mr. Harris: We can hold it in Europe if the member likes.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We will be there when the floods take place.

Hon. Mr. Harris: Sorry, Mr. Speaker; I got sidetracked.

There is merit in reviewing that. As a result of a question raised last week, I have asked my officials to ascertain what other information is there and what other information needs to be gleaned on the basis of some of the statements that have been made in the last little while.

I am not sure whether it was four or five years ago that the water was too low.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe the question was whether you would set up a select committee.

Hon. Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, he gave me a few other options, and I am going to pursue them all.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Premier on government advertising. Can the Premier explain and justify the fact that the Media Measurement Services list of top national advertisers shows that in 1984 Ontario's advertising increased by 18.1 per cent over 1983 , the crown corporations' advertising budgets rose by an astronomical 38.9 per cent and the lotteries corporations' advertising budgets increased by a whopping 27.8 per cent?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I cannot answer the question in detail. I will get the honourable member the answers.

Mr. Foulds: While the Premier is looking for those answers, can he explain why government advertising invariably increases in the year leading up to an election? How does he justify the fact that the increase of $4.9 million in 1984 was more than the total advertising budget spent by this government as recently as 1976?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I cannot think of anything I could say that would change the member's mind on that matter.

TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS

Mr. Nixon: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. The minister may recall that in his address on June 4, His Honour referred specifically to the government's intention to do additional highway construction on Highway 400, Highway 416, Highway 401 and Highway 407, and in the minister's statement today he referred specifically to Highway 401, Highway 8, Highway 69 and Highway 35-115.

Has he not heard from the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), as well as myself, about the need for consideration of work on Highway 403? How could he possibly fail to include that in this fairly large list of otherwise important work?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I would like to take some advice from the member for Brantford, but his point was that I slipped. However, the honourable member will know there is considerable work going on on Highway 403, and I think he is quite satisfied with what is happening.

Mr. Nixon: The work has been very satisfactory, in that the work has not been broken up or the bridges have not been falling in; however, the minister must be aware that until Highway 403 is completed from Brantford east to Ancaster, that troubled city will continue to be bypassed by industry. Will he give careful consideration in the next few days to allocating appropriate funds for building Highway 403 east from Brantford?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I think the question was whether I would give careful consideration, and the answer is yes.

MEDICAL LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. The minister is aware that the employees at Canadian Medical Laboratories in Hamilton and Simcoe have, in effect, been without a contract or the increases due them since July 1982. The Inflation Restraint Board issued an order for a nine per cent increase from July 1982 to June 1983, but that increase has never been paid and the workers have suffered as a result.

Can the minister tell us what is being done about that? Is he prepared to intervene with his colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Pope), who seems to have some responsibility inasmuch as the company intervened some seven months ago to ask for a judicial review of the board's right to issue that order and to this day has never filed its statement of defence?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I will take the question as notice and respond.

Mr. Mackenzie: In the response, can the minister tell us whether there are other options such as a court order? Do we have to sit tight while this obvious flouting of the law by the owners is taking place? Is it possible to take a look at removing the licence from Canadian Medical Laboratories as an option in this case?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I will take it as notice.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Swart: I have a number of petitions.

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

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

"Whereas any action to extend funding to separate secondary schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas people in a democratic society have a right to be consulted prior to the implementation of policies which change long-standing relationships; and

"Whereas there is an understood convention in democratic societies with respect to the rule of law that before fundamental changes in public policy are implemented such matters should be debated in the Legislative Assembly with an opportunity for the public to appear and be heard;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to debate the issue of extension of public funding to separate secondary schools prior to implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for people to appear and to be heard."

This is signed by 231 persons from the Allanburg United Church, Eastdale Secondary School, the Niagara South Special Services Committee, Thorold Secondary School, Welland High and Vocational School and Westbrook Secondary School in Welland.

Mr. O'Neil: I have a similar petition, with the same wording, submitted to me by Mr. Evan Bogart, a trustee of the Hastings County Board of Education, requesting the Ontario Legislature to delay the implementation of the proposed separate secondary school funding until appropriate, constitutionally acceptable legislation is in place.

Mr. Eakins: I also have a petition.

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

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to delay implementation of the proposed separate secondary school funding until appropriate, constitutionally acceptable legislation is in place."

It is signed by a number of my constituents.

Mr. Mancini: I have received petitions and have had them presented to me by Mr. Scott Hunt and Shirley Telegadas, who are active in the Essex county area with the teachers' federation. They have asked me to table these petitions in the Legislature.

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

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

"Whereas any action to extend public funding to Roman Catholic separate schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas it is uncertain whether extension would contravene the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and

"Whereas in a democratic society there is a recognized convention with respect to the rule of law that before fundamental changes in public policy are implemented such matters are debated in the Legislative Assembly, with an opportunity for the public to appear and be heard before an appropriate committee of the Legislature;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government:

"1. to seek a constitutional referral prior to any implementation to determine whether extension would conflict with the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and

" 2. to debate fully the issue of extension prior to any implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for the people to appear and be heard."

I have a number of sheets signed by several hundred constituents in the Essex South area and by many citizens in the county of Essex.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. D. W. Smith: I have a petition that is exactly the same as the last, given to me by Mr. B. Hendrickson of the Lambton Central Collegiate and Vocational Institute, and I would like to present it as well. There are 61 persons who have signed the petition.

Mr. Hayes: I also have a petition.

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

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

"That the terms of reference of the commission for the extension of public funding to Roman Catholic schools be broadened to include counterproposals and suggestions from concerned citizens in order to remove bias for their deliberations;

"That the extension of public funding be delayed to allow time for the commission to publish their finding, for the government to prepare a white paper, for the people to read it and for adequate debate;

"That the white paper be submitted to the courts for judgement on the constitutionality and its effects on the rights of other minorities, including the right of the majority not to be unduly affected in their simple right to an education."

These are all from my constituency, Essex North, and there is a very large number of them.

Mr. Haggerty: I have a similar petition. It is signed by 114 people from Port Colborne High School, Ridgeway and Crystal Beach High School and Fort Erie Secondary School.

Mr. Keyes: I likewise have five petitions presented to me by Miss Jane Derby on behalf of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation in my area. They have basically the same requests, to petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to seek the constitutional referral prior to any implementation to determine whether extension would conflict with the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights.

Second, they petition the Legislature to debate fully the issue of extension prior to any implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided to people to appear and be heard.

It is signed by 56 people from Frontenac Secondary School, 53 people from La Salle Secondary School, seven teachers on behalf of Loyalist Collegiate and Vocational Institute, five members of the board of education of Frontenac county and 31 staff of Kingston Collegiate and Vocational Institute.

Mr. Haggerty: I also have a petition for completion of the Catholic separate school system in Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, support full funding for the completion of the Catholic separate school system with its implementation in September 1985."

It is signed by approximately 200 people in St. Elizabeth's parish in Thunder Bay.

MOTION

HOUSE SITTINGS

Mr. Grossman moved that the House not sit in the chamber on Wednesday, June 12, 1985.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION RECIPROCAL ACCESS ACT

Hon. Mr. Pope moved, seconded by Hon. Ms. Fish, first reading of Bill 3, An Act respecting Actions arising from Transboundary Pollution between Ontario and Reciprocating Jurisdictions.

Motion agreed to.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING CONTROL ACT

Mr. Foulds moved, seconded by Ms. Gigantes, first reading of Bill 4, An Act respecting Advertising by Governmental Organizations.

Motion agreed to.

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Foulds moved, seconded by Ms. Gigantes, first reading of Bill 5, An Act to amend the Election Finances Reform Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Foulds: These two bills will severely curtail government advertising. The first bill, the Government Advertising Control Act, 1985, would prevent any Ontario government organization from placing advertising on radio, television, newspapers or billboards which would either directly or indirectly promote the political parties to which members of the executive council or the cabinet belong.

The bill would also prevent the use by a government organization of a logo, slogan, motto or name that is likely to be identified with that of a political party. Photographs or voice recordings of a cabinet minister would be banned on government advertising.

This bill is designed to prevent any Ontario government from using taxpayers' money to further its own political objectives in the years leading up to an election.

3:40 p.m.

The second bill, the Election Finances Reform Act, 1985, would prohibit advertising by government organizations during provincial election campaigns. Exemptions are granted for emergency purposes approved by the leaders of the opposition parties and for the administration of the election itself.

These two bills are an attempt to prevent the government from using taxpayers' money for propaganda purposes.

NON-UNIONIZED WORKERS PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved, seconded by Mr. Newman, first reading of Bill 6, An Act respecting the Rights of Non-Unionized Workers.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: The purpose of the bill is to provide a low cost mechanism whereby a nonunionized worker may obtain a review by the Ontario Labour Relations Board where the worker is discharged or otherwise disciplined for cause and the contract of employment is silent on matters of discipline. At the present time, a nonunionized worker who is dismissed or otherwise disciplined for cause may have no right of action against his employer notwithstanding the fact that the discipline is, having regard to all the circumstances, unduly harsh.

The bill provides a two-stage process for reviewing complaints involving harsh discipline. Initially, a labour relations officer would be appointed to effect a settlement which would be reduced to writing and which would have to be complied with according to its terms. Then, if no settlement is reached or where settlement is not likely, the Ontario Labour Relations Board would inquire into the matter. The board, if satisfied that the complaint is justified, will have the power to make an order substituting such penalty as is just and reasonable in the circumstances.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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.

Mr. Partington: It is with a good deal of pride and pleasure that I rise to take an early part in the throne speech debate. I am glad of the chance to introduce myself to the House and to introduce new members to the attributes and concerns of Brock riding. Veteran members will need no such introduction to Brock riding which has been represented for so many years by the former Deputy Premier and Attorney General, Bob Welch.

During his distinguished 22 years in office, Bob held at one time or another virtually every important cabinet position. Bob Welch is the hallmark of diligence, organization, common sense and intelligence. Most of all, Bob's success as a politician and as a person was based on being open and accessible to all elements of the community and on his humane, compassionate and caring approach to all people, no matter their success in life and no matter their political affiliation. I will do my utmost to continue Bob's tradition of service to the people of Brock and to advance the interests of Brock, of Niagara and of Ontario.

