Journal des débats 1985-juin-18 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Yesterday, in answer to a question, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Runciman) said the Automobile Protection Association "was very supportive of the program we announced a week ago." Today, the president of that association confirmed that there has been no conversation or consultation by phone, in person or by letter between the APA and the ministry on this program and that it had not had any consultation on any protection program since 1983.

I would ask you to rule on whether my privileges have been abused by the minister's having misled the House -- inadvertently, of course -- in his answer to my question.

Mr. Speaker: I would have to rule that that is not a point of privilege.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MINING LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Harris: I am pleased to announce to the House that later today I will be introducing important new legislation, changes to the Mining Act, 1985.

I am very pleased to be introducing this legislation at this time, when the exploration sector of our mining industry is very active. In 1984, Ontario reached a record high level for assessment work, with more than 3.1 million days of assessment work being done.

This government is doing a great deal to foster and develop Ontario's mineral resources. The legislation I will be introducing will provide additional encouragement to the industry. It is also intended to streamline the administrative and regulative activities of the government.

The changes have been a long time in the making. The proposed act I am introducing today is based on more than several years of public dialogue, discussion and negotiation. Because of this careful preparation, the changes address a wide range of concerns and issues. I believe they will be welcomed warmly by the industry, the interested public and the members of this House.

These changes are essentially adjustments to the Mining Act of 1906, which has served the province and the mining industry well. These changes accomplish three things. They update the Mining Act of 1906; they make allowance for the rapid improvements that have been made in exploration technology; and they represent a simplification and streamlining of the legislation affecting mineral exploration and development in Ontario.

I am also confident the proposed changes I will be introducing today have the added benefit of encouraging the wise and responsible development of Ontario's mineral wealth.

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Hon. Mr. Harris: I am also pleased to mention to the House that later this week I will be announcing the details of my ministry's newest community involvement program, one that will give the general public an opportunity to become involved in wildlife management.

Members may already know about CFIP, our community fisheries involvement program. Its success has shown that hands-on management by the concerned public works very well. Our new initiative is called CWIP, the community wildlife involvement program. The program will give people the opportunity to get out and actually do work that will improve conditions for our wildlife and wildlife-dependent recreational pursuits.

CWIP is based on our knowledge of people's interest in wildlife and on our experience with the excellent work done by volunteers. One of the best ways to stir the feelings of the stewardship we should all have towards our wildlife is to become directly involved. I believe this program will accomplish that goal.

I expect to announce more details about CWIP later this week. At that time, I would encourage all members of this House to invite their constituents to submit project proposals to the nearest district office of my ministry.

Mr. Riddell: I think the wildlife will be taking your golf balls. You are going to have more time for golf.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: We do not want to hear from the new minister of rent control. I know the tenants are all relaxing, Vince, but just hang on to yourself now.

WORKERS' MEMORIAL DAY

Hon. Mr. Elgie: June 20 marks the first anniversary of the tragic rockburst that took the lives of four miners at the Falconbridge mine. In memory of those courageous men and all other victims of work-place accidents, the city of Sudbury has declared June 20 as Workers' Memorial Day. A number of members of this Legislature, including myself, the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Gordon) and the local members, will be in Sudbury to pay our respects and to attend that memorial service.

The occasion gives us cause to reflect on the sad event of one year ago. Members may recall, as I do, the former Minister of Labour, Russell Ramsay, rising in the Legislature to announce that one of the miners, a young man who had been trapped for an entire day, had been reached by the rescue team. We all hoped and prayed he would survive the ordeal. However, a few moments later we learned he had died and we all joined the minister in his expression of grief and sympathy for the victims' families, friends and co-workers.

The rockburst which caused the devastation and took the lives of these four brave men brought out the most selfless and courageous instincts of those people involved in the rescue operation, who, at considerable risk to themselves, worked around the clock in a tireless effort to rescue the trapped miners. All of us who watched and prayed during those anxious hours were inspired by their heroic efforts on behalf of their co-workers.

We also pause today to remember other workers who have lost their lives through accidents or occupational diseases. In their memory, let us rededicate ourselves to the cause of work-place health and safety and redouble our efforts to minimize occupational risks.

One positive consequence of the events of June 20 was the fact that labour, management and government joined forces to study the nature and causes of ground movements which endanger the lives of underground workers. In particular, I refer to the establishment of the tripartite committee on ground control and emergency preparedness which has been at work for the last nine months in probing these difficult issues. This government recognizes the urgent importance of the committee's work. I am confident its report and recommendations, expected later this summer, will be given the most serious and urgent attention.

To the families and friends of the four miners who died one year ago and to those who have suffered in similar circumstances, may I extend the deepest condolences of our government and the Legislative Assembly.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Van Horne: I would like to add a very few words on behalf of our party in the light of the minister's comments. We wish simply to indicate our very deep feelings of sympathy and also to pass on our condolences to the families. It is my hope to be able to attend the ceremony the minister indicated he was attending.

Mr. Martel: Since this tragedy occurred in the riding I represent, I want to join with the minister in expressing our condolences. My leader and I flew to Sudbury with the Minister of Labour of the day on that occasion, which was a terrible tragedy.

A request has been made by the unions involved in a ceremony that is going to occur on June 20 that the flags, both here and in provincial buildings across the province, be lowered to pay our respects to all the working people of the province who have been killed, regardless of the line of duty they have been in. I understand groups such as the Ontario Provincial Police and other police are joining in on this occasion in Sudbury.

I urge the minister to see whether he can get what I have tried to get for about two weeks, a response from the Premier (Mr. F. S. Miller) to the request that the flags be lowered on that day.

RED MEAT PLAN

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have been asked by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stevenson), who has been delayed in returning from the pork congress in Stratford -- in your constituency, Mr. Speaker -- to make --

Mr. Kerrio: I thought he was with Mr. Mulroney at the pork barrel.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: He could not find any room. The Liberals are in it. There is no room at the inn.

On behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I would like to bring the honourable members up to date on the national tripartite stabilization program for Canada's red meat producers.

As the members know, Ontario has been a strong advocate of this program as part of an overall plan of action to revitalize this province's all-important red meat sector. The challenges faced by this group of food producers have been well documented. I am sure I do not need to reiterate them.

The proposal for a national tripartite stabilization program was resurrected by Ontario after it had lain dormant for many years. The province has supported this concept at every stage from the initial discussions to the present examination of federal legislation by the House of Commons standing committee on agriculture.

Bill C-25, which would make tripartite stabilization a reality, has received second reading, as the members are no doubt aware, and has been referred to the committee prior to going back to the House for third reading. The Minister of Agriculture and Food was recently in Ottawa to appear before this committee, where he once again presented Ontario's position in favour of the national program in the strongest possible terms.

His appearance in Ottawa was disquieting in one sense, because there seemed to be a perception that Ontario and the three prairie provinces, which have stood behind this plan from the start, might now be agreeable to certain amendments. His purpose today is to set the record straight as to where this province stands on national tripartite stabilization.

The one paramount characteristic of this program, as it is now designed, and the one on which Ontario must and will stand firm, is the precept of no top-loading by any province. In other words, there is no room for provinces to have stabilization programs of their own for the red meat sector. Such programs would render national stabilization a meaningless shell, a program in name only.

Any measure of this type would only aggravate the real problems that national stabilization was designed to solve. Most important, tripartite stabilization would stop the wasteful competition between provincial treasuries that currently exists with a range of disparate and conflicting stabilization programs.

There is no room for this provincial assistance in a truly national program. The overriding benefit of national stabilization is that all producers across this country will be treated alike. To this end, Ontario has already phased out its only provincial stabilization program for sow-weaners to clear the way for the national program. We have a commitment to national stabilization and this action confirms our faith in it.

It also confirms our belief that the establishment of the national program, in the form that has been under consideration for so long, is imminent. We anticipate the bill will likely come back from the committee for third reading before the current federal session ends.

Any major changes at this stage could adversely affect that timing. Also, any changes in this concept of no add-on provincial programs further damages Ontario and Canada in international markets. We become a prime target for countervailing action and other forms of trade retaliation.

The national tripartite program, as designed, is intended to stop losses. It is a form of insurance. However, layers of provincial assistance on top of the basic national package quickly move this into the realm of subsidy, which can lead to a call for retaliation in the global marketplace.

The national tripartite stabilization program that is currently under consideration in Ottawa has the support of the four major producing provinces as well as national and provincial red meat producer groups.

In summary, I can assure these producers and the members of this House of two things. First, Ontario will continue to stand up for the national tripartite stabilization program in the form Bill C-25 originally set out. Second, to the red meat producers of Ontario I would say that, should the national program they are anticipating not be put in place, the province will honour its commitment to a bipartite partnership between our producers and the Ontario government retroactive to January 1, 1985.

We would do that with reluctance, not because we have any hesitation in assisting our red meat producers, but because we feel the national program is by far the best way to do it. However, in its continued absence, we would have no choice but to implement a provincial plan. We would leave the door open to a national program by designing ours so that it could be incorporated into tripartite stabilization as soon as it became available.

As the minister said to the standing committee, we have a national market in red meat. The promotion of national efficiency requires that producers in all provinces receive equal treatment. We must have a program that provides equal stabilization payments to all those who participate in the national market.

The need is clear and pressing. We urge the federal Parliament, as the minister did in Ottawa, to act in the national interest and to pass this long-awaited legislation as drafted, as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Mr. Wrye: A change of hats.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Wait until we get the Minister responsible for Women's Issues and the minister for rent review up here as well.

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Later today I will introduce six bills that make a number of important amendments to legislation affecting the municipalities of Ontario.

Mr. Rae: Only six; do not be a piker.

Mr. Kerrio: When is the fireworks display?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member will perhaps find next week that it is a lot easier to throw spears than it is to catch them. We will see, come next week, who is better at catching them.

The amendments to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act will provide for the direct election to Metro council of a Metro councillor from each of the city of Toronto's 11 wards, who will also sit on the city of Toronto council. The legislation will also provide for the election of a city alderman for each ward, who will sit on the city council only. It has been requested by the council of the city of Toronto and is supported by the council of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The Regional Municipalities Amendment Act was given first reading on November 8, 1984, as Bill 134. Three important new provisions --

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I do not think the minister has shared a copy with the critics. I hope he will remember that. This being his last day, he may want to forget it after today.