The riding of Brock is named after General Isaac Brock, Canada's hero of the War of 1812, who died while leading his troops to victory over the American forces at the Battle of Queenston Heights. The riding is rich in history and in natural charms. Its accessible position in the Great Lakes explains its prominence in early history and, I believe, its promising future.

Brock riding today may be regarded as representative of most of the constituent elements of Ontario, combining agricultural areas, cities and suburbs, heavy and light industry, union and non-union labour, tourist and service industries, waterfronts and water courses, the educational institutions of Brock University and Niagara College of Applied Arts and Technology and leading public and private secondary schools.

I invite any members who have not yet sampled the delights of my riding to visit scenic, historic Niagara-on-the-Lake and the Niagara River Parkway. Visit the village of Queenston; the old town of Port Dalhousie; the Welland Canal; our blossom, folk arts and grape and wine festivals; the beautiful harbours; the Henley rowing regatta; the Shaw Festival; and our many historic and natural attractions.

A total of 75 per cent of the population of Brock riding lives in St. Catharines, where the auto industry is the major employer, overshadowing numerous other industrial and commercial concerns. My riding is an excellent place to live and work, but its constituents, like all others, have their hopes and fears. They recognize, as do the people of Ontario, that much of the progress of this province can be attributed to the careful stewardship, good management and firm leadership of the party of Drew, Robarts, Davis and our current Premier (Mr. F. S. Miller).

No apologies need be made for the policies and laws that have ensured Ontario's pre-eminence in Canada and have so frequently been copied in other provinces. The people of Brock will continue to look to this place for leadership and good management in dealing with their concerns, and I am pleased to say that the speech from the throne contains programs of great importance to my area.

In the 1960s and 1970s this government's large-scale environmental programs were geared toward the establishment and upgrading of basic water and sewage services. As these goals have been accomplished, the government's efforts to reduce contaminated emissions and enhance the protection of drinking water have increased. Today, 94 per cent of our urban residents are served by communal water and sewage plants. When one compares Ontario to our sister province of Quebec, where only six per cent of the urban population is so served, one can only give credit for the foresight and determination shown by successive governments in Ontario.

Environmental protection is like motherhood. I do not know anyone who is against it; I do, however, know some who pretend they invented it. The quality of our environment, and particularly the quality of our water, both in the Niagara River and in the Great Lakes, is a matter of foremost concern to me and to my riding. I can assure members that no issue will receive higher priority from me. The questions of whether the water is safe to swim in, whether the fish are safe to eat and, indeed, whether the water in our glasses is safe to drink should all become questions of the past. I believe this will be achieved.

[Applause]

Mr. Partington: I thank the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley).

Emotion and passion have played an important role in forcing the issue to public attention. Now science and diligence must be applied to locate and monitor polluters and pollutants. Stopping pollution should transcend party politics; stopping pollution should transcend economic considerations; and stopping pollution should transcend provincial, state and international boundaries. Polluters under the jurisdiction of the Ontario government must be identified and halted. Polluters not under our jurisdiction must be stopped by persuasion, example, agreement, legal action and friendly, and if necessary unfriendly, coercion by other governments. The bill introduced today by the Attorney General (Mr. Pope) is a step in the right direction.

3:50 p.m.

My constituents are pleased the throne speech commits this government to do just that. Proposed environmental programs benefit our citizens daily. They make Ontario more attractive to visitors. Brock riding and its neighbouring communities see a considerable number of tourists each year. My constituents well appreciate the value of the tourism industry to the community and thus applaud the incentives announced in the throne speech. I hope other communities, as well as those in Brock riding, will reap the benefits of these new programs.

I mentioned earlier that the automotive industry is the major employer in St. Catharines. It is, in fact, the largest manufacturing industry in Canada. The health of that industry has a dramatic impact on the employment levels throughout Niagara and the province. I am pleased the throne speech has reiterated this government's commitment to this crucial area. The automotive parts investment fund started a year ago, the enterprise technology fund and the insistence on Canadian content or quotas on Japanese imports are essential contributions to the stability of this industry.

Agriculture is another important industry in Brock. Agriculture has flourished in Brock riding since before Confederation, as we have been truly blessed with good weather, good soil, good water supply and good location with respect to trade and transportation. Land use has evolved and intensified over the years and today orchards, vineyards and greenhouses are thriving. They have all benefited our economy.

Under this government, the province has helped to develop the greenhouse industry by promoting such things as greater energy efficiency, the potential use of waste heat from generating plants and the evaluation of new products, such as Ontario greenhouse-grown Kiwi fruit.

This government has helped to improve our orchards through a variety of assistance programs for apple growers, and more recently for the breeding of new processing cherry-stone peach varieties.

Our grape and wine industry has also flourished over the last 20 years with a tremendous increase in both quality and variety. Today, that industry faces severe pressures from foreign competition which are due largely to unfavourable exchange rates and to subsidies which give foreign wines a distinct advantage. In the short term, this government is helping producers through purchases of concentrated wines and juices and the wine sale recently announced. To deal with the long term, a joint government-producer industry task force is looking at grape and wine industry problems.

The throne speech announcements of a farm operating credit assistance program and the new crop development fund will be good news for my constituents.

The particular topics I have discussed today are only a few of the concerns of my multifaceted riding and of the people of the Niagara region. I look forward to working with my colleagues here and my colleagues opposite, some of whom represent other parts of the Niagara region, to advance the interests of those people.

I trust that members opposite will come to their senses shortly. It should not be necessary, but it apparently is, to remind members that the people of Ontario elected more members of my party than of any other on May 2. It is ludicrous to suggest the democratic will of the people is served by this unholy alliance which has been born of overweening eagerness for power, and born in such distrust that it had to be committed to paper.

On May 2, no one voted for any member of the opposition in the belief that he or she would do only as he or she was told by the leader of the third party, and very few people voted for the third party.

If the Social Credit Party out west became Socred, what are we to make of this contrived marriage of the socialists and the opposition? Have we seen the birth of the Sogrit party?

Some years ago, Hollywood inflicted upon us an incredibly bad movie under the title of The Incredible Two-Headed Man. It seems we are now threatened with an equally bad sequel, The Incredible Two-Headed Government. Neither I nor the people of Brock believe genetic engineering has so advanced that such an operation could be successful. I therefore urge the members opposite to join in supporting the positive steps outlined in the throne speech so the business of the province can proceed.

Mr. Callahan: I now know how the Blue Jays feel in the eighth inning as the fans trickle out.

Mr. Bradley: This is a full house.

Mr. Callahan: Is that right? I spent long hours preparing my speech and for a while there I thought I was not going to have an opportunity to give it.

As members know, I come from Brampton. Everyone has heard of Brampton. It is a beautiful city, a combination of Bramalea and the old town of Brampton. Some of the things the House was not told in the past is that it is really made up of a number of communities of which we are all equally proud: Bramalea, Brampton, Toronto Gore, Churchville, Huttonville, Madoc, Peel Village, Heart Lake, Snelgrove and Northwood Park. I hope I have not forgotten any. If I have, I will be in trouble.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt your first speech, but I wonder if you could stand a little closer to the microphone. It is hard to pick up. Thank you very much.

Mr. Callahan: I am sorry.

As members will recall, the city of Brampton was formed through regional government in 1974. It has grown rapidly over the years, so much so that it is now 173,000 strong. It grew from the small town of Brampton, with a population of about 35,000 when I arrived there, to the present extraordinary city. The last time I was on city council I was told we are moving towards a population of some 250,000 people.

Having listened to the Treasurer (Miss Stephenson) this afternoon and her amazing forecasts regarding the economic climate we are living in, I had to reflect on certain things that took place in Brampton because of its growth. For instance, we have an excellent hospital with excellent staff who work very hard. Because of the rather unique funding formula the government had in play, what it calls global funding, with a growth factor of two per cent for every city throughout Ontario, my city, which is growing faster than any city in Ontario and probably in Canada, is suffering gravely. When the hospital gets a 2.8 per cent increase, adds the two per cent to it and then settles with its nurses for five or six per cent, anyone who operates a simple household will know it is operating in the red.

This has happened consistently over the years. The net result has been people sleeping in the halls; there were 47 in December. Operations are being cancelled, and not only elective surgery, but necessary surgery. Opportunities for people to get into the hospital are being made very difficult. After hearing we are in such a great financial boom period, I wonder why that particular situation continues.

4 p.m.

The city of Brampton is made up of people who are newly arrived there. Many of them do not take their medical services in Brampton; they take them outside Brampton. There will come a day when the people of Brampton in totality will take their services within the city and we will have reached a catastrophic situation.

Apart from those problems, there are others, all of which stem from the question of growth. While growth is beautiful, it is very important that the essential services necessary for growth are made available to this municipality and to other similar municipalities.

I would like to invite members to the city of Brampton. We are very proud of the things we have out there. We almost had the dome, but we did not get it. We do have a very excellent Carabram ceremony, which I suppose is somewhat akin to Caravan in Toronto. It will commence on July 4 and run through to July 7. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not invite everyone from the Legislature who is here and perhaps those who are not here to come out and celebrate that ceremony with the city of Brampton. Members can come out and sample the sights, tastes and sounds of the various ethnic communities that now make up our fine city.

The city itself at one time was considered to be a suburb or a bedroom community. I would suggest that if members come out to Brampton now, they will find we have a major industrial park that I would think is second to none in Ontario. As a result, we now have large numbers of people who are employed directly within the city.

As well, because of our growth and the number of people who work outside of Brampton and commute to Toronto, our GO Transit service is not adequate for the large and ever-increasing population. These are things which should be rectified to look after the ever-growing size of the city and effectively to deal with and help my constituents in the city of Brampton.

Recognizing the lateness of the hour and that the numbers on the opposite side of the House seem to be dwindling, I think that is really all I have to say in my maiden speech.

Mrs. Grier: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating you on the honourable position to which you have been elected by this House. It is a position which embodies many of the important traditions of parliamentary democracy. I have to say that after only two or three days in this place my congratulations are perhaps coupled with sympathy, but I do wish you well in what I am sure will be turbulent days ahead.

It is with great pride that I take my place in this Legislature. I spoke here once as a member of a model parliament at the University of Toronto more years ago than I care to admit. At that time I never dreamed I would one day take my place here as a member of this assembly. I have represented my constituents at the municipal level and I am very honoured by their support and the confidence they have shown in sending me here.

With some slight interruption I follow another NDP member who for 15 years represented the riding of Lakeshore in this House, Patrick Daniel Lawlor. I know he is remembered with affection on both sides of this House and is certainly remembered with affection by his constituents. In the course of the election campaign, I had very many people tell me they had been helped by Pat Lawlor and I think that in no small measure helped to send me here.

When Patrick Lawlor made his first speech in this House, he opened it with a quotation in Latin. Thereafter, he was referred to in Lakeshore as the bilingual member for Lakeshore. He said, "Behold, the dreamer cometh."

He saw the fulfilment of some of those dreams, but many of my constituents still hold the same dreams for improvements in their quality of life and in the form of government to which they are subjected in this province. I am here, I hope, to succeed in fulfilling some more of Pat Lawlor's dreams.

Lakeshore represents a cross-section of the urban areas in Ontario. Our residents come from many ethnic backgrounds. We have the wealthy and the disadvantaged, large homes and modest dwellings, modem apartment towers and older buildings of moderately priced housing.

The residents of my riding are eminently reasonable people. I have always found as a municipal representative that if I laid before them the issues and the problems and asked them to participate with me in a consultative process that would arrive at a solution to those problems, we were able to resolve most of our own dilemmas. They have very reasonable expectations of their government. They see government as there to serve them, to listen to them, to consult them, to protect them and to lead them.

We are a community that has always attempted to resolve our own problems and meet our own needs. I suspect the number of hours of volunteer labour with a wide variety of community organizations in Lakeshore is higher than in most other ridings. It is because of this very strong community spirit that the failure of the present government to respond to our express needs has resulted in a severe lack of confidence in its ability to do so in the future. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting the motion and the amendment of no confidence that are before this House.

I would like to share with the House a couple of examples of issues on which certainly I and my constituents have no confidence in the ability of the present government to act in their best interests. One of those issues is the whole question of services to the elderly.

My riding embodies a large number of senior citizens living in their own homes or in apartments, people who need a small amount of help to maintain their independence. They have come together in a number of self-help groups, they have formed organizations, they have incorporated boards, they have raised funds and they have put in countless hours of volunteer effort to create home support services, friendly visiting services and some homemaker services.

They had a project that enabled them to do renovations and small repairs for seniors who were no longer able to do those for themselves. What they needed was some secure, stable funding to enable those projects to continue and for a very modest sum to expand and to serve a far larger number of people than they are able to do as currently funded.

They have turned to government to provide those funds, and essentially all they have received from this government is promises. They listened hopefully to a 1982 throne speech that promised care for the frail elderly. We heard in this throne speech of a promise of a far-reaching, community-based care system. We have heard it before and we are still waiting.

We now hear we are going to have a ministry for the elderly. Far better that this government commit the funds that would go into building a new ministry for the elderly to the programs that are already in place and beef up the administrative mechanisms that are there. I do not think the voluntary groups in this province could stand another reorganization of government ministries.

How many times have we attempted to get some answers from the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Community and Social Services only to be told, "We are reorganizing; we will have the answer in a few months"? We do not need a new ministry; we need some firm commitment and some firm funding to the services that have been asked for to these many years.

My riding is blessed with several miles of Lake Ontario shoreline and is bounded on the east and on the west by the Mimico Creek and the Etobicoke Creek. Therefore, my constituents are particularly conscious of the need for better environmental protection. Here again we have no confidence in the determination of the present government to act to provide that protection.

We have before us a throne speech that is so lacking in initiatives and imaginative proposals that it is to proclaim three pieces of legislation, one of which, the spills bill, was passed six years ago by this House and is still not in force. The throne speech boasts that we have in place in Ontario the most extensive and rigorous laws of all the industrial jurisdictions in North America. We may have, but the enforcement of those laws is less than rigorous and the legislation has been consistently undermined by a lack of political will in the application of those laws.

4:10 p.m.

My constituents and I are therefore sceptical of the promises that have been put before this House. Our scepticism is only reinforced by the announcements that have been made since the throne speech about programs to do something about acid rain or to persuade Inco to adhere to control orders that it had already agreed to some months ago.

I would remind the members of this House that the first control order on emissions from Inco was issued in 1970. It called for 750 tons per day. Inco is now having emissions of 1,950 tons per day, and we are supposed to be grateful it has agreed to reduce that by 50 per cent in 1985. That first order was supposed to have been implemented by 1978. We have to ask ourselves how much less a problem acid rain would be had that original order been adhered to.

We heard from the minister last week about Operation Shield, a liming and restocking of acidified recreational lakes. A year ago the Ministry of the Environment's own fact sheet contained these words, "When the amounts of material costs, limited access and other managerial and environmental details are considered, it is believed that the addition of lime to protect the entire sensitive area in Ontario is neither practical, realistic nor desirable." That fact sheet announced a pilot project which is to be evaluated at the end of 1986, so we may be forgiven if we are suspicious that what we are hearing today is the dying gasp of a dying government attempting to save itself.

There have been too many studies and too many delays. One issue that brought all that to a head for the constituents of Lakeshore riding was the question of the closure in 1979 of the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital, an issue about which members of this House on whichever side they end up sitting are going to be hearing from me in the days ahead. That hospital was closed in 1979 with no consultation with our community, no consultation with the staff and, least of all, no consultation with the patients and families of those involved in the residential services there.

The outpatient services have been maintained but in a state of suspense as to knowing where their future location might be. We received no action to fulfil the promise of equivalent services in the community as part of the deinstitutionalization of these services. The funding that was supposed to be transferred to community services did not happen.

The city of Etobicoke and the residents of my riding formulated a plan over a year ago for the future use of those 46 acres of beautiful prime land on the shore of Lake Ontario. We received no response from the Ministry of Government Services as the property owner about what it intended to do with the land. On May 3 I phoned the ministry in my new capacity and asked what was happening with respect to those hospital grounds. As one might guess, there is another study. No issue better crystallized for my constituents their lack of confidence in the present government.

The throne speech is an amazing document to receive from a Conservative government, but we have no confidence that even if the measures included in that speech were implemented by this government, they would be done properly. We have the suspicion they would be done piecemeal, too slowly and too little.

There are statements in the throne speech that reinforce those suspicions, statements such as, "Social programs cannot substitute for economic policies that pursue sustainable competitive growth." What does that mean? I suspect it means that if I had the opportunity to ask this government in the months ahead what had happened to funding for my program of home support services, I would be told it could not be afforded right now because it might jeopardize our triple-A rating somewhere.

Just as the cousins of this government in Ottawa are making the old age pensioners suffer to reduce the deficit, we might well find some of those substatements in the throne speech gave the present government an excuse for not implementing those promises, should it be, perish the thought, in a position to do so.

The throne speech to me represents the heights or depths of political cynicism. I do not think the people of my riding are impressed. I have spent many years as an alderman persuading the residents of the lakeshore that they could fight city hall, how they could fight city hall and how they could win at fighting city hall. I have no confidence that with this throne speech they will be able to fight for the things they seek to achieve.

The Premier spoke last week of principles he was not prepared to bend. The only principle that is discernible is the principle of perpetual power of the Progressive Conservatives. For 42 years, being a Conservative in this province has meant never having to say you were sorry. Enough is enough. It is time to call a halt. It is time to let the sunshine in. It is time to make some meaningful changes that put the people of this province first.

Mr. Shymko: I am waiting for the reaction of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) because I recall that four years ago, when I made my maiden speech following the great victory on March 19, 1981, the member for Oshawa, prior to our side participating in the debate on the speech from the throne, looked at us and said, "As I watched the pile of manure...." I believe that was his expression.

I am glad to see the member has tempered his behaviour and is not making any comments today. I understand that circumstances have changed from four years ago and that may well be the reason the member for Oshawa is behaving in a gentlemanly way. I certainly believe he will do so in the future.

It is ironic that my first speech in this 33rd Parliament is again part of the debate on the speech from the throne. From a streak of curiosity or nostalgia, I took a copy of my old speech of four years ago, dusted the cover of Hansard and looked at some of the comments I made then and wondered whether I would be saying the same things today.

Some statements made then would perhaps be cynical, sarcastic or ironic today. I will not share them with the members. However, some of the comments I made are quite applicable, and I would like to share them with the members.

I said in my opening remarks four years ago that all of us as legislators "realize we have common goals and common aspirations, on whichever side of the chamber we may sit." I said there was a "commonality of purpose" that we all share "to improve the quality of life of our citizens and to lighten the burden of that brief passage of time we call life."

Those words were perhaps a little philosophical, but I think they make a lot of sense today because we may be going through a period of uncertainty, a period of transition, a period perhaps described as organized chaos in the next few weeks.

It is important to remember and to believe -- and I want to believe -- that the speech from the throne presented last week was neither a last-minute cynical ploy to hold on to power, as some may perceive it to have been, nor was it what someone described as a deathbed repentance. I believe the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) used that expression.

I believe it was not an empty exercise in political expediency to score some cheap credit. I believe, as all members believe, it was a sincere admission that we got the message on May 2. There is absolutely nothing wrong in admitting that. That is what democracy is all about.

4:20 p.m.

In political terms, we find ourselves in a very unusual circumstance now. Anyone who tries to claim victory or monopolize any gains from the present situation will get burnt politically in the long run. I refer to all three parties. It is something I share philosophically, and I am convinced the real winners are the nine million people of our great province.