Mr. Speaker: Has the minister passed along copies?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I apologize and I will make sure that in the future we distribute them earlier.

Three important new provisions have been added to the Regional Municipalities Amendment Act which will increase representation on certain regional councils. In Waterloo, the legislation will add one member to regional council from the city of Waterloo. In Durham, it will add two members, one from the town of Ajax and the other from the town of Whitby. In York, it will also add two members, one from the town of Markham and the other from the town of Vaughan. These changes are being made as a result of local requests in response to population growth in those regions.

The Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Amendment Act will achieve two goals. First, it will enable the city of Hamilton and the region to divide the assets and liabilities of the Hamilton municipal employees' retirement fund and to administer the two portions as separate plans for the benefit of their employees. Second, it will provide for the transfer of plan members to the Ontario municipal employees' retirement system, where the members choose to transfer to OMERS.

The District Municipality of Muskoka Amendment Act was given first reading on November 8, 1984, as Bill 135. It will provide for the earlier selection of the district chairman and allow the district council to hold its first meeting at an earlier date. These amendments, which are being made at the request of the district council, will enable each new council to begin work immediately after a municipal election.

The Municipal Elections Amendment Act will remove the requirement in section 17 of the act whereby the clerk must inform the assessment commissioner of the municipality's polling subdivision boundaries by April 1 of an election year. This will enable municipalities such as Oshawa to make revisions to their polling subdivision after April 1.

The Line Fences Amendment Act was given first reading on June 19, 1984, as Bill 111. In fact, it is a biggy in the rural community. It has two major purposes. The first is to establish a new method of hearing appeals from the awards of municipal fence-viewers. In future, appeals will be heard by individual referees, who will be chosen on the basis of their specialized knowledge of fencing issues and of the traditions relating to line fences in Ontario, especially in agricultural areas.

The second purpose of the bill is to make a number of other, more technical amendments to the act. These are based on our ongoing consultations with interested groups and individuals and are intended to improve the administration of the act at the local level. Bill 111 was circulated widely to all groups and individuals with an interest in the Line Fences Act. The response has been very positive, especially to the proposed new method of hearing appeals under this new legislation.

Mr. Mancini: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Some 10 days ago the minister who has just resumed his seat issued a press release, along with his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Harris), claiming they had approved a $5-million program of assistance for Essex and Kent counties. However, this has not been passed by order in council, and I was wondering if we could have clarification of this.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege. You can ask that during question period.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE TELEVISION SERVICE

Hon. Mr. Leluk: This afternoon it is my pleasure to announce to the members of the Legislative Assembly that a new province-wide, French-language television service is to be broadcast through TVOntario.

Since its inception in 1970, TVO has undertaken to provide educational television services to the French-speaking residents of Ontario by including a portion of French programming within the basic TVO broadcast service. This French-language service is currently limited to 19 hours of programming per week; it is broadcast primarily on Sundays.

This basic, minimum service to francophones cannot be expanded in its present form without reducing English-language services. A dedicated French-language educational television service in Ontario is the only instrument that will effectively respond to the cultural and linguistic needs of French-speaking Ontarians.

Late last year an agreement was reached between the provincial and federal governments. Each jurisdiction agreed to fund 50 per cent of the total $30 million which will be required over the next six years.

There are two components to the project. The first is the satellite distribution of programming to cable systems across the province. This could be in full operation by late 1986. Second, a broadcast transmitter will be erected in a region with a high francophone concentration that currently has low cable penetration. This will permit direct reception of the new service into all homes in the region. It is hoped this transmitter will also be operational by mid-1987.

The extended service will provide at least five hours per day of original programming, which will be repeated the following day, for a daily total of at least 10 hours of French programming. In total, the new service will increase French-language programming from the current 19 hours per week to at least 70 extra hours of French language per week.

With this extended time, TVOntario will be able to provide French versions of such popular shows as Polka Dot Door, the acclaimed Octo-Puce Computer Academy and other excellent science, public affairs and arts programming that is currently only available in the English language.

In addition to the obvious benefits to the francophone community, there will also be an important economic impact. I would like to remind members of the House that TVO's purchasing policies follow the government's Canadian preference policy. The $6 million spent annually on this new service, including program production and acquisition, satellite distribution and services, will therefore make a significant impact on our provincial economy. Employment will be created for various types of performers, technicians, producers and tradesmen.

TVOntario has established a solid international reputation for excellence in educational programming. Therefore, it is expected its French-language programming will generate an additional $100,000 annually from international sales.

We have received numerous complimentary responses from Franco-Ontarian community leaders, organizations and individuals. I would like to share two of these comments with my colleagues in the House.

The president of the Sudbury-based Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario said in a letter, "We have before us today a significant political decision, a clear indication of goodwill on the part of two respective governments, provincial and federal, to co-operate in the cultural development of Franco-Ontarians. Bravo!"

Mr. Breaugh: Go back to the Polka Dot Door.

An hon. member: Polkeroo, polkeroo.

Hon. Mr. Leluk: He said it; I did not.

The chairman of the Council for Franco-Ontarian Education said in his letter, "The commitment of your government will bring benefits to the francophone community in the areas of education, language, culture, arts and economy."

The government's long-term goal for TVOntario has always been that eventually all Ontarians would have access to this vital educational and cultural resource. I am sure my colleagues will agree it is time now that the standards of quality programming for which TVO is famous become more widely available to the French-speaking residents of our province. Now is the time to realize our goal.

Mr. Foulds: You made it just in time.

Hon. Mr. Leluk: There is more good news coming.

DISASTER RELIEF

Hon. Mr. Leluk: For the past two weeks the entire country's concern has been focused on the victims of south-central Ontario's tornado-stricken communities. Not since Hurricane Hazel in 1954 has a natural disaster of this magnitude battered the province. The tornado not only destroyed precious human life but also left great numbers of people homeless and without the means of earning a living.

Harder hit than most communities was the quiet riverside town of Grand Valley, home to 1,200 residents. On the afternoon of May 31, two persons were killed, 100 homes obliterated and 200 more severely damaged. One of the buildings destroyed was the 76-year-old Grand Valley Public Library. When its roof caved in, a librarian and several children lay trapped, buried beneath the rubble. I am pleased to report today that no serious injuries occurred.

The library played a vital role in the community for more than three quarters of a century. It was a reference point for students, a treasury for citizens intent on expanding their horizons and a peaceful refuge for all who wish to retreat from the weariness of everyday life. The Grand Valley Public Library was also a landmark of some significance, for it was one of 78 Carnegie libraries still left intact and operational in the province.

2:30 p.m.

Members will no doubt be familiar with the philanthropy and vision of the late American steel magnate, Andrew Carnegie. At the turn of the century, Mr. Carnegie decided the very best gift he could give to any one community was a library. His generosity captured the imagination and spurred the determination of countless small communities in Ontario hopeful of winning a Carnegie library grant.

Of the 125 Carnegie libraries built in Canada between the years 1901 and 1971, 111 were located here in Ontario. The Grand Valley Public Library was one of three libraries designed by architect George Gray. The original Grand Valley Public Library represented an integral part of the cultural history and architectural heritage of Ontario. We can never bring this library back, but this government is committed to helping the people of Grand Valley rebuild their broken homes and lives.

The Premier (Mr. F. S. Miller) announced on June 3 that the Ontario government will be matching $3 for every $1 donated to aid tornado victims. This is a substantial increase over regular disaster relief assistance.

In keeping with this initiative, I wish to announce today that the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture will be giving $3 for every $1 donated towards the reconstruction of the Grand Valley Public Library, above and beyond expenses covered by its insurance policy. In addition, the ministry will be contributing $3 for every $1 raised by the Ontario Library Association for building contents not covered by insurance. Moneys for both projects will be made available under our community facilities development program announced in April.

I know all members extend their condolences to the survivors and their families. It will take time to recover from the grief and shock that follow a disaster of this dimension. I am grateful that my ministry is able to offer some assistance to the citizens of Grand Valley who are now struggling to rebuild their lives, their homes and their community.

AUTOMOTIVE PARTS INVESTMENT FUND

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am pleased to report to the members on the status of the automotive parts investment fund program. One of my ministry's objectives is to sharpen the competitiveness of Ontario's automotive parts industry. To do this, we established the automotive parts investment fund in October 1984. This is a three-year program funded by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development.

The program was allocated $30 million to finance product development, plant modernization and manpower training in firms that are prepared to commit resources to these goals. I would like to point out that the automotive parts industry in Ontario employs 58,000 people; many work in small and medium-sized firms. These businesses are facing increased competition worldwide from new technologies. Therefore, the automotive parts investment fund is targeted to assist these firms to improve their market position.

The fund allows manufacturers to hire new employees and train their existing staff to use the modern technology that now is available. I would like to stress that by offering funding for both updated technology and retraining, our government is showing its commitment to increasing our technological competitiveness while at the same time enhancing the levels of employment and the quality of jobs available in the automotive sector.

I am pleased to advise the honourable members that to date the government has announced loans to eight companies totalling $3.1 million for projects that will create 169 new jobs. Today I am announcing a further $6.7 million in loans to 12 companies that will create an additional 442 new jobs.

These companies, located across Ontario in communities such as Wallaceburg, Windsor, Ariss, Concord, Guelph, St. Catharines, Weston, Brantford, Mississauga, Woodstock, Waterloo, Cambridge and Toronto, have shown by their initiative that they are committed to the future of this industry. Their plans to upgrade their factories to take advantage of the latest advances in high-technology manufacturing demonstrate that they intend to remain on a level with the world's best.

For example, $750,000 is being provided to Woodstock Stampings Inc., a new technology-based stamping firm, which will manufacture exhaust components and bracket flanges to serve the needs of the world automotive market. This project will create 60 new jobs. Ontario Die Co. in Waterloo is receiving $441,500 to expand its plant and buy state-of-the-art machinery and equipment to develop new technology for making polyurethane-film adhesive products, which are used in automotive interiors, including door panels, sun visors, headliners and seating. These are just two of the 20 companies that are strengthening themselves with the aid of the automotive parts investment fund.

All loans are five-year, repayable term loans covering as much as half the cost of eligible projects to a maximum limit of $750,000 per company over a three-year period. Projects involving innovative products and production technologies can be eligible for performance incentives through deferral of principal and waiving of interest up to a maximum of three years. Borrowers may also earn a principal reduction of as much as 15 per cent to offset their costs of manpower retraining associated with the project.

Cabinet and the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development have approved further loans totalling $11 million to 19 companies. These loans will create 854 jobs. Specific details will be released when the final legal agreements are signed some time in the near future.

In summary, since the beginning of the program, the government has committed $20.7 million to 39 firms for projects that will create 1,475 jobs. This will generate $92 million in capital investment.

I would like to assure the members that my ministry will continue to work in close co-operation with the automotive parts industry, and I am confident the initiative of the automotive parts investment fund will be successful in increasing the quality and competitiveness of this important industry while at the same time providing more jobs for the people of our province.

FRENCH-EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On December 13, 1984, the former Minister of Education, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), introduced a major piece of legislation with respect to the governance of French-language or English-language schools and classes under part XI of the Education Act.

Bill 160, which applied to boards of education and to urban, county or district combined Roman Catholic school boards, received first reading but was not dealt with before dissolution of the House. Since then, school boards, associations and many other interested individuals and groups have had an opportunity to examine the bill and give further consideration to the principles involved. We have paid close attention to the additional advice and direction offered to us and we have incorporated many of the recommendations into a new version of the bill.

As a result of this wide consultation and input, I shall introduce a new bill later today. This legislation provides for the governance of French-language schools and classes by elected French-speaking trustees whose children would qualify for minority-language educational rights under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While the legislation is written in terms of French-language schools and classes, it applies equally to English-language schools and classes in a minority position.

Our government has continued to make steady progress in the provision of French-language education. This bill marks another significant step forward. It provides elected trustees representing the interests of the francophone community with direct control over schools and classes where education is offered in French for those citizens who qualify under the criteria set forth in Bill 119. The bill is being introduced at this time so we may fulfil our commitment to have legislation enacted in time for the municipal elections of 1985.

I might add that I know the members of the House would want to join me in acknowledging the tremendous work done in this regard by my predecessor the member for York Mills, who made this bill possible.

2:40 p.m.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I wish to report to the House today on the progress we have made on our commitment to introduce legislation enabling the extension of public funding to Roman Catholic secondary schools in Ontario. Since my appointment as Minister of Education, I have engaged in extensive consultation with many individuals and groups, including teachers, trustees, administrators and parents from both the public and separate school systems, both English and French.

I must report to the House that our government is not satisfied with any of the legislative drafts put forward by either the planning and implementation commission or the Ministry of Education.

We believe in getting public input before we introduce legislation.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Those members may order their slaves to introduce something without input; we will not.

There is no single draft currently available that the government is prepared to approve. The problem is further complicated by the fact that amalgamating sections from several different drafts would require further time to ensure continuity and legitimacy.

Finally, the groups I have met with during the last few weeks raised a number of specific issues which are now developing as unresolved concerns. Since questions of basic access, teacher protection and religious education are difficult and yet basic to the legislation, this government is simply not prepared to offer an imperfect legislative draft at this time.

We are anxious to ensure that our commitment to wide public input is maintained.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That member's party should not applaud that.

In the event a new government is formed, I will offer my successor all information, advice and legislative drafts that have been made available to me.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DRIVING OFFENCES

Mr. Epp: I have a question for the Attorney General. Has he taken the time to review the case of Michael Waite, who was charged with criminal negligence but found guilty of the lesser charge of dangerous driving when four teenagers on a Mennonite youth hayride last September died after being struck by his car?

Given that the families suffering through this tragedy are residents of my riding, I ask the Attorney General what intentions, if any, he has of reviewing this decision with the possibility of appealing it.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Some time ago, I asked my senior officials to review this matter because of my own concerns, what I perceived to be public concerns and because of mail I received. The transcripts of that matter have not arrived at our ministry to date. We are aware of the time period for an appeal.

I have instructed the senior officials of my ministry to review the transcript and all other matters relating to this case with a view to deciding whether an appeal is appropriate. I expect to hear from them within the 30-day appeal period.

I have also expressed some concern to my ministry officials over a similar case in the Brampton area, the McVeigh case, that is being appealed with regard to the sentence for a similar driving offence.

Mr. Epp: Given the changing attitudes of our society towards the dangers of drinking and driving, I would ask the Attorney General whether he agrees with the lesser charge of dangerous driving imposed on Mr. Waite when a charge of criminal negligence could have given him a life sentence and the dangerous-driving charge has resulted in a sentence of two years less a day, with the possibility of parole in eight months.

Does the Attorney General not see that result as reason enough to appeal this decision?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I really cannot comment any further. That was a jury decision following instructions from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Other than informing members of this House and members of the public that we are reviewing this matter to see whether an appeal is possible, I cannot comment any further on what is really a jury decision.

Mr. Ferraro: Given the previous driving record of Mr. Waite, which was presented as evidence at the trial but in the absence of the jury, and given the growing outcry from the Ontario public over this decision, does the Attorney General not fear the precedent this may set by almost granting a licence to drink and drive if this verdict is not appealed?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I have already indicated that in another case where I was dissatisfied, an appeal has been launched regarding a similar offence. As I understand it, the information with respect to the previous record was introduced with respect to the sentencing procedures. Obviously that is one of the aspects of the evidence introduced and the timing of the introduction of evidence that senior officials of my ministry are reviewing.

We do believe the public perceives that drinking and driving and the consequences of that mix in instances such as this are not acceptable to society. This man has been prosecuted. We personally may agree or disagree with the decision that has been announced, but I do not think any decision could be interpreted as giving a licence to anyone for that kind of conduct.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY STUDY

Mr. Elston: I have a question of the Minister of Correctional Services concerning his statement yesterday about the feasibility study contemplated to establish a facility at or near the Bruce Energy Centre. Can the minister advise the House today what is contemplated with respect to the type of correctional facility he is talking about? Can he tell us a little bit about the nature of the inmates that he hopes this feasibility study will tell us a little bit more about in August 1985?

Hon. Mr. Cousens: Our ministry is in great need of additional spaces for inmates in Ontario, and this need is being exacerbated as we now are looking after young offenders and we have to take places away from young offenders to provide for others who are in need of being housed by our ministry.

We are looking at other options that can somehow resolve this accommodation requirement that we have. One of the options was that if we were able to find a location that met the need of our ministry to look after medium-security types of individuals but was not too far from Toronto and combined it with some of the other possibilities available within the province, the Bruce Peninsula offered some great possibilities.

We see an opportunity of tying into some of the excess energy produced at Douglas Point. We could then open up the possibility of having inmates working to provide agricultural or aquacultural types of employment for the future, which would not only give them new training and new possibilities for a work environment but also do something to help that community.

I see it as something that can be helpful and beneficial to my ministry, to those who are trying to serve in a corrections way, using a modern concept so they are able to fulfil themselves and then get back into the community more quickly, more trained and more ready to take an active part in the community. I also see it as a method of tying in our ministry's needs with the needs of a section of the province that is looking for further industrial possibilities. This might be a way in which we set an example to other industries to come and establish in that part of our province. We see it as the beginning of a long-term correction procedure.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Elston: I wonder whether the minister can advise the citizens of the province if he has had any consultation with the Atomic Energy Control Board, with Ontario Hydro, with the township of Bruce or with any of the other municipalities in the area, specifically with respect to the five-mile controlled building area that has been established around the Bruce nuclear power development, which prevents the construction of any institution, whether it be a school, hospital or other facility along those same lines.

Has the minister talked to them about the possibility of obtaining consent to change the zoning or the limitations that have been prescribed by those various bodies with respect to building there? How does the minister see that as affecting his feasibility study?

Hon. Mr. Cousens: One of the reasons for a feasibility study is that there are a number of very good questions that have to be answered. It would take the co-operation of not only the government but also of the community and different agencies to be able to respond to the questions the member is asking.

We see the feasibility study as addressing many of those questions, but we also see it as being feasible from the beginning because it would be far enough away in the Kincardine area so as not to be affected by some of the zoning concerns the member is raising.

If the community wants it, there is a possibility that the ministry, in co-operation with other ministries, can proceed with this kind of project. I see it as a positive step our government can take to combine not only the services of the community that now exist but also to bring more industry into that part of the province. Specifically, my ministry sees it as a very favourable location for it.

Mr. Martel: I heard the minister say he was looking for facilities. Is he not aware his government closed Burwash some years ago? That facility still sits there, empty and totally unused. Is the minister also aware that between 100 and 120 prisoners from the Sudbury area are in institutions around the rest of the province? The reason used to close Burwash was that it was too far for people from the south to go to see their loved ones.

Why is the minister looking around when a facility is sitting there with a new gymnasium, new single male quarters with 42 bed units, six or eight shops and a whole agricultural background? The minister is busy looking around when he has one facility sitting there empty that was closed 10 years ago. What is the matter with him?

Hon. Mr. Cousens: On the question of what is the matter with me, there is nothing the matter with me.

If the member for Sudbury East is really asking what could happen at the Burwash location, I suggest to him that we are looking at it. My deputy minister was in Sudbury within the past three weeks to review the situation further. The need for more corrections space is real and that is not without possibility.

Mr. Elston: With those thoughts in mind, can the minister advise why it is that his ministry did not at least contact the local municipalities to discuss with them the possibility, or even the very limited suggestion that it was going to do a feasibility study, before he announced it here to the surprise of not only the people in that area but I presume also of a number of ministries involved in the setting of standards for construction in the area around the Bruce nuclear power development?

Can the minister also advise whom he did consult before he announced this program to the House? Who is going to be working in conjunction with his ministry to co-ordinate this feasibility study?

Hon. Mr. Cousens: The honourable member knows the importance of dialogue and working with all the communities in resolving such a centre. Upon the announcement yesterday, my ministry got in contact with a number of the mayors and the people in the area so they could be fully apprised of the initial steps.

Perhaps the member is not included, but other people were very enthused at the possibility of what this correctional centre could do for that community.

I believe there is an awful lot we can be doing in corrections that does not necessarily just put people away but also makes them productive, creative and doing something in life. We see it as an excellent area, but we would not want to do it unless the people in that area want it.

We have had conversations with people there and they seem to be receptive. I have also had conversations with the other ministries here and there is an open response to it. If the member does not want it, we would be glad to have it in Markham.