Perhaps what we see today is a reality that may be incomprehensible. I think it was a Prime Minister of Canada who spoke about the mystery of the unfolding of the universe. It may take some while to realize why we on the government side find ourselves in the predicament in which we find ourselves now. Nevertheless, we are the government.

I would have hoped that we would have continued to serve as the government for at least two years. I still cherish that hope. It may be hope against all hopelessness. Hoping against all hopelessness is a very positive virtue. So many of us share it, I remind the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), who smiles as I say this.

If we had a free vote today, divorced from partisan constraints, our proposals, which have been outlined in the speech from the throne, would have the resounding support of the vast majority of all three parties, if not everyone in this Legislature, as has been admitted on a number of occasions by both the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition and the leader of the third party.

Unfortunately, we do not operate under an American-style congressional system. Some may wish we did; we do not. Our British parliamentary system imposes on us a balance of compromise, a balance of mutual confidence among all parties, that was so well illustrated under the minority governments both in 1975 and 1977. Perhaps my constituents have various degrees of understanding of the intricacy of what British parliamentary tradition is all about. I will not comment on the points of view of what has and has not been breached.

The list of proposals is impressive in addressing urgent and pressing needs. Unfortunately for government members -- and I say this quite openly, as would all of my colleagues -- they should have been made a few months earlier, during the last session of the Legislature. Perhaps we would have seen different results on May 2. However, I want to stress that they represent the consensus of not only our present cabinet but also our caucus, and go deep within the framework of the moderate political centre that has always characterized our party in the past and I am confident will continue to do so in the future.

No doubt we have our party loyalties. This is something I referred to in the conclusion of my speech in 1981, and I would like to refer to it today. I think these words still make a lot of sense. I said four years ago, and I was staring at the member for Oshawa in particular as I was saying this:

"As I look around this chamber, I do sense a marvellous and sacred link. No doubt we all have our party loyalties and our partisan limitations, but we are all bound by the same loyalties to our constituents, and that is reflected by the results of elections. Government is based on trust. The province of Ontario and its eight and a half million people" -- this was four years ago; it is nine million now -- "represent that collective trust, and we should be reminded of this whatever our partisan feelings may be."

In 1981, when I spoke those words, that collective trust had given us a majority government. Today, the people have entrusted us with a minority government and the responsibility to make it work.

Failing the holding of an election this fall, I believe the proposals in the speech from the throne will be implemented, whether my party and I serve the people of Ontario as the government or in the opposition. When it comes to promises, I cannot speak for those who have formed what some people describe as the unholy alliance. I cannot speak about promises or whether that alliance will survive or how long it will survive. However, if we Tories did not live up to our 1981 campaign slogan of keeping the promise, I think we had better do it now.

As we proceed to discuss and implement the very program that is being debated and has been presented in the speech from the throne, members will see that promise will be kept, certainly by myself and I am sure by all my colleagues.

That is the way it should be: learning a message, the mandate of the people. The voice of the people is a divine voice, as a Latin saying goes. I do not know the exact wording. I believe the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) said one of her colleagues, a former member for Lakeshore, quoted in Latin, but I do not know what quotation it was. He may have quoted "Vox populi, vox dei," the voice of the people is a divine voice. That is a concept many of the members opposite may have had difficulty grasping in the past, in particular when we formed a majority government. Now they believe that "vox populi" expression because circumstances may be different.

We often have been accused mockingly of providing government by polls. Every so often one listens to these accusations. Many members opposite have reacted as though there was something wrong with providing legislation that has broadly based public support. The ultimate poll obviously is the poll such as that recently taken on May 2, but there is absolutely nothing wrong in polling the opinions of the population of this great province.

When a party is so privileged as to be invited by the voters to form a government, as we were invited to form a government by having received the majority of votes, I believe its members can no longer represent their own partisan interests. We cannot any longer represent our partisan interests.

We have been asked to form a government and we have formed a government. Therefore, we represent all the people of this province, and we must ensure that our actions and our policies, or what is termed "our promise," reflect this. Many of the things that are said in the speech from the throne, as I will refer to later on, have been said before.

Mr. Haggerty: In your first speech in 1981.

Mr. Shymko: Yes, as my 1981 speech referred to. The provision of effective government requires highly developed skills, which I am sure many members in this great Legislative Assembly possess. It requires developed skills in seeking consensus and reaching compromise. It requires a great understanding of the concept of fairness and balance.

4:30 p.m.

The record of this party's achievement down through the years shows it possesses such an understanding. We had the co-operation of the third party years before. I refer again to 1975 and 1977, when the skill of the government and the co-operation and understanding of those opposite made a minority government work without official agreements and the other phenomena we see today.

My experiences in life, in my riding and in government, brief though the latter may be, have led me to become involved in an area often referred to as social justice. I would like to comment about some of the policies in the throne speech as they relate to this area of serious concern.

Social justice is essentially the concepts of fairness and balance applied to the rules that govern society. In a perfect world, government intervention would never be needed to ensure fairness and balance. However, we do not live in a perfect world or in a perfect society. Sometimes circumstances -- and I stress the word "circumstances" -- are such that people who do not want to be are left behind and one group is able to dominate another. When in the course of events the situation does not correct itself and a balance is not achieved, then the government must intervene.

Rental accommodation is one area that requires government intervention to ensure a balance of interests is achieved. As long as the vacancy rate for rental accommodation remains low, government intervention will be needed to protect tenants. Our experience with controls has demonstrated that there are some problems with the legislation. I will not detail them now, but a revision of the present rent review policy is needed.

As I listened to the revisions proposed in the throne speech, I was pleased to hear that many of the reforms I recommended in my submission to the Thom commission were included. My recommendations were made prior to any statements we have heard in the throne speech, and I want to stress that there are elements in this speech that many of us shared and publicly reiterated.

This issue has been of great concern to me because tenants make up 51 per cent of my riding of High Park-Swansea. These reforms will go a long way in protecting their interests.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What about post-1976 buildings?

Mr. Shymko: I am sure we will listen to the wisdom of the member's comments and duly assess those comments.

Our government will introduce legislation that will limit the rate of rent increase allowed without a review to four per cent. We made this announcement. The exemption from rent review for apartments whose rent exceeds $750 a month will be eliminated. In 1982 this government introduced legislation which limited, on an interim basis, the amount of financing costs that could be passed through to tenants in any given year to five per cent. This limitation will be made permanent.

All members will recall the Cadillac Fairview flip-flop and the con artists who wanted to make a fast buck in the speculative venture of these apartments with approximately 11,000 units. It was our quick intervention to protect tenants that led to this very policy and to this commitment of a five per cent financing-cost pass-through.

Provisions will be introduced that will allow tenants to obtain a rent adjustment in cases where the landlords' costs have decreased. They do not always increase; very often they decrease. Our government will establish a workable rent registry, a rent registry such as I proposed in my submission to the Thorn commission. So we see another progressive change that some members on this side had been proposing publicly before commissions, and that should be no surprise to those members of the third party who have read the submissions some of their colleagues on this side made to that commission.

Our government will introduce changes to the rent review system to streamline the procedure and make it much more effective than it is today. I could go on and detail many more examples, but I will briefly say that we will be introducing --

Mr. McClellan: Demolition control.

Mr. Shymko: I remind the member for Bellwoods, who was a member of the negotiating team, that our government will introduce a five-year, $400-million rental supply fund to be used to stimulate co-operative, nonprofit housing to resolve the housing crisis, which the members of the third party so often support in their proposals. There are private-housing and convert-to-rent projects. The popular Ontario housing rehabilitation program will be reintroduced.

The government will also provide assistance to help tenants purchase their first homes. Most people still prefer home ownership to renting, I remind some members of the third party. This plan not only will help tenants of modest means to achieve this goal but will also aid in creating vacancies in the existing rental housing supply. In my riding there is a dilemma as to what will happen with the former Cadillac Fairview apartments. Here is a variety of interesting proposals that will resolve the present state of insecurity and mystery as to what the future holds for those tenants.

Another area of social justice concerns the elderly of our province. I would like to make some remarks as to how we address this problem.

Mr. Kerrio: Send a letter to Mulroney.

Mr. Shymko: I do not have to take the member's suggestion. I have already sent a letter to the Prime Minister indicating that as a former member of the House of Commons -- there are a few of us here in the Legislature -- and as one who shares the partisan loyalties of the same party, I have serious concerns, as does the Premier and many members, about the indexing question and the Minister of Finance's unfortunate inclusion of a policy that is detrimental to the elderly in this province.

Fairness demands that the contributions people have made to our society be recognized by our society. Nowhere is this more important than in the case of our senior citizens. It is because of their efforts that we now find ourselves living in circumstances, materially speaking, that are the envy of many countries in the world. It is because of their efforts that this government has recognized their contributions.

We have always tried to ensure that the gratitude of society to those who have gone before us is expressed in concrete terms. The actions this government now proposes to undertake will continue that tradition. A minister for the elderly will be appointed to consolidate and co-ordinate the many government programs that currently benefit our senior citizens --

Mr. Kerrio: Too late.

Mr. Shymko: It is not too late.

Mr. Kerrio: Too little, too late.

Mr. Shymko: It is never too late. I remind the honourable member that I am an eternal optimist, and that is why I am back.

This government will also develop a new and comprehensive plan for a far-reaching, community-based care system which I will not detail in my comments.

Mr. McClellan: Is that the one that was promised in 1977?

Mr. Shymko: I want to say, as I listen to the comments of the members opposite and to the constant interruptions from the member for Bellwoods, who seems to get a kick from interrupting his colleagues --

Mr. Mancini: We are just trying to help you.

Mr. Breaugh: We are trying to clarify things.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Shymko: I can handle myself quite well, I would like to remind the member.