Mr. Rae: It will be nice for the minister to be remembered as being responsible for a nuclear jail program.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Rae: My question is to the Minister of Education concerning the statement he made today, which statement I must say can only be described as extraordinarily cunning, indeed almost machiavellian, in its quality. On page 2, the minister says:

"Since questions of basic access, teacher protection and religious education are difficult and yet basic to the legislation, the government is simply not prepared to offer an imperfect legislative draft at this time."

When was the first cabinet discussion, either in this government or in the Davis government, with respect to these specific problems and other problems? Surely they would be apparent to anyone the day on which the Premier of this province made the announcement, June 12. They had been apparent and they were apparent in his statement. What is the problem? Why has the government not resolved the issue and stated where it stands as a party on these basic issues?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will take that question as notice.

Mr. Kerrio: Does that mean we will not get an answer?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is right. I will not tell members details of cabinet discussions, nor when they were held.

I will admit I have not carefully read the accord that the two parties have made. Perhaps the Liberals have undertaken to share details of all cabinet discussions, including when they are held and what is on the agenda every Wednesday. We do not operate that way. We make cabinet decisions. The secrecy of cabinet decisions --

Mr. Bradley: The minister does not operate at all.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What was that? Did he say they are not going to tell them anything at all?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Lest the member thinks this is a machiavellian or cunning answer -- and I know this will be irrelevant to him -- parliamentary tradition regarding cabinet meetings goes back 700 years. I understand that would be irrelevant to the member.

Mr. Rae: I did not realize the Tories had been in power for 700 years. Maybe it just feels that long; I do not know. I knew it was a long time ago, but I had no idea

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Rae: I was not asking the minister to give us details of what the cabinet discussed; I was simply asking him to tell us --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member was.

Mr. Rae: No, no. I was simply asking the minister to tell us when this matter was first considered. If that is a state secret, the revelation of which would cause the downfall of 700 years of parliamentary tradition, I guess the minister really cannot answer that very difficult and tough question of what day it was that the cabinet actually started discussing something.

If the minister is dissatisfied with the various drafts, I suppose he is going show the nine drafts to the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) and say: "Here now, you pick one of these. We are going to shuffle them up; you pick one and we will decide whether or not you have picked the right one." The minister will say: "Oh, no, you picked the wrong one. Oh, dear, we cannot support you on this one because you picked the wrong draft."

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: What is the problem? What is the position of the Conservative Party? Where does the Conservative Party stand? All of these problems were dealt with by Mr. Davis in his statement on June 12, 1984. Is the minister telling us now that he is repudiating the position Bill Davis took on that date?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member has believed that all of the events that have occurred since June 12, 1984, including discussions with the teachers' federation, a group he might be interested in, have been simply going through the motions and that there has been nothing to clarify or sort out since that June 12 statement, then perhaps he is saying more about his style of government than he is about our handling of this legislation.

The very fact that he suggests the teachers' federation would have had nothing to add on the very serious issues I talked about in my statement indicates that perhaps he does not take its advice and input very seriously. Over here we have a great deal of respect for the federation and we listened to what it had to say.

Mr. Rae: The minister is running and hiding; that is apparent. What other conclusion can one draw? The teachers' concerns have been expressed time and time again since day one. I have met the executive of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation; I have met them at the provincial level and at the local level. I would suspect our caucus and I have met them more often than has the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Rae: It is shocking that after a year the Tory party is saying to Ontario: "Here, this problem is too difficult. We have been wrestling with it for a year. We cannot even come up with one single piece of legislation, with one draft." That in itself is justification for the defeat the members opposite are going to be suffering at six o'clock tonight. It is shameful.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is that your supplementary?

Mr. Rae: No. I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that was your supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I might say to the leader of the third party I do not know what occurred in his meetings with the OSSTF. Maybe he was just there to get instructions and marching orders. We were there to listen and to get advice.

Perhaps they did not share with him what they shared with me. I will tell him that under the terms of the discussion I had with them last week we agreed it would, like cabinet meetings, remain confidential.

Mr. Rae: It is all a big secret.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member can call the federation if he objects to that. But I might tell him quite seriously that they indicated there were some concerns that had not been previously expressed and concerns they had not previously been aware of until they were able to see the draft legislation and until they had experienced --

Mr. Warner: They have even seen it. Show it to the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere should sit down or resign.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Therefore, they were very appreciative of the opportunity to offer further advice on how to operate that system.

Might I say one final thing to my friend? I understand perfectly, in reading the accord, that in item 1 the Ontario Liberal Party is required by the New Democratic Party, and I read directly, to "release present draft legislation immediately." They may be in a position to dictate to the Liberals; they are not and never will be in a position to dictate to our party.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am certain there are many other members who want to ask questions.

Mr. Rae: I have a second question for the same minister. All I can say is that that is not what the Minister of Education was saying to our caucus just a short two weeks ago. How times have changed.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: It is nice to know there is one constitution for the interest groups that are meeting with the Minister of Education and another constitution for the rest of the province. If the minister is prepared to show drafts to various groups that are affected by this legislation, why is he not prepared to show drafts when he is a member of the government of Ontario to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: So far, the member has been having as good a week as the Blue Jays have been having.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is true. Next week will be different.

The member may not respect a process that has offered three or four different drafts of various sections to the parents, to the teachers' federation and to the trustees. He may not think that is the proper process to go through, but we do. He may also have forgotten that the Commission for Planning and Implementing Change in the Governance and Administration of Secondary Education in Ontario has had 18 hearings throughout the province in order to form the basis for its recommendations to us. He may not think that was the right process to follow, but we do.

Finally, and this is very important for those of us who have had the opportunity to serve in government, when the government offers a draft it is seen to be, notwithstanding any words we use to the contrary, a draft with the stamp of government approval. That gives it a lot more authority and weight than any other drafts or any other discussion that goes around. The member may not think this piece of legislation requires that kind of care and consideration and sensitivity, but we do.

The New Democratic Party believes we should curtail input at the committee stage. Again, we disagree.

Mr. Rae: If anybody has balled up the process, it is the Tory party of Ontario. It has been a mess from the very beginning. They have failed to tell us where they stand. They should have been involving people in discussions of draft legislation months ago. It could have been done months ago but was not. They have left the process of implementation in a very difficult situation and they are responsible for that. That responsibility lies at the door of the Tory party and it will always lie there. They are the ones who held up carriage of this matter for over a year.

The government can have draft legislation go to committee, which has happened. It can have white papers go to committee, which has happened. Those processes have happened. We discussed child welfare legislation in draft form and trust company legislation in draft form. These issues went to committee and were discussed, all within the 700 years of tradition of Tory government in Ontario.

If all that was possible, why was it not possible on an issue that is probably the most sensitive one facing the province today? Why did the minister not go to committee with that issue? Why is he handling it in this appalling way?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I want to deal with each one of those points. First, the member suggests the process has been messy.

Mr. Rae: I did not say messy; I said messed up.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Messed up, excuse me. I know how careful the member is with words.

3:10 p.m.

I would remind the member, referring to his own question either yesterday or Friday, that 30 boards have already met and resolved plans that have met with the approval of the planning and implementation commission. That does not indicate the process is very messy at all. Only one plan has been rejected by the planning and implementation commission.

In essence, the orderly process, which has the local boards resolving many of these matters locally in conjunction with the planning and implementation commission, and then the planning and implementation commission recommending approved plans to the ministry for further approval, is absolutely working well. It is going very nicely.

There is not the disarray the honourable member suggests. With some exceptions, boards are not at war with each other. There is no mass confusion. The teachers' federation has been involved in the discussions at the local level and almost all the boards, save one, that want to come in have had their plans approved. They have been discussed at the local level with the teachers and they are ready to proceed. So much for the member's allegation that this process has, as he has put it, been messed up.

I would remind the member that the process set up last year, which he approved, had the planning and implementation commission having hearings through the fall, with discussions being held and recommendations coming to the government in March 1985 for legislative steps to be taken. That was the process he approved.

I would remind him he approved of it so much that he did not query the process even once last fall. Therefore, when he puts the proposition that this has been badly handled, he is saying one simple thing. The legislation would otherwise have been introduced in mid-April in the process he tacitly agreed to and accepted as a good process. He is saying it is because the process, which would have introduced legislation in mid-April with his tacit agreement, now is being looked at in mid-June, solely because of an election.

If that is tantamount to his allegation against this government, that we had an election and therefore this bill is perhaps eight weeks late, then let us understand that is the sum and substance of the entire allegation he can make. Like many of his other allegations, it sounds good when he makes it, but it will not stand up to the factual analysis of how this government has handled that very delicate matter. As long as we are here, we will continue to handle it properly.

Mr. Rae: I honestly have difficulty; perhaps I need a translator or something. I do not know what it is.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the honourable member that if he asks a long question, he may expect to get a long answer. I wonder if he could cut down the supplementaries.

Mr. Rae: It is not the length, it is the straightness that is the problem. I simply ask the minister, can he help me? Can he explain, briefly if he likes, why, if everything is so hunky-dory and the process is so marvellous and working so well, are those guys running away from the problem and dumping it on to the next government?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not see in the agreement where the member is obliged to cover up for, defend and protect the next government, if there is one, but I understand his concern.

In view of that question, one wonders whether the leader of the New Democratic Party, who is so interested to know where this party stands on that legislation, was equally interested in knowing where the Ontario Liberal Party stands on the legislation before he agreed to support that party and put it in office with a blank cheque. It is not in this agreement. Did he ask those questions? Did he care enough about the legislation? Now he suddenly wants to know all pieces of it. if he did know -- and he is nodding his head, yes -- why does he not tell us where he stands on that legislation?

YOUTH WORKS

Mr. Ward: I am not sure whether my question should be addressed to the Minister of Skills Development or to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Timbrell), but I will give the former a try.

One of the programs operated by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and now being transferred to the Ministry of Skills Development is Youth Works. Under this program employers hire young people for a period of time, often 26 weeks, and are reimbursed by the province for either the full minimum wage or $2.50 per hour, according to the qualifications of the youth hired.

It has been brought to my attention that numerous employers have completed the training period and have still not received a cent from the government. Can the minister explain why employers, many of them with small businesses with cash-flow problems, are being asked to carry government debts for months on end?

Hon. Mr. Gillies: First of all, the honourable member is a little behind the times. The program is no longer with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing at all. It is with my Ministry of Skills Development.

Second, the funds under the Youth Works program, which are indeed being flowed on an ongoing basis, are going out. If the member has any particular problem with an employer in his riding, I wish he would bring it to my attention. These funds are being flowed, and I would add that some 11,000 young people are being employed under that one program.

Mr. Ward: I will be happy to bring the specific cases to the minister's attention. Obviously, the establishment of a Ministry of Skills Development has caused some delays, but that hardly justifies the burden the government has placed on some employers.

This program was announced more than a year ago with great fanfare; a hotline was established and a large advertising program was begun. Yet employers who hired people as far back as last January and who have now finished the full hiring period have not been reimbursed even for the first 13 weeks. I would like to know what the minister thinks this kind of performance does to encourage private sector employers to participate in this program.

Hon. Mr. Gillies: The directions taken by this government arising out of the 1984 budget are for the first time allowing private sector employers to hire trainees in the nonsummer months under this program, young people with lower levels of skills and education who have not had these opportunities before.

I would reiterate to the member that under the $4-per-hour subsidy portion of our Youth Works program there are some 4,904 full-time participants and 851 part-time participants, because again for the first time we brought in as part of this program a part-time component for students who wanted to pursue their education. Under the $2.50 subsidy, where private, nonprofit and municipal hirings are allowed, there are more than 5,500 positions.

These programs are new, they are innovative and they are serving a whole cadre of young people for whom there were no programs of this sort before. I believe that if the member would care to review the facts of these programs with me and look at the numbers of people being served, he would be forced to the conclusion I am, namely, that we are doing a better job of serving young people under these programs, in greater numbers and with a greater commitment than ever before. I hope he will afford these programs the kind of even-minded support I believe they deserve.

3:20 p.m.

HISTORIC ANNIVERSARY

Mr. Laughren: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. F. S. Miller), my question is for the Deputy Premier. Is she aware of the historical significance of today's date? To be more precise, does she know which very significant historical event took place 170 years ago today?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was the successful conclusion of the Battle of Waterloo, if I am not mistaken.

Mr. Laughren: As a matter of fact, I am impressed by the minister's sense of history. I wonder whether she is aware that it was at precisely six o'clock in the evening that the downfall began, that it ended about two hours later and that within precisely four days Napoleon abdicated? Is she not concerned that historians will not draw unfair comparisons between Napoleon and her Premier in view of the fact that it was Napoleon who bungled his last major skirmish?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not sure which pair of dancing shoes the member for Nickel Belt is wearing. I gather he is wearing dancing shoes like all the rest of the New Democratic Party. They are the only people who are going to be dancing anywhere and I think it will be right out the door shortly.

There is absolutely no comparison between the thoughtful, sensitive and understanding addressing of the problems and the matters related to the development of Ontario over a short span of 40 years and the rule of Napoleon, who actually resembled the member from Chapleau more than he resembles any member of this party. I do not think historians are going to make that kind of comparison at all.

Mr. Speaker: I am glad we have handled that matter of urgent public importance.

DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEE

Mr. Barlow: One week ago I rose in my place and asked a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding an employee of the same ministry, Mr. Wayne Tyler. There was a hearing before the Ontario Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board. At that time the minister said there should be a decision as to whether an appeal would be lodged within a week. Does the minister have that decision?

Hon. Mr. Eves: Yes, I do. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, I sent you a note at the beginning of question period indicating that I would like to respond to two questions that were previously asked.

With respect to the question put to me on June 11 by the member for Cambridge concerning the decision handed down by the Ontario Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board, I am able to advise this House that the ministry will be going to judicial review with this case and that proceedings have already been started.

I would like to remind the House that the decision of the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board was that Wayne Tyler would be reinstated to employment with the Ministry of Community and Social Services. However, as I explained last week, the decision was being looked at by the legal staff of our ministry and the Ministry of the Attorney General as well.

I have just said that the ministry has decided to seek a judicial review of the Wayne Tyler case. A judicial review involves an application to the Supreme Court of Ontario under the Judicial Review Procedure Act. I want to add that the required documentation now is being prepared by our legal staff. I understand the Supreme Court may be in a position to hear such a review within six months of receiving the necessary documentation.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Knight: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Back in April 1985, the Halton District Health Council recommended the designation of funds for a computerized axial tomography scanner to the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington. Can the minister tell this House if he intends to take the advice of the council and recommend providing the necessary funds for the CAT scanner to be located at Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: With respect to that matter, we have reached a conclusion. That decision has been communicated to the chairman of the health council and the chairmen of both hospital boards.

Mr. Knight: Can the minister give the assurance that he will not make an announcement dated today or before today's date contrary to the advice of the council, and thus eliminate the chances of the scanner going to Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital, where it is greatly needed?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: No.

HAMILTON-WENTWORTH DETENTION CENTRE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Correctional Services. I am sure the minister is well aware of the very tense situation at the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre. What is he doing to reassure the guards in that institution of their safety, rather than just disciplining them for wearing caps in their utter frustration at being unable to get answers to the complaints they have raised?

Hon. Mr. Cousens: The situation in Hamilton-Wentworth is one about which we have to have a great deal of care, as we always do about any of our institutions. There is a lot of sensitivity on the part of my administration to make sure we respond to the needs of our employees and to their safety while they are on the job. We are exercising every bit of sensitivity we possibly can in that situation.

Mr. Mackenzie: Why is it, then, that the report of the investigation team sent in by the ministry, which talked to the guards and the staff for some considerable time in Hamilton, has not been made available to the union? Why can they not get a copy of it in spite of all their efforts?

Surely the minister understands that after the beating of a guard, when his fellow officers were prevented by management from going to his assistance on May 29, the situation is extremely grave in that detention centre. Why can they not get a copy of the report of that investigation the ministry did? Will the minister give it to them?

Hon. Mr. Cousens: The honourable member says the situation is grave. I do not believe it is. There is a situation under review, and the employees and the administration are trying to work it out amicably. That is the process our ministry is trying to do. To start having reports tabled and a written war going on is not the way I want to see it done. We are doing everything possible to work with our correctional officers and with the union. I am satisfied we are going to resolve all the concerns that are being raised.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Some time last week I was asked a question by the member for London South (Mr. E. J. Smith) regarding a delay in the reassignment of 60 chronic care beds in the area served by the Thames Valley District Health Council. The honourable member suggested the original plan of allowing Grace Villa to include the 60 beds in its plan had been considered and the arrangements had been made to operate these beds under the auspices of a public facility.

Grace Villa apparently negotiated with the University Hospital in London but discussions on this matter broke down in April 1984. In February 1985 the Thames Valley District Health Council recommended to the ministry that the Sisters of St. Joseph in St. Mary's Hospital be given the bed allocation with the beds to be housed at Marian Villa, a nursing home operated by the sisters. However, it was necessary to undertake additional expansion and reconstruction to accommodate this facility.

Going back to the spring of 1983, the sisters had presented a proposal to the ministry and were given approval to draw up a master plan for the expansion and upgrading of Marian Villa, St. Mary's Hospital, which is a chronic care facility, and St. Joseph's Hospital, which is an acute care facility. This plan has been considered by the ministry. It is an estimated $60-million project. It was submitted to the ministry with a request that the ministry fund half the cost of that project, and that is still incorporated in the ministry's master plan.

3:30 p.m.

Ms. E. J. Smith: At the time the negotiations were going on with Grace Villa, a need was established to give these beds to the London area. This would have been done if the negotiations to put them in the private hospital had worked out. The need was established and accepted as being present. It was not part of an ongoing program at that time. It was then asked that these beds, which had been recognized as needed, be put in St. Joseph's instead, not as part of the major expansion but as a separate recognition of an established 60 beds.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Ms. E. J. Smith: I see nothing in the answer so far that would reassure London South that the beds are coming to London South, and immediately. I would like that reassurance since the Sisters of St. Joseph have expressed the willingness to do the necessary adjusting immediately. Will the minister give us that assurance?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I can give no such assurance. I think the need is properly established in that area, as it has been established in many other areas of this province. Certainly as we can deal with priorities and with the financing of those priorities, that is the activity of the Ministry of Health and it will be our program.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr. Sorbara: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and it deals with the government's poor management of landfill sites throughout Ontario, particularly in the riding of York North.

The minister will know that numerous landfill sites across the province were allowed to receive liquid industrial toxic wastes during the past two decades and that these wastes are today leaking into Ontario's drinking water supplies. Two of the worst situations are in the riding of York North, first of all in Stouffville, where 14 home wells have been contaminated, and in the area of Aurora, where eight wells have been contaminated by the Aurora landfill site.

In view of the provisions that were in the throne speech, can the minister tell us why she has waited until this late date to get tough with polluters? Why has the Conservative government waited until its dying days to introduce changes it will never be able to put into place?

Hon. Ms. Fish: There are indeed problems with landfill sites. Most of the landfill sites that are creating a difficulty for us are municipal or those that were governed by the municipalities to deal with refuse.

The problems stem from two things. First, there was a very different understanding almost two generations ago of the dangers and the problems with some of the things that were put into the landfill sites. Second, a number of the sites took things that were not documented and came to light only during the past few years as the Ministry of the Environment moved to do a series of tests and spot checks on the various landfill sites and waste sites around this province wherever we had any reason to believe a site had any toxics leaking from it, whether by way of gas into the air, which sometimes occurs, or by way of chemicals moving into the water supply.

We have not only tested the supplies on a regular basis but also provided alternative supplies. We have moved with the current owners of the sites, some of which are closed and some of which are active, to establish very stringent controls, and we have worked in every case with the local municipalities to identify the steps necessary to provide for cleanup.

Far from not acting, the Ministry of the Environment has been prepared to apply the best scientific knowledge, the best testing and the best protection to all these areas, even where it has meant, as it often has, reviewing the standards of a day gone by and saying: "Those standards were not strong enough. They must be strengthened. We require remedial action." By the way, we as a government have been prepared to assist in funding that remedial action to offset the cost to the local ratepayers.

Mr. Sorbara: I am surprised at the minister's response. She will know that in the area of Stouffville, in particular, the people of Stouffville pressured the ministry for years to acknowledge a problem that the ministry refused to admit.

Mr. Speaker: Are you surprised enough to ask the question?