I do want to say that these are not promises; these are commitments. Here is one commitment I will refer to members. This government is very concerned about the impact of the federal budget on the income of our senior citizens. I repeat, this government is seriously concerned about the impact of the federal budget on the income of our senior citizens. We are not ashamed, and I am not ashamed in stating this. As far as I believe, I know this government will strongly urge the government of Canada to fully compensate pensioners who receive the guaranteed income supplement for inflation. Our government will increase the provincial tax grant program for seniors to help compensate, perhaps not fully, for inflation-related losses in income.

I cannot speak for the cabinet -- I am a humble back-bencher -- but I do sense a concern I know will be voiced and expressed if members opposite give us a little bit more time after June 18. I am sure they will see many more compassionate commitments from this side of the House.

Just as fairness demands that the contributions of our senior citizens be recognized, we should look at another segment of our society. I refer to our young people. That same fairness and sense of justice demands that our young people be given the chance to participate fully in our society.

At present, many of our young people are unable to find employment. It is a tragedy that a society possessing vast resources, such as this country and this province, does not provide these opportunities for full participation to our young people. Having passed through childhood and adolescence, they are unable to complete that journey to full adulthood. Their inability to secure meaningful employment deprives them of a chance to begin to live their own lives and to make plans for their own futures.

This government has done a great deal, and we are proud of our record, to provide our young people with the skills and opportunities to gain employment. We have not resolved the problem. As I mentioned earlier, we are not perfect, but we have made genuine attempts to resolve this tragedy.

Our government established many programs to help young people who are out of school and out of work; programs that one does not find in other jurisdictions in Canada or in other jurisdictions in the world. I can go on and list all of them if the members opposite want to be reminded. Would they like me to list these?

Mr. Wiseman: Yes. Go ahead.

Mr. Shymko: Then let me list them to remind the members opposite. These programs include --

Mr. Epp: You can speak as long as you like. We adjourn at six.

Mr. Shymko: I know. They include the youth opportunity fund, the Ontario youth employment program, the Ontario youth employment counselling centre program, the Ontario Youth Trust --

Mr. Mancini: It is too late.

Mr. Shymko: It is not too late -- the Ontario Youth Corps, the residential centres program, the Ontario youth program, the Ontario youth work opportunities, the year-round venture capital incentive program and the Ontario career action program. This is but the beginning. They are all great programs. They are programs that have been recognized, and we will have to remind not only members but also the constituents of this great province that we have responded to these needs.

We have also established many programs to help those young people enrolled in educational courses and to encourage those interested in acquiring new skills. Would honourable members like me to list some of these?

Mr. Barlow: Just a few of them.

Mr. Shymko: I will list some of them just to give members a random sampling of what we have done. They include co-operative education programs, summer Experience, Junior Rangers, Ontario summer replacement, Ontario student venture capital, Ontario Youth Tourism, part-time employment program, linkage I and linkage II, training in business and industry programs I, II and III, apprenticeship programs, Ontario career action program, employer-sponsored training, Ontario training incentive program, Ontario management development program, university-small business consulting program, Ontario international marketing intern program, Ontario camp leadership centre, educational programs. Shall I continue?

Mr. Barlow: Just a couple more.

Mr. Shymko: Ontario young travellers program, school twinning program, welfare incentive programs, Challenge `85, the Canada-Ontario program, community industrial training program, technical upgrading program, Ontario skills fund.

Mr. Barlow: Who introduced those bills?

Mr. Shymko: Everyone knows it was the government of the day. The Progressive Conservative Party has introduced all these programs. There are also training trust funds and special training initiatives. Those are only a few of the responses to a need and an understanding of the issues of the day.

Mr. Mancini: Who introduced taxes on ice cream and candy and all those things children like? Who did all that? Which government did that? Who introduced ad valorem taxes on gasoline?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Let the member continue with his speech.

Mr. Shymko: Notice the limited nature of the comments after I list the vast program we have initiated, Mr. Speaker. That is the only response one hears from the opposite side; little minds.

Our commitment to seeking a solution for our young people is therefore unquestionable. The new measures introduced in the throne speech underscore the high priority we attach to this very important issue.

I would like to mention the creation of a new Ministry of Skills Development to co-ordinate all the noninstitutional skills development programs, the vocational training, the urban resource planning, etc., and the forecasting programs and services. This is another example of our commitment to help our young people.

One particular program, the co-operative education program, will receive increased funding so an additional 10,000 students can participate. We will be introducing new industry and school training programs and expanding high school programs in career guidance.

I would like to stress that this government, if given a chance, will be providing a $100-million employment and training supplement in addition to the established programs for youth. The third party wants to deprive our young people of these great initiatives and programs by making sure we are defeated on June 18. We must remind the young people of this province of the jeopardy into which they will be placed. When programs are already in place, it will create the type of chaos and instability in this House that will jeopardize these very important initiatives.

Another area is the supplement that would provide 75,000 extra training and upgrading spots in public institutions and industry and 30,000 extra work-experience opportunities for high school graduates, to which the third party will put a stop. It will put on the brakes on June 18 or 19 or whenever is the selected date of the great apocalypse in this province. It will be jeopardizing, for some unexplained reason, these excellent programs that are in place and ready to go.

The supplement would also provide a $10-million training access fund to help people interested in improving their own skills to overcome such obstacles as child care, transportation and accommodation costs.

In addition, the government will establish a $100-million quality education fund to cover research, capital improvements, equipment upgrading, and staff and academic development at Ontario's universities and colleges. I recall the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) constantly raising this issue with the former Minister of Colleges and Universities.

This government will expand the Ontario Welcome House program for new Ontarians as well as the multilingual services provided by government ministries. I do not know how many honourable members have had the opportunity to visit Welcome House. These services and the assistance being provided to newcomers to this province are deeply appreciated. I think it is a fine example of a service in this province that is rarely found in other jurisdictions.

4:50 p.m.

I would like to remind honourable members again that an omnibus bill will be brought forward to ensure that all Ontario statutes conform with the spirit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code, a code we initiated and implemented many years ago as part of the progressive nature of this government. This government has always responded to the needs of the people of Ontario and will continue to respond to them, as this speech from the throne indicates.

This government will take steps to ensure the greater representation of women and of minorities in our public institutions. Our government will establish a policy of contract preference to contractors who have undertaken and who undertake employment equity programs for women, visible minorities, native people and the disadvantaged. This criterion will apply to all contractors who provide over $200,000 worth of goods and services per year to the government.

A compensation equity commission will be established to implement equal pay for work of equal value in the public service, crown corporations and agencies, and recipients of transfer payments, such as hospitals, municipalities, school boards and public institutions.

I thought we would receive some applause from the members opposite for these very important initiatives in equal pay for work of equal value, a principle we have always supported on this side of the House.

The commission will also be charged with advising the government on the appropriate application of equal pay for work of equal value in the private sector, but there is responsibility --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: When did that conversion take place?

Mr. Shymko: Some day when the third party forms a government, which is really hoping in terms of hopelessness, its members will see that it is easy to criticize and to demand speed of action when they sit on the opposite side, but that to make these important changes takes time, research and certainly a sense of responsibility because of the implications that such changes may have on the population and on society generally.

I want to stress that there is a commitment to look at the extension of equal pay for work of equal value in the private sector. The commission will rely on public discussions and debate, something which members of the opposition have always stressed, before any major changes of major impact will be made. That is precisely the purpose of this commission. Following such discussion and debate, we will look at the experience in other jurisdictions in implementing the policy in the public sector to form the ultimate and final recommendations.

While this government is committed to removing the salary inequities suffered by many women in the work place, this government recognizes that the introduction of chaos into Ontario's businesses and industries will benefit no one. A responsible approach must be taken. Such a comprehensive reform requires careful and detailed planning. The methods and standards of compensation equity must be determined on a business-by-business basis, and the effect of compensation equity on the private sector as a whole must first be examined.

For example, the third party may want to know that issues such as the effect on union contracts, the labour-management negotiation process, the competitiveness of individual firms and the impact on worker mobility are only a small sample of those important ones which must be discussed in public and debated before changes are made in the private sector.

Our government is not saying it is impossible to implement compensation equity in the private sector; we are simply saying a well-thought-out and comprehensive plan must be arrived at before we introduce this very fundamental and important change.

Mr. Laughren: Are 40 years enough?

Mr. Shymko: Certainly a year and a half to two years would be enough to make a minority government work as it has worked responsibly in the past. Certainly that would do.

Mr. Mancini: How long do you want?

Mr. Shymko: The member should talk to his negotiating team and perhaps negotiate with those who may want to make this minority government work without the unusual and rather surprising alliances which have been concocted most recently.

I know some members of the Liberal caucus are very uncomfortable; they are not comfortable with these arrangements. But that is something they, not we, will have to live with.

We will certainly be observing their effectiveness and how much time the members opposite, as the next government, will have to implement these policies, including, I hope, some of those we have reiterated in the speech from the throne. I do not know how much time will elapse before they will finally pull the plug on that unholy alliance and call an election. These are mysteries of the unfolding of the universe that we will certainly be observing from the opposite side. We do not know.

I watched the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), who smiles as we comment on the future possibilities, surprises and implications. Certainly, had we received the support that followed under similar circumstances in 1975 and 1977, we would have seen the implementation of all this --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Whenever the next election is held, you are down the tube.

Mr. Kerrio: You have to earn support.

Mr. Shymko: Ah yes; I know the member for Niagara Falls is one of those who is very uncomfortable with the present arrangements, not to mention the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell). I have watched him; he has been very quiet, but I expect to see him occasionally shift in his seat in a rather uncomfortable pose as developments unfold in the next few days and weeks.

Another very important area is that in December 1984 this government amended the Education Act to guarantee French-language education to French-speaking students. It also introduced an amendment that provided for the election of minority-language trustees to school boards by minority-language voters.

Jevoudrais simplement indiquer, au sujet des programmes et de la politique qui vont servir notre communauté franco-ontarienne, qu'il n'y a pas de question qu'on a mis sur pied plusieurs programmes de la part de notre gouvernement et du Parti conservateur.