Mr. Sorbara: My question is this: Last night, members of the minister's staff acknowledged at a public meeting that fish in Musselman Lake, which is in close proximity to the Stouffville landfill site, are contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls and mercury. In view of that fact, will the minister tell us when she first became aware that tests for these chemicals, PCBs and mercury, were conducted? When did the minister first know or learn that PCBs and mercury have been found in fish in that lake, which she will know is a dead lake?

Hon. Ms. Fish: Obviously, I would have to take under advisement the particular point at which advice came forward. On the more general question, precisely because of a concern about inadequate documentation as well as the change in standards over the last generation or two -- and I do not think that point should be missed -- and on the recommendation of Ministry of the Environment officials, we have engaged in extensive testing, both in water for water quality and fish testing, and in land and landfill sites.

The key problem in all these areas has been to adequately identify precisely what is in those sites. The member might say, "That is an easy thing; just go and check the records." The difficulty has been that even with municipally owned landfill sites, the records very often are spotty. They do not reflect things that a generation or two ago were uncontrolled and that may well have been deposited. Also, they do not reflect the problems of illegal dumping that have occurred in some cases.

In the Stouffville illustration, we are engaged in a careful examination to determine precisely what is there. We can then ascertain the best possible means of cleanup. The member would agree, as I am sure all members of the House would, that it would be irresponsible in the extreme to introduce unknown toxics into the environment in a haphazard way if we moved in absence of the fullest possible summation.

Mr. Charlton: The minister mentioned in her first answer that the ministry had conducted extensive and tough testing programs to ensure that landfill sites were not leaking. In the case of the Stouffville site, the ministry maintained for a number of years that the site was not leaking. However, in February 1985 we had the release of a hydrogeological study which said not only that the site was leaking but also that the contaminants had long since gone out from there into the environment.

When is the minister going to take a look at the testing programs, which she claims are so tough and so protective of Ontario's water supply, to find out why they fail so regularly?

Hon. Ms. Fish: The testing programs do not fail. The testing indicates problems. I, as minister, have been prepared to make those publicly funded tests and reports available for public review so we can move in a co-ordinated and informed fashion to deal with the problems. These facts show a willingness to face up to the changes in standards and the consequences in an industrial society where the standards and even the very knowledge of the problems of some of the chemicals we use in industrial processes were simply unknown. The knowledge in some of those areas has become known only in the past few years.

Tough and rigorous testing, the ability to review and assess the requirements, and the willingness to fund on a direct basis as well as to assist municipalities are the responsible actions to deal with protection of the environment.

3:40 p.m.

TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS

Mr. Foulds: I had a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. McCague), who is lurking in the precincts, but in view of his absence I will address it to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer, if I could have her attention.

On June 10, the Minister of Transportation and Communications announced, with the cancellation of the GO advanced light rail transit program, in the last sentence, "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."

Was the Treasurer aware that, that very same day, Kirk Foley of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. was sending executive bulletin number 44 to all employees indicating that because of the cancellation, all the proposed Via Rail contracts, which would include about 200 cars, had to be funnelled to the Kingston plant? This denied any opportunity for the Via Rail cars to be built in Thunder Bay. Does that mean employment for the northwest?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not aware of the so-called note from Mr. Foley, but I will certainly speak to the Minister of Transportation and Communications about it to try to determine the rationale and the redirection that has been suggested.

If the member has a supplementary, he might direct it to the Minister of Transportation and Communications who is now here.

Mr. Foulds: I would redirect the original question and he could answer personally.

Mr. Speaker: I believe it was suggested that you direct a supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: If he will not, then I will direct a supplementary to the minister. If the minister heard the first question, could he answer it?

Second, what authority does he have when he makes an announcement in this House that gives hope of jobs in the northwest, when the executive officer of UTDC is contradicting that government program and initiative? What control does the minister have over civil servants such as Kirk Foley?

Hon. Mr. McCague: As I recall, I made an announcement about 20 GO Transit bilevel cars that were going to be built in Thunder Bay. I hope the member appreciates that.

As far as I know, the 200 Via Rail cars have not been officially announced yet. There has been lots of speculation and media comment about that. As I understand it, there may be a division of that contract between Thunder Bay and Kingston.

Mr. Foulds: That is not what Kirk Foley says.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I do not have the paper the member has. I am not sure where he got the one he has. That matter is still under consideration. I certainly have not said anything about it at this point, except for the 20 bilevel cars.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Would you allow the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Eves) to send across his answer to my question asked previously?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure he has heard the request.

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I had a supplementary to ask.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, the time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr. Hennessy: I have the same concerns as the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds). Would the minister check into the allocation of the cars?

Mr. Speaker: I will have to ask the honourable member to take his seat.

PETITION

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Taylor: I have a petition signed by 48 people from Prince Edward Collegiate Institute.

"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 separate Roman Catholic secondary 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 democratic societies there is a recognized convention which respects 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."

EATON'S LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere has informed me that he would like to make a personal explanation to correct the record.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Resign.

Mr. Warner: Are you kidding, and make all these guys happy too?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: On Thursday last, in the course of my remarks I made a statement to the effect that television station CFTO did not cover the Eaton's strike. Upon investigation and consultation with both CFTO and the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, it became evident that CFTO did provide some coverage of the significant struggle of working people to gain a collective agreement. I wish to set the record straight.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Pope, first reading of Bill 22, An Act to amend Certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

Motion agreed to.

LINE FENCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Pope, first reading of Bill 23, An Act to amend Certain Acts in relation to Line Fences.

Motion agreed to.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Pope, first reading of Bill 24, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act.

Motion agreed to.

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved, seconded by Hon. F. S. Miller, first reading of Bill 25, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Pope, first reading of Bill 26, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

3:50 p.m.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Pope, first reading of Bill 27, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.

Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grossman moved, seconded by Hon. Miss Stephenson, first reading of Bill 28, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

MINING ACT

Hon. Mr. Harris moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Bernier, first reading of Bill 29, An Act to revise the Mining Act.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONCLUDED)

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

Mr. Grandmaître: Realizing that this will be remembered as a very historic day, and because I would not want to be blamed for stalling history, I will relinquish my time to complete my inaugural speech.

Mr. McClellan: I think this is a great day. The fresh air of democratic change is going to be blowing through the halls of Queen's Park after 42 years of one-party rule, and I think it is a great day for democracy.

As we begin the windup to the throne speech debate, I want to offer my personal congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on your election to that office. I want to assure you on behalf of myself and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party that we intend to make this minority parliament work, and to that end, we pledge to you our full and complete co-operation. I want to extend my congratulations to your deputies as well. We are genuinely pleased at your selection and we wish you well.

I get paid extra to sit in the House as whip, so I have heard almost all the throne speech debate. I have to say it has been an excellent debate. The 33rd Parliament is a renewed and rejuvenated parliament. I do not think there is any doubt about that. We have heard from most of the new members, at least on this side of the House.

I would like to express my pride in the contributions of the new members who spoke in the throne debate: the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville), the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay), the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom), the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes) and the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot). I am especially glad to hear once again in this assembly the contributions of our old friends the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) and the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner).

The New Democratic Party caucus was renewed and rejuvenated in the election of May 2. We are ready to play our full role in this new minority parliament.

I want to congratulate the three leaders on the campaigns they waged. Quite frankly, of the four election campaigns I have been in over the last 10 years, I thought this one was the most free from rancour and the fairest. Those of us who labour in the ridings appreciate such a measure of civility during an election campaign.

While I am giving accolades, it would be useful, and something a little out of the ordinary, to say there has been a change in the quality of the reporting at Queen's Park in the last week or two. I want to call attention to that. For the first time since the period between 1975 and 1977, the Queen's Park press gallery has been paying extraordinary attention to the Legislature. The quality of the reporting of events of the last two weeks has been outstanding, particularly in the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star.

The best line of all, in the course of the last few weeks since May 2, was the line by Mr. Lorrie Goldstein in the Toronto Sun. He wrote, "The Tories want to rise from the ashes without first having been burned at the stake." It cannot be done, but I want to say to the government House leader we are here to help him.

One of the difficulties in winding up the throne speech debate is that I am not sure to whom I am talking on the government side. I look across at the decimated remnant, the scattered remnant, the tattered remains of a once-powerful political dynasty and I do not know which part of the party I am talking to.

4 p.m.

I do not know whether I am addressing the wing of the party that was described by the illustrious Dalton Camp on June 13 as follows, "A party that frittered away an enormous lead in one brief campaign and so cheerfully abandoned its traditional successful moderation for a romance with Reaganism." Am I talking to the Reaganistic remnant? Or am I talking to the group that wrote the throne speech with its 90 dumb socialist ideas and a price tag moderately estimated at between $1.5 billion and $2 billion with the magical guarantee that there will be neither a tax increase nor an increase in the deficit? Am I talking to the left or the right? It is equally bizarre. It is difficult to know whom to address.

I want to talk a little bit about what is happening here this afternoon. There has been, if I may say so, an incredible amount of nonsense uttered about what is ultimately going to take place here at six o'clock today. It is no mystery what is happening. There is nothing strange or unusual about what is happening. There is no deviation from 700 years of parliamentary tradition. There is nothing unconstitutional and there is nothing unparliamentary about what is happening here in this assembly. I just want to make sure, whether it be the Reaganesque rump or the dumb socialists over there, that the members over there understand what is happening here today.

An hon. member: Which one are you?

Mr. McClellan: I do not know where the fifth column fits into this scenario. On May 2 the Conservatives lost the election. They lost their majority.

Hon. Mr. Gillies: Did you win?

Mr. McClellan: Did they win a majority of seats? I can still count. They lost their majority. On June 18 they are going to lose the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly, and that means they lose the right to govern. It is as simple as that. If you do not have the majority in the assembly, you do not have the right to govern.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am going to remember those words. There are two sets of rules for your friends.

Mr. McClellan: The right to govern in the British parliamentary tradition is not bestowed by the crown or by the monarchy. This may come as a surprise to the members over there; this may come as a real revelation. The right to govern is not bestowed even by the Progressive Conservative Party gathered in leadership convention, it is not bestowed by the Tory caucus, it is not bestowed by the Tory cabinet and it is not bestowed even by Segal, Atkins and Tory.

The right to govern is bestowed by the people through their duly elected representatives in parliament, and that is exactly what is happening today. The majority of the members of this assembly are going to vote at six o'clock today to take the right to govern away from that party and to confer that right on another party and another leader. That is all that is happening. Do they know what it is called? It is called democracy, and it is time they learned what will happen here.

Hon. Mr. Pope: That is not what is in the accord.

An hon. member: And they do not like it.

Mr. McClellan: And they do not like it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am going to use this Hansard again.

Mr. McClellan: That is what the 700 years of parliamentary tradition are all about.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will be using this one in October.

Mr. McClellan: The right to govern is conferred by parliament, and governments are accountable to parliament. We have put an end to 42 years of one-party rule, cabinet government and cabinet domination of this assembly by the Conservative Party.

What this country needs is a good right-wing party. Whatever has happened to right-wing politics?

What upsets my friends more than anything else is that democracy is alive and well in Ontario. That is what they do not like; that is what they find so offensive.

I would like to talk for a minute about why this is going to happen to them after 42 glorious years.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You do not want an election.

Mr. McClellan: No, I do not want an election.

The deer looking for the hunting licence. The most horrible thing that can happen to my friend the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick is that an election will be called before he has an opportunity to do what it is necessary to do.

Interjections.

Mr. McClellan: This is not an orthodox view. I do not think what happened on May 2 had to do with leadership particularly or with whether the real Frank Miller was met and encountered by the people of Ontario. I do not think that is the explanation of what happened. I think their problem started long before he was elected leader. It started many years before election day on May 2.

Their problem started on March 19, 1981, when they got their majority back, turned their back on the process of reform and announced it with the kind of arrogance those of us who have lived in this assembly in the past four years will never forget. I will never forget the then Premier's words about the new realities of March 19. Then we saw the iron curtain come down and the new ice age begin.

Some of us were here. If the members opposite have not learned the lesson of March 19, that is their problem. During an election a party usually campaigns on its record. During the 1985 election campaign I cannot remember this government going to the people and saying: "Look what we have done for you. Look at the record." That was because there was a vacuum, a black hole; there was nothing there, no record.

Hon. Mr. Mitchell: Nonsense.

Mr. McClellan: What is the record of the last four years? The government gave us a provincial bird -- the blue jay -- a provincial tree, wine content legislation, various pieces of anti-worker legislation; Bill 179 that ripped up more than 200 valid and binding contracts and rolled back the wages of public sector workers. It was rammed through this House by using closure. That is part of the record. In honour of the visit of His Holiness Pope John Paul, the transit workers' strike was smashed two weeks before it even started. That is the record of the past four years.

In 1981 the Progressive Conservative Party turned its back on the process of reform that was initiated with the election of the first minority government in 1975. It repudiated the reform process, torpedoed it, brought it to an end and systematically undermined reforms that had been enacted in the minority period between 1975 and 1981.

4:10 p.m.

If I may recall a brief anecdote, during one of the sessions when the New Democratic Party negotiating team was meeting with the Liberal Party negotiating team, we presented for the first time a document outlining our proposed agenda for reform. I think one of my Liberal colleagues said it looked like the Eaton's catalogue. It was a long list. I do not think I am telling tales out of school. My colleague the member for St. David (Mr. Scott) read the list and said, "My God, this is the unfulfilled reform program of an entire generation." It was a very perceptive comment.

Mr. Nixon: A very perceptive member.

Mr. McClellan: A very perceptive member. That is exactly what it was, and that is exactly what has happened in this province. There is an entire generation of Canadians who live in Ontario, whose aspirations for fundamental social and economic reform have been frustrated by the Conservative Party and the Conservative government in this province. A process of reform was initiated in 1975 under the first two minority governments, but when they had their 72 seats, when they came back here with the gang of 72, that was the end of it.

An hon. member: It was 70.

Mr. McClellan: It was 70. I thought it was 72. The gang of 72 has a better ring to it. I am sorry.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It was so popular we added two more seats.

Mr. Rae: It felt like 72.

Mr. McClellan: It felt like 72.

Mr. Martel: It means they just lost that many more on election day.

Mr. McClellan: After March 19 we had a government of studious inactivity and lassitude that did nothing session after session. My colleague the New Democratic Party House leader and I pleaded with the government House leader in session after session: "Please, please give us something to do. We are going crazy in here. We are bored to death." There was session after session of absolutely nothing in the way of a legislative program. There was do-nothing session after do-nothing session, culminating finally in the announcement on October 8, 1984, by the Premier that he was retiring and retreating to his office for the next four months. We never saw him again.

What did the government do during this four-year period? I have enumerated: the birds, the trees, the wine content, the anti-worker legislation. There was the worst depression in my lifetime, the worst depression since the 1930s, and it did nothing about it.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Oh, yes; this province led the country out of the depression, that is what this province did.

Mr. Rae: Government members sat on their butts the whole time. There was not a single piece of reform, nothing on pensions, nothing on severance, nothing at all. We went through that session with nothing.

Mr. McClellan: Youth unemployment rose to its highest levels since the 1930s, and the government did nothing about it. That is its record.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Creating jobs is reform, my friend. When you talk about reform, all you talk about is spending.

Mr. McClellan: Now we have the throne speech.

Mr. Rae: What the hell is in the throne speech?

Mr. Martel: What have you done for the last five years?

Mr. Rae: You wrote the book on spending.

Mr. McClellan: It contains $2 billion worth of promises. Now we have the deathbed repentance, the conversion on the road to Damascus. If St. Paul was travelling on the road to Damascus, he would have to turn back; there is such a traffic jam he could not get through.

We have 90 promises, costing $2 billion with no taxes and no deficit. My friend the government House leader has the nerve to quibble, to challenge and to attack the use of the phrase "within a framework of fiscal responsibility." That is because the government does not know anything about it.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Are the members opposite all feeling well?

Mr. McClellan: I am feeling fine. How are you feeling?

I want to go through some of the promises that are in the throne speech, this rich cafeteria of ideas in the throne speech, because I do not understand it. There is something I am missing here. There are 90 socialist ideas in the throne speech.

Why did the government not do it when it had its majority of 72 seats? Why did it not do it in 1981, 1982, 1983 or 1984? I do not understand; I am missing something. It had the chance to do all of these things. It had all the chance in the world to do all of these things when it had its majority.

I want to look in a little bit of detail at some of these promises in the throne speech and some of the statements that have come down in the House in the last few days from ministers who did nothing in their portfolios between 1981 and 1985. It is difficult to assess the degree of chutzpah and gall involved in this throne speech. They had the nerve to talk about reforms to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. What did they do when they had 72 members and an absolute majority in this assembly?

I would remind members that one of the most important reforms of the minority government period was the enactment of the Occupational Health and Safety Act in 1978. That bill made it possible for government to designate by regulation toxic and hazardous substances in the work place, to establish exposure guidelines for toxic substances, to make sure that workers were not exposed to those toxic substances and to give workers the right to refuse work if they were exposed to toxic or hazardous substances.

In 1978, during the minority government period, the government made a commitment that it would identify biological, chemical and physical agents that were hazardous to workers and would pass regulations establishing exposure levels. We raised questions of the ministry in 1979 to ask for a progress report with respect to the designation of hazardous substances.

I am going into some detail on this because the recycled Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) said on June 13, on page 5 of his statement, that he had some new initiatives in the area of toxic substance regulation. He is going to do something about toxic substance regulation.

I have a list that was given to me in the estimates debate in 1979 by this same minister. It is a list of 52 biological, chemical and physical agents. There is a schedule attached to it; it is work plan. I will read what it says: "The ministry has developed a priority listing of 52 biological, chemical and physical agents. This list has been used to develop the work plan set out below."

For 1980-81, the work plan called for the designation by regulation of 22 hazardous substances, so that workers could be protected. For 1982-83, it called for 12 additional substances so that workers could be protected. I am sorry, I missed a year. For 1981-82, the work plan called for the designation of 10 substances to protect workers from deadly exposure; and for 1983, an additional 10, for a total of 52 to be regulated by the end of 1984.

Do you know what the record is, Mr. Speaker? Since 1978 this government has regulated nine substances. Workers are exposed and without protection, and the Minister of Labour had the nerve to come before us on June 13 and say he now intends to take action on this matter. I find it difficult to understand how anyone, after six years and the designation of nine substances, would have the nerve to come forward now and say: "Give us one more chance. We are going to do it now after all. Now that we have lost the election, now that we have lost our majority, now that we are on our knees begging to stay in office, we are going to do something about it."

Mr. Mackenzie: They have not earned the right.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: That is precisely the point. On that one point alone, this government has lost the right to govern as far as we are concerned.

The inventory of frustrated reform extends to almost every item on the throne speech list. We are promised reform of our tenant protection legislation. The minister who stalled and dilly-dallied on tenant protection laughs and chuckles. Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, that in 1978 this Legislature passed the Residential Tenancies Act, section 33 of which set up a rent registry so tenants would be protected from landlords who were charging illegal rents? That was done by the reform parliament in 1978, and when the government got its majority back in 1981 it refused to proclaim section 33. It refused to set up a rent registry and instead set up a royal commission. Thanks very much.

The government set up a royal commission in 1982 to deal with the urgent problem of illegal rents and the need to set up a rent registry. The commission was given a blank cheque and an unlimited time frame and away it went to spend the people's money and have a circus of hearings to rediscover the wheel. After two and a half years -- I think my time sequence is right -- in the fall of 1984 the commission recommended that a rent registry be set up.

What did this government with a gang of 72 do? Did it set up a rent registry? No. It appointed Gordon Walker as the minister in charge of rent review, and he said it would take at least another year before he figured out how to set up a rent registry. We had a bill passed in 1978 with a section setting up a rent registry, and this government, when it got its majority back, said it would take at least 10 years to figure out

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Vince Kerrio figured all that out.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You already did, Bob. It is right there in the throne speech.

Mr. McClellan: It is in the throne speech.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Tell us what you are going to do, Vince.

Mr. Kerrio: I am ready.

Mr. McClellan: Let us wait and see who does what. Nothing under the sun could be worse than this government's record.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: We will see.

Mr. McClellan: Another of the big initiatives during the minority period was pension reform. Remember pension reform? Does the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) have a pension plan? It is a good plan, is it not? Is it not a shame that the majority of workers in Ontario do not have such a good pension plan? Is it not a shame that this government did nothing during the past four years?