Il se peut que dans le sens officiel nous ne soyons pas une province bilingue. Mais dans le sens réel, la réalité que nous voyons à présent, nous avons un bilinguisme. Le fait que je peux communiquer en français dans cette Assemblée législative est l'indication d'une réalité. Le fait que la grande majorité des départements du gouvernement traduisent leurs documents en français est un exemple de la réalité qui existe.

On peut présenter plusieurs exemples. Dans le cadre des services de l'enseignement, la protection que nous donnons à n'importe quel citoyen de choisir l'enseignement en français ou en anglais, sans aucun critère de restriction, est à l'avance par comparaison avec la province du Québec. On a fait plus de progrès, il y a plus de justice dans le cadre d'égalité entre les deux langues officielles, ce qu'on ne pourrait jamais dire au sujet de la politique et de la réalité qui se trouvent dans la province du Québec. C'est une réalité.

Naturellement, nous ne nous sommes pas encore déclarés une province où le français et l'anglais sont des langues officielles dans le cadre constitutionnel. Mais je voudrais affirmer une chose: En réalité, de facto, nous sommes une province bilingue-pas de jure, dans le sens juridique.

5 p.m.

Je voudrais voir s'il y aura un changement le 18 ou le 19 juin, où le Parti libéral deviendra le gouvernement du jour. Je voudrais voir s'il aura l'audace et le courage, avec le soutien du Nouveau Parti démocratique, de déclarer la province de l'Ontario officiellement bilingue, comme il l'a promis jour après jour. Je voudrais voir cela: le grand mystère de l'univers, le futur, s'il aura l'audace et le courage de dire aux citoyens de l'Ontario: Oui, notre province sera bilingue.

Je lance un défi au Parti libéral et au Nouveau Parti démocratique à ce point-là. Parce qu'on a des députés francophones, dont la philosophie personnelle et le point de vue personnel soutiennent ce principe, espérons qu'avec le dialogue que nous avons avec les chefs de parti, nous aurons dans quelques jours une réunion des députés francophones de cette Assemblée. Nous avons, comme les députés le savent, une section ontarienne de l'Association internationale des parlementaires de langue française.

Je voudrais lancer un défi au Parti libéral et au Nouveau Parti démocratique: Demandez à cette section de discuter franchement et ouvertement cette question du bilinguisme officiel. Je voudrais voir le courage de mes chers collègues des caucus libéral et néo-démocrate de déclarer la province de l'Ontario officiellement bilingue.

Mr. McClellan: Tell us what you would do then.

Mr. Shymko: I am on record about what I as an individual member of the Legislature believe. I am on record in a statement I made on behalf of all the members of this Legislature at the International Conference of French-Speaking Parliamentarians, if the honourable member will read the record.

I would like to stress that not only have we introduced the amendment that provides for the election of minority-language trustees to school boards by minority-language voters, but in a continuation of our efforts to increase the right of the French-speaking citizens of this province the government will also be reintroducing the amendment. As well, we will extend the health services provided in the French language to ensure that the rights of francophone Ontarians continue to be recognized and expanded and that the office of francophone affairs will be made an integral part of the Ontario cabinet.

I would like Franco-Ontarians to listen to what we have said in the speech from the throne. Our government will be introducing all these measures, perhaps not in the way and not with the speed that some might have wished, but in a responsible way.

I certainly do want to see in the changes in the next few weeks of supposedly a new government the courage of that new government, supported by the third party, to declare Ontario officially bilingual. I would like to see this so that the members opposite do not play a con game with the electors but stand by their principles and their past declarations and go into an election with that particular issue resolved publicly. That is something we will be raising time and again in this House in the next months. I would like to see them have the courage to stand up for what they have said in the past and indeed declare Ontario bilingual.

Our government will introduce legislation to extend public funding to Roman Catholic secondary schools beyond the current grade 10 limitations. We all have an agreement on this issue. Someone may ask, "Why are you talking about it? We know we all support this issue."

A few days ago I was watching the House leader of the Liberal Party in one of those interviews with the media. I believe Robert Fisher was the moderator and I think it was a Canadian Broadcasting Corp. program. One of the interesting questions raised at that interview with the Liberal House leader was, "How can you possibly implement the Catholic school funding within four to five weeks of having formed a government some time in the beginning or middle of July when in the past and during the election you have constantly stressed the need for public debate, continued input and unlimited debate before the implementation of this important policy?"

They say we should proceed speedily within a few weeks to implement this and hypocritically demand that a bill be introduced, while denigrating and making a total circus out of our speech from the throne. They say it is meaningless and that whatever we have to say has no sense because, "You guys will not be around as of June 18; therefore, do not present us with a speech from the throne."

I sincerely find it hypocritical not to see any significance in the speech from the throne but to find significance in the presentation of the education bill.

Mr. McClellan: That is not parliamentary.

Mr. Shymko: I sincerely find that unusual and contradictory. I withdraw the word "hypocritical," but it is certainly contradictory.

If that is the concern, whatever agreement was struck by the two parties opposite should allow this government to function as a minority government, giving it time to implement, following substantive debate, the very important policy of Catholic school funding. They should not rush into it and they should not jeopardize the supposed support they as legislators have had and hope to have in the future.

As we all agree, the separate school system has long been an integral part of publicly funded education in this province. As far as this caucus is concerned, whatever individual comments one may hear, its existence is guaranteed in the British North America Act. However, the extension of funding for the final grades of high school has become a controversial issue, as we all know.

Many groups and individuals want to express their views on the legislation and they must be given the opportunity to do so without arbitrary time constraints. The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and I are graduates of St. Michael's College School. We graduated from an institution that has been around since before Confederation. Our alma mater has decided to opt out, go private for some reason and not to accept public funding.

That is a very prominent secondary school. Time should be given for that institution to express the reasons it opted out. This is why I stress it cannot be done with arbitrary time constraints. I was very interested to learn that my old alma mater, St. Michael's College School, opted out.

Finally, I would like to turn my attention to the throne speech provisions that deal with child care, an area that has been of concern to me. I had the privilege to serve as chairman on the standing committee on social development with many members.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I thought there was a time limit on these speeches.

The Deputy Speaker: There is no time limit. That is not a proper point of order.

Mr. Shymko: The member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) has been around this House for many years. With his vast experience and knowledge of the intricacies of the legislative process, I would have thought he would have known there is no time constraint on this. However, it is interesting that even in this important debate a Liberal member wants to put on time constraints. They want time constraints when we start making sense, when what we say reflects the wisdom of our constituents. When we make sense they all want time constraints.

Perhaps they have learned from other sources. There have been time constraint limitations set by various sides of this House. I do appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you reminded the honourable member I can continue to speak.

5:10 p.m.

The social development committee, acting as a nonpartisan, all-party committee, has produced some excellent reports. With the experience I have had in the past four years, if there was any moment I was proud to serve as a member of the Legislature, it was to be not only chairman but also a member of that committee, working in a nonpartisan, compassionate way, very often having problems with members of the cabinet who, once in a while, would disagree. It is elevating to see we can work as responsible legislators and lawmakers in a nonpartisan way.

The day care public hearings we held, the reports that were produced on battered women and the abuse of children, are classic examples of the excellent products of these deliberations by a nonpartisan committee. A child care system is a necessity in this province. In many families both parents work and other families are headed by single working mothers.

In my own riding the proportion of the population of single mothers is the same as that of senior citizens. It is an increasing demographic change that must be addressed. Many child care initiatives have been announced by this government, in addition to the previously mentioned training access fund. I would like to remind the members that in March 1985 the Ministry of Community and Social Services announced a $30-million plan to create 7,500 subsidized child care spaces.

Looking at the throne speech, I was struck by its truly impressive agenda, and so were the press and the members opposite. The speech contains almost 100 initiatives. The fact that many of these initiatives were included in response to the results of the May 2 exercise makes it even more impressive. It is a responsible response to the voters of the province.

The Tories have been around for 40 years. My wife and I will have been married for 25 years next year. That is because there is a relationship of trust and confidence between two partners within the sacred matrimonial chains, if I may use that term. One simply does not say that after so many years there must be a change. I use a parallel that may not be applicable in the views of other members, but I would like to remind the third party that in those 42 years many fundamental and very important changes have been introduced, some no doubt at the urging of and as a result of the wisdom of members opposite. That is the purpose of the opposition; sometimes it enlightens government.

For those 42 years we had the confidence and trust of the voters of this province and, whatever members opposite may think, we were still re-elected on May 2 with the largest number of seats and we are forming the present government. If there is any other mandate in the future, whenever it may occur, I can assure the members opposite we will be judged on our record and not simply on our promises.

The speech from the throne stands as a testament to the concept of parliamentary democracy at its best. I am proud to say that under our system of government the party with most seats is invited to form the government and I would remind members of the third party that is the tradition.

Once it has assumed that office, the government can no longer be a partisan political party. We are not partisan, as this speech from the throne reflects. Far from it; we are a responsible government, responding to the needs of the population. We are the government of Ontario. We can no longer represent only our own members or the voters who cast their ballots for the Progressive Conservative Party.

All members were elected in their constituencies by party, but their function is to represent each and every one of their constituents. That is their responsibility. Whoever may come to the constituency office seeking help is not asked by members, "What was your preference?" or "How did you vote?" They serve everyone. In the same way, that is what a responsible government is all about. We serve all the people of Ontario, whatever their preference may have been on May 2.

This government represents all the people of this province. Its policies and actions are reflecting this. As we all know, the government must continuously seek consensus and strive for compromise, which we would have hoped was the system as precedents had been set in the past. It must constantly ensure that its policies are fair in establishing an appropriate balance between competing and conflicting interests. It must somehow always try to find a solution that all groups can live with. This is all the more true in a minority government situation even with 54 members.

In this instance, the voters have sent a message to all the parties --

Mr. Callahan: It is 52.

Mr. Shymko: Is it 52? I still hope for two more seats. So it is 52; it is not far from 54.

I admit we have heard a message, as I reiterated earlier in my introduction, and this throne speech illustrates we have acted upon it. A speech which did not include these measures would have indicated we were undeserving of the responsibility of government, that we as a party could not and would not represent all the people of this province.

This throne speech proves we can and we will. It shows that when the voters of this province granted us the most seats -- and I stress "the most seats" -- thereby inviting us once again to form the government, they chose wisely. However, after the ballots were counted, events occurred which not many voters could have anticipated or still understand today. There are a lot of Liberals and New Democrats going out there not knowing what hit them.

Because these events have been described by the participants themselves as unique and historic, it is safe to say few voters had them in mind while casting their ballots. I doubt that on May 2 voters went to the polls thinking about an alliance to be formed by the opposition parties. I doubt they were thinking about a signed agreement -- a legislative pact -- and yet those events have taken place.

In a parliamentary democracy the party winning the most seats forms the government. This is true in a minority as well as in a majority situation. In most elections in Canada and in Ontario, no one party receives the majority of the popular vote. That is a fact. However, two opposition parties do not traditionally form an alliance. If they do, it is a coalition government. They share cabinet positions.

However, an alliance now claims a right to govern because it won and has enough votes in the House to force itself into government. Such an action is not traditionally justified by statements about the combined percentage of the popular vote. Traditionally, such justification takes place in democracies governed by the principle of proportional representation.

The last time I looked at Ontario it was still a parliamentary democracy. I honestly do not recall any legislation and debate to change the system. I do not even remember everyone deciding we were going to give proportional representation a try this year. No, as far as I know, this province is still governed by the traditions of parliamentary democracy.

According to these traditions, the party with the most seats forms the government. It is allowed to remain as long as it can and will reflect the interests of all the people of this province. When in the collective wisdom of the opposition parties it demonstrates by its actions that it no longer can or no longer will represent all the people of this province, then it is simply voted down in the House. That has always been the tradition. It is voted out.

5:20 p.m.

This government received the most seats, I remind the honourable members for the third, fourth or fifth time. Maybe there will be a Pavlovian reaction if I keep repeating it. In the few weeks since it took office, it has demonstrated in each of its actions an ability and a willingness to assume the responsibility of representing the people of Ontario. Yet the question that hangs in the air before us is, will it be given the chance?

Will it remain as a government until its actions justify its removal? Members opposite say no.

Mr. Foulds: Yes; until Tuesday.

Mr. Shymko: The mystery will unfold; the mystery surely will unfold.

Mr. Foulds: Did you ever hear of sins of omission?

Mr. Shymko: I want to thank the people of this province for once again extending to us an invitation to form the government. The throne speech illustrates that once again the Progressive Conservative Party is ready, willing and able to assume the responsibility of the government of Ontario, that we will represent all the people of this province.

We will continue to seek consensus, as we have in the past, and try to achieve a balance between all the points of view held by the citizens of Ontario. They have spoken and we have listened. Those who do not listen, do not at their own peril. The message delivered in the throne speech was the message of the people of Ontario, the message they have sent. For this reason, I urge my fellow members to vote acceptance of the throne speech.

Mr. Mackenzie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am so pleased to hear the honourable member who just finished speaking outline his total opposition to the deindexation of pensions for senior citizens that I want to send across a petition with one of the pages. I am sure he will not only sign it himself but also go round his colleagues --

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a proper point of order.

Mr. Curling: I am deeply honoured to have the opportunity today to address this House on behalf of the people of the riding of Scarborough North. This is a momentous time in our history, a time when the issues we debate in this Legislature will affect the lives of the people of Ontario for decades to come. In the weeks and months ahead, we will all be caught up in the urgency of events, in memos, briefs, studies and plans, in the ringing of telephones and in the heat of debate, and we are eager to begin.

Yet I want to use this opportunity to ask all the members of the House to reflect for a moment on why we are really here. For today, in this great chamber, I hear voices. I hear the voices of the hundreds of distinguished members who have sat in this Legislature since 1892. I hear the voices of those who left their indelible marks on Ontario: Oliver Mowat and Arthur Hardy, Adam Beck and Mitchell Hepburn, Harry Nixon, John Robarts and Margaret Campbell. I hear the voices of all those parliamentarians who sat in this House through the past century and filled the air with fierce debate.

I represent a riding that was held by one of the most respected parliamentarians who ever sat in this House, a man who held one of the strongest mandates and equally great respect from the people of the riding of Scarborough North, whom I now have the honour to represent. I speak of no other but the honourable Tom Wells. It was Tom Wells who called me long distance on May 3 to congratulate me and offer me his assistance in any way. It is my way of paying tribute to a great parliamentarian.

They all had one great purpose, one great responsibility: the protection of the democratic freedoms of citizens of Ontario. Those men and women are gone from here now, and we are their direct heirs. We are charged with the responsibility of governing, of protecting the right of each individual to dignity and respect. We have inherited the standard they set, a standard for democracy and civilization that has shone untarnished for more than 100 years.

Today all over the world there are countries where people cannot speak out, where oppressive regimes threaten lives and consciences, where men and women do not have rights or dignity or opportunity. In those countries, even as I speak, people are struggling and sacrificing for a simple opportunity: the invaluable opportunity of coming to this place, of becoming citizens of this jurisdiction, where fairness, justice and decency are fundamental rights.

Those rights are protected in this Legislature, and we are the keepers of this House. Others will come after us as others came before us. For now, we are the protectors of this long and honourable tradition of fairness, decency and opportunity, and we must serve it well.

Being elected to Queen's Park can be a very heady experience. Election day is over and suddenly we are in this wonderful building of red carpets and soaring ceilings. This great building, this House, belongs to all the people of Ontario, to every citizen regardless of his or her country of origin or religious beliefs. It is their House, and it should reflect not only one facet of our culture but also the magnificent cultural diversity and contribution of all the people of this province.

All the children and young people of Ontario must be able to come to Queen's Park and see hanging in its corridors reflections of their culture as well; those from Europe, China, Japan, the Middle East and the Caribbean. These Canadians have brought great cultural riches to this province. Just as the real Ontario is a mosaic of these contributions, so too must Queen's Park be.

It is not difficult to forget temporarily the problems that exist in all our ridings: the unemployed young people, the seniors living on the poverty line, the concerns about education and taxation and, lest we seem to forget, the environment. We will forget these problems at our peril, for we are here in this position of great privilege only because the people have chosen us to speak for them. We are, in the most honourable sense of the word, servants. We are in this chamber for one reason only: to serve the people. We are not here to build bureaucracies, appoint huge commissions and generate a mountain of meaningless paper. We are here to serve the people.

5:30 p.m.

We talk of budgets of thousands of dollars here and millions of dollars there. We must never forget for a single moment that those dollars have been entrusted to us by the people. It is their money, often earned at considerable sacrifice. They are trusting us to use it to improve their lives and the lives of their children, and we must not fail them.

We talk of education, of schools and funding and of studies and commissions. We in this Legislature will determine the shape of Ontario's schools, colleges and universities for years to come. The most important, the only important legacy parents can give their children is a sound education that will prepare them to lead happy and productive lives. If we deny them hope for the future we have denied them the future. The parents and educators of Ontario are trusting us to preserve and protect the educational system, to shape it to serve the needs of the children and that trust is more than $50 billion a year to carry out that task. We must not fail.

We talk of jobs, of unemployment statistics and of make-work projects. We are talking about people's lives, about the terrible pain and lack of respect that comes from unemployment. We are talking about the urgent necessity to create an environment where people can employ their talents to the full. We must not fail them.

We talk of our youth. If one is a politician, it is easy to say, "Oh yes, we must be concerned about our youth." We must do more than that. There is a whole generation of young people in this province who face uncertainty and unemployment. There is a whole generation of young people in this province who have trained for careers and watched those careers wiped out by new technology. There is a whole generation of young people in this province who have spent long years in school and earned a place in the unemployment line. There are four million young people in this province and they deserve the same opportunities we had. We must not fail them.

Finally, we talk of opening the political process to all the people of Ontario. My riding of Scarborough North boasts more than 200,000 citizens of this province. Scarborough North is a microcosm of the cultural diversity of Ontario, with more than 50 different languages spoken. There are rural and urban concerns. There is post-Second World War environmental abuse. I speak of the Malvern phenomenon, the radioactive soil.

The people of Scarborough North did not take part in one of the most massive shifts in electoral listing just because they wanted to send a message that could not be ignored. The 200,000 people in my constituency were not just sending a message; they were giving a mandate for change. The people of my riding said in the most dramatic terms possible they want jobs with a future and a future with jobs. The people of my riding said in no uncertain terms they want one class of health care. They said they want a government that will act to protect a clean environment. Those mandates cannot be wiped away.

In my riding there are thousands and thousands of ordinary men and women working hard to pay off their mortgages, to raise their families and to build a better life. Many of them were born in this country, and many have come to this country to enjoy the privilege of becoming citizens of Ontario. Those people cherish their citizenship with a fierce pride, for they understand better than many of us the privilege of living in this great province. However, for too long they have been neglected by our political parties and excluded from the mainstream of public affairs. Their faces are the face of the real Ontario, the face of a province filled with energy, enthusiasm and ambition, the face of a province rich with resources and talent and the desire to excel and to serve.

Mr. Sterling: I have listened to the throne speech debate and would like to take this opportunity to express my position on a very important matter mentioned in the throne speech. I would like to put straight on the record exactly where I stand on this issue because I have not been given that opportunity. I have been questioned by various people in the media, but I have been able to respond only in pieces. Therefore, I think it behooves me, for my constituents and for other people in the Legislature, to express my opinion in relation to the question of separate school funding.

I have indicated that I will not vote for the extension of funding at this time. Rather than explain what I am against in this bill, I would like to express what I am for.

First and most important, I believe a society should be tolerant and understanding of other members of that society. I believe the best time to teach that is in our formative years, in our childhood. I believe children should learn in their workaday world, which is at school, to live with people of different races, religions and economic circumstances. I do not believe they should be segregated on the basis of religion or economic station.

Second, I believe parents, not the state, have the primary responsibility for teaching their children moral and religious values.

Third, I believe in living by our legal, constitutional obligations of 1867 regarding the separate school system. I have been a member of the legal profession and unfortunately this question has never been clearly decided by our highest courts. There was the well-known Tiny township case in the 1920s which basically said the basic education system for separate schools was to the end of grade 8. I do not know whether that case still stands.

I suspect the extension of aid to grades 11, 12 and 13 goes beyond our legal, constitutional obligations. If that is not the case, why has the separate school system not attacked this government and tried to enforce that to which it believes it is legally entitled? I am not aware of any case other than one brought by a young man in Ottawa to try to deal with this matter. In other words, although we have had our constitution since 1867, there has not been a serious attempt in recent years to try to extend the system.

5:40 p.m.

I would be the first in line to support the extension of aid to separate schools to the end of high school if that were our legal, constitutional obligation. Unfortunately, what I say about whether our Constitution obliges us to give that funding or not is not really of great relevance. Nor is it of great relevance what any member of this Legislature feels about our legal, constitutional obligation to fund separate schools. I am sure that decision will ultimately be made by the Supreme Court of Canada. That is why today in the Legislature I asked the Minister of Education (Mr. Grossman) to try to get that process under way, because I feel the sooner it is answered, the easier the other task of determining this very difficult issue will be.

I believe our present situation as members of this Legislature in deciding whether we are going to extend aid or public funding to separate schools is also committing us to something else. As was said in the editorial of the Globe and Mail this morning, when we vote for the extension of aid to separate schools we are committing ourselves to the funding of private and parochial schools as well. In fairness, I do not know how we can say no to the other schools.

In reality, my position is this: I believe we should decide both whether or not to extend funding to separate schools and whether or not to support private and parochial schools at the same time, so we will have all the facts in front of us. As members know, the Shapiro commission is reporting in November, and I would prefer that we have all the facts before us before we embark on what I consider to be a path that is irreversible.

Of less importance, but of some concern to me, is the economy of the expenditure of public funds in education. In a time of declining enrolment it seems to me imprudent to create new systems of education. Last, and most important, I believe that as far as possible within our constitutional limitations -- and I am willing to live within them -- every girl and boy in this province should be given the same chance to receive the best education possible. I do not believe this can be achieved through private and parochial school systems. I think, rather, that it should be based on a public school system.

Perhaps it is important to explain the position I took during the recent election and during the last year. I have stated publicly on the platform and on television that I would not support legislation that would discriminate against students or teachers on the basis of religion. I came back to Queen's Park from the election after having learned what I think many people have tried to teach us. They believe we were perhaps not being open and having a full discussion on this. I made my decision with time close and with an indication to me from the separate school system that it would not accede to these kinds of conditions. It requires discriminatory religious provisions in this kind of funding, a provision with which I cannot agree.

If May 2 said anything to me, it was that the people voted in different ways on this particular issue, but generally against the party I represent. They were not very happy with any one of us in this Legislature who did not openly discuss this issue in detail; they were not happy with any of the leaders of the three political parties on this issue. Therefore, I think it is incumbent on members of this Legislature, in perhaps the most important decision dealing with our education system that we will certainly see through our legislative careers, to come out in the open and express our feelings and make certain our political survival, in whatever party we support, does not go above and beyond what we are going to decide on this issue.

Mr. Mancini: I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words in this time we have been given to reply to the speech from the throne that was presented to the people of Ontario a few days ago.

Before I do, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to a very prestigious job in this chamber. I want to congratulate you on being named Deputy Speaker of the House. After having sat with you on the standing committee on procedural affairs for some years, I know you will take your obligations very seriously and will deal with all members of the House in a very fair manner.

I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate one of my own colleagues, the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer), on having been elected by all members of this House to the most prestigious position of Speaker. Mr. Speaker, you and I have got to know the member for Perth very well over the years we have been here, as have some of my colleagues who have been here far longer than I have . He is a person of impeccable qualities and fairness, and he has already demonstrated, in the few short days during which he has been in the Speaker's chair, that the decision made by the members of the House was a good decision.

I also want to thank the past Speaker, the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner), for his work during the term he served as Speaker. I want to apologize to him if, on any occasion, I offered him more advice than he needed. I was only trying to be helpful at the time.

We have been given an opportunity to speak today and some of us are going to take longer than others. I am happy to say that I am not going to take as long as the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) who got into an oratorical flight about what his party stands for and what it had intended to do in the next 40 years. I wonder if he actually saw the results of May 2. I wonder if he actually read the previous throne speeches. I wonder if he was actually in his seat when his government passed laws during the previous four years. I wonder if he ran for the Conservative Party during the past election campaign.

We know what the Conservative Party stands for. We were told by the Premier (Mr. F. S. Miller) what the Conservative Party stands for. We will never forget his opinions on the minimum wage, on rent controls and on equal pay for work of equal value. He stated those positions clearly when he ran for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of this province. Even some of the members on the other side, although the ranks have been thinned considerably, even the half dozen who are left, know full well what their Premier stood for at the time.

An hon. member: The member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) did not know.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: I was going to get to the member for Carleton-Grenville. I was just going to make one particular comment first. Now that his name has been mentioned, I want to say to the honourable member that we respect the views of every single member of this House.

It does concern me, however, that his comments were made the day after the cabinet had been chosen. I would have given his comments far greater leverage if they had been made a day or two before. I would have given the member's comments far greater leverage if they had been made a day or two before, or if they had been made the day after Premier Davis announced what he was going to do. Unfortunately the comments were made when they were, and although I believe that the member's qualities should have allowed him to sit in the cabinet of this government, especially when one sees how thin the ranks are, and even though I personally believe the member has the ability and the qualities to sit in this dying cabinet and government, I would have given him much more respect if they had been said two or three days before.

Mr. Sterling: On a point of privilege. Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex South is making a number of aspersions.

On May 22, the Prescott Journal, which happens to be a paper in my riding, had an editorial called Taking a Stand, written by Steven Bonisteel. "Carleton-Grenville MLA Norm Sterling says he was almost relieved that he was not named to Premier Frank Miller's cabinet last week. Being on the outside, he said, leaves him free to take his own stand on the issue of extending funding for the province's Roman Catholic system. Although some may attribute Mr. Sterling's recent statements on the issue to sour grapes, his opposition to full funding for the separate school system is in line with comments made by him prior to and during the recent provincial elections."

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is the point of privilege?

Mr. Sterling: "Contrary to an Ottawa Citizen story on Monday which claims Mr. Sterling did not reveal his position during the campaign" --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot see any point of privilege in this.

Mr. Sterling: He is obviously challenging my motives with regard to when I am taking a stand on an issue. If he wants to challenge me, I have to have an opportunity to respond.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I rule that he did not challenge your motives at all. That is not a proper point of privilege.

Before the honourable member carries on, may I remind the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) that he is not in his seat and he is making comments.

Mr. Mancini: I want to refer to a Globe and Mail article of June 5, 1985, a lengthy story about the government's throne speech and the headline reads, "Miller Praises Intervention in Speech Full of Reversals."

The opening paragraph states, "`Real leaders do not look for compromise.'" This remark is attributed to the Premier and he made it on January 25, the night before he became the Ontario Tory leader. I want to know from the government members how they can go around without embarrassment after the more than 90 reversals that were contained in this document.

Interjections.

Mr. Mancini: Did he consult the member about these reversals? Was he consulted?

We heard a lot from the member for High Park-Swansea about what the Conservative Party stood for and that they are against the reduction of pensions that has been called for by the Conservative government in Ottawa. He will not be able to pretend he is not a Conservative. A Conservative is a Conservative is a Conservative and the members are forever attached to the Conservative Party in Ottawa. They gave their support to the federal party during the campaign.

Premier Davis stood side by side with Mr. Mulroney, introduced him on many platforms, and the support given to that party now in government and that is attacking ordinary working people and women and wishes to reduce the standard of living for senior citizens is also part of the responsibility of the members opposite. They worked for them. They canvassed for them. They asked the people of Ontario to vote for them and they, as a Conservative Party, are lying with them whether they like it or not.

I heard about an unholy alliance, as some member across the floor stated it. I wonder a great deal why the Premier established a negotiating team and sent it to meet with the members of the New Democratic Party. Did he send them over to have tea and crumpets or did he send them over to form an alliance so this Legislature could work under the governing leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario?

Mr. Foulds: He wanted to make a deal.

Mr. Mancini: He wanted to make a deal. I understand much better now. It was all well and fine for the Progressive Conservatives to receive the support of the New Democratic Party, but it was an unholy alliance when the New Democratic Party decided that it was time for a change, decided that after 42 years it had had enough of Progressive Conservative government, enough of its broken promises, enough of its arrogance, enough of its Tory patronage appointments, of which I am told it has made 200 since May 8; that in itself speaks of their party.

I welcome the Minister of Education (Mr. Grossman) and I thank him for dropping in. Any party with any self-respect would have stopped the appointments after May 2. Any party with self-respect would have said: "We have not received the confidence of the people. Patronage appointments are always controversial. We will wait to see what transpires in the House. We will wait to see whether we are allowed to govern before we continue with the number of appointments we deem necessary."

The Conservative Party went on its merry way. It acted as if it had a majority government. It will remember what happened to the last party that had a minority government and acted as if it had a majority government. It was defeated and thrown out of office. That is exactly what is going to happen to these people. There will be no delay. No number of crocodile tears can save them now. People have seen them for what they are. It is a government that has been in office too long. It is arrogant. They have only looked after their friends and, in some cases, their parents. I want to say to the Conservative Party of Ontario that it has displayed a new plateau of arrogance, an unbelievable plateau of arrogance. It displays a new peak of arrogance when it believes it has the only men and women capable of running Ontario.

They should look at the men and women who sit in the Liberal caucus, the senior members and the new members we have elected. We will put together a government that will out-perform anything they have had in the past 42 years. I congratulate my new colleagues for the tremendous campaign they ran.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I draw the member's attention to the clock.

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

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

10 juin 1985