Interjections.

Mr. McClellan: Let us review the record.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They are completely out of control today; no decorum.

The government was concerned about pensions during the reform minority period of the 1970s. What did it do? Guess. It set up a royal commission. Here is the report, dated 1980. The royal commission made a series of recommendations about reforming Ontario's moronic pension legislation, absolutely imbecilic legislation. What did the government do? It set up a select committee to study the royal commission report.

In those days, I had been here only six years. I still took these guys seriously; I thought they were serious. I was on the select committee, and so was the present leader of the Liberal Party, then a loyal follower of Stuart Smith.

The select committee on pensions reported in 1981 and again in 1982, and there was an absolute consensus with respect to reform of private pension legislation, an absolute consensus among all three parties and a consensus within the finance community, the insurance community and the business community. The chairman knows I am speaking the truth. There was a consensus on what needed to be done to bring about portability, vesting and inflation indexing.

What did this government do? Absolutely nothing. We went through the depression of 1982 and 1983, and tens of thousands of workers in this province lost their jobs. Older workers lost their jobs and they lost every dime of their pension entitlement because this government had done nothing to reform our pension legislation. That is a good part of the record of the past four years.

I can go on and on. I could go on for days.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Okay.

Mr. McClellan: But I will not. I will just give a litany. We went through exactly the same process on family law reform and on equal pay for work of equal value. Do members remember? We passed a bill in this assembly in 1978. The Tories still have not figured it out.

Regarding services to the elderly, one of the announcements we had last week from the new Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Eves) was for an integrated home care program, with no legislation. No legislation means no program. We have been waiting for the legislation, which was promised in 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1983 and 1984.

Why do we have no legislation? Some of our new members may not know this. It is because the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services cannot agree on which ministry will deliver the service, and there is nobody over there with the guts to bash heads together and say, "You are going to do this and you are not, and here is the legislation." They have dithered.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We did not need the legislation.

Mr. McClellan: Nothing could be worse than their record, nothing. They play games with elderly people's services. The property tax grants are mentioned in the throne speech. Give me a break. They have not adjusted the elderly persons' property tax credit since 1980. The purchasing power of those credits has been eroded 50 per cent. Where were they in the past four years in restoring the purchasing power of the property tax credit? Here it is in the throne speech, one of their miracle conversion discoveries.

Where were they regarding extra billing, or forests, or medically necessary travel, or housing or whatever it is? They had four years of unprecedented opportunity with a clear majority and they squandered it, they wasted it, they dithered, they fiddled around. On May 2, 1985, the people of this province said: "Enough. Get out. You are finished." The government said: "No. Trust us. Give us one more chance."

I have some bad news for them. There is a new majority in this assembly and a brand-new agenda for reform, and that is what is going to determine the work of this minority parliament. Whether they like it or not, there is a new agenda for reform, and that is going to be the agenda for this reform parliament. The process of reform that was started in 1975 is going to be re-established, and they are not going to be able to stop it this time.

4:30 p.m.

I am proud of the role of the New Democratic Party in putting these items on the political agenda of this province, many of them as long ago as 10 or 15 years. Our party set the agenda for this election and our party has contributed to setting the agenda for this parliament. I said before and I say again, we are committed to making this parliament work.

We are not the government. We continue to function as an opposition party. That may be news to the members opposite. We are prepared to function in opposition. The Conservatives are going to have a hard time functioning in opposition. There is a whole new world of skills development opening up for them. Some of their members are going to have to learn how to speak. Some of them are going to have to learn how to talk. Some of them are going to have to learn how to speak without speechwriters. They are going to have to learn how to get to work without a limousine and a chauffeur.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On the other hand, we have not signed away our right to object.

Mr. McClellan: Neither have we. This parliament will function item by item with two opposition parties. We will be free of the Russian roulette that characterized the Tory routine.

Mr. Rae: The blackmail.

Mr. McClellan: The blackmail.

This is going to be hard for them to understand. Each and every piece of legislation is going to be dealt with on its merits. Each and every piece of legislation will have to win the support of a majority in the assembly to pass. I know that is very strange for them. Imagine voting for something on its merits instead of at the point of a gun. What an awful basis for decision-making; it certainly seems to be for the Conservative Party.

I have gone on too long.

Some hon. members: More, more.

Mr. McClellan: They have gone on too long. I have unburdened myself of some thoughts about the governing party. I want to offer some advice to my colleagues in the Liberal Party who may be flushed with victory. Again this may be strange, but my advice to them is to be generous with the opposition, including the Conservative opposition. We have had enough vindictive, punitive, mean-spirited arrogance and gloating from that side to last a lifetime.

My friends have a real chance to break that cycle of crime and punishment, or victory and gloating, and to establish a new spirit in this Legislature that treats back-benchers and opposition members with civility, respect and courtesy. That would be a real revolution in this place. I urge them to seize the opportunity and not to yield to the temptation to be as mean-spirited and vindictive in victory as they were on March 19.

Finally, on behalf of my own caucus colleagues I want to thank our leader, the member for York South (Mr. Rae), for the work he did during the election campaign and most especially for the work he has done since the election campaign. The New Democratic Party and the people who voted for the New Democratic Party on May 2 can take enormous pride in the kind of leadership the member for York South has given since the events of the election.

The 25 per cent of the people in this province who voted for the New Democratic Party understand they are not at the margin, the edge or the outside of politics. They are right at the centre writing the agenda. They are going to be making this parliament work and they are going to be winning gains for the people of this province for the next two years and beyond.

Mr. Nixon: I want to congratulate the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) on his election as Deputy Speaker of this House. He and I share the responsibility of representing that great county. In so doing, we have become very close friends. I used to presume to walk along the back row, which unfortunately made it quite handy for me to talk to him in that circumstance, and be able to talk to him over the back railing about some of the major decisions made in politics by him and his party. Because of that, I have established a firm friendship with him, and I am looking forward to the operation of this House under his direction as Deputy Speaker.

I also want to extend my congratulations to the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer), the Speaker, another long-time friend of mine. I believe I attended his first nomination in 1963 and have known him since that time. The member for Perth went from a rather shaky start electorally to the point where he commanded the largest majority of any member in the House at one stage. He slipped a little bit this time. He has a larger majority than most members of this House, but he was surpassed by the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Curling), who represents the constituency that was formerly represented by our present Agent General in London, Tom Wells. Members may remember that in the election of 1981, Tom Wells commanded the largest majority in Ontario, which is an indication of what happens in politics when the people decide there is going to be a change, as they did decide on May 2.

I have a bit of advice for Mr. Speaker. He has all the looks and brains to command the respect of this House for four years, perhaps eight years or perhaps even longer than that, but he has a problem he is going to face in the very next few days, and that is how to accommodate the Tories on the opposition side, a problem that has not been put to any Speaker in this House for many years. Not many members present, or even those in the galleries, will recall observing the Legislature when the seating plan was a bit different from what it is now. I doubt if one could jam all those well-fed Tories into these seats and leave the NDP where it is, without really causing a problem.

Interjections.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: Actually I was told that the Conservative Party was going to listen to this debate with dignity and care, but I notice that the present Minister of Education (Mr. Grossman) has left the chamber briefly, and I guess that accounts for their lack of discipline during these few moments. However, he is now entering these precincts, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will observe careful and quiet attention while their master is in his place.

I also want to suggest to you, sir, that if you look at the seating plans beginning in 1934, and unfortunately ending in 1943, the arrangement of these seats was in a semi-circle. It was convenient for all members to take their places without crowding. They had direct access to the Speaker and the acoustics were much better.

There were those parliamentary purists who were worried that because we were not conformed exactly like Westminster, somehow or other the attributes of parliamentary practice might be lost. But it seems to me a practical solution to the problems of accommodating the 124 members of this House in the present division among parties, and I seriously suggest it to you and your colleagues in the group that administers the actual day-to-day operation of the House.

I have been quite caught by the phrase that has been used by a number of members, "the realities of May 2." The present leader of the government has been slow to understand these realities. We have seen his statements during these six weeks in what was almost an embarrassing series of changing positions, attempting day by day to find a formula to remove the risk of the final defeat of conservatism in this House after 42 years. He began with great confidence, although it was obvious to any observer of politics in this province that the results on May 2 would spell the defeat of the present administration.

One of the things that has maintained the Conservatives during many years, even though more people voted against their party than voted for it election after election, was the distribution of the opposition vote. But because of the outstanding campaign waged by my colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), soon to be Premier, this historic distribution was changed dramatically. He now comes into this House with 48 members, and it was obvious to the New Democratic Party that if a change was to be accomplished, it would necessitate some sort of arrangement with the present official opposition so that in combination, with 72 votes, we could command the confidence of this chamber.

I felt the decisions taken by the NDP were admirable. They discussed the matter with both parties, the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals, and as a member of the negotiating team on behalf of the Liberals I found the negotiations important, effective and, to some degree, a historic landmark in democratic and parliamentary procedures. We spent 15 hours in these negotiations. They were productive and, I am glad to say, amicable. This is an attribute that I hope is going to be the earmark of the 33rd Legislature, not only among the two present opposition parties but among all parties, as we see the responsibilities we face, discuss these responsibilities as they are put before us in legislation and enact and administer our solutions to these problems in a way that we believe will be for the benefit of this whole province.

The present Premier (Mr. F. S. Miller), who will be speaking to the House in a few moments, has had difficulty adapting to the realities of May 2. When confronted by the possibility of an agreement between the two opposition parties, he said it would have to go to the courts because it was obviously illegal; that there is a law somewhere that says the Tories cannot lose votes in this chamber. After he consulted some of the Tory lawyers, he found there was no such law and that he would have to look elsewhere.

He made a number of statements. He referred to the New Democratic Party as the party of misery and hate. He referred to the prospect of a Liberal government as being loathsome. Just yesterday, he indicated that if a Liberal government came into office in this province, business would flee. He may have been talking about Santa's Village Inc. However, I can assure the House the agreement entered into between the two current opposition parties is based on a commitment to fiscal responsibility that is of as much concern to the two parties entering into that agreement as anything else. I can assure the House that whatever my responsibilities may be in the future I consider myself to be one of the principal watchdogs in that regard.

In the attitudes taken by the Premier and his principal advisers -- each of them just barely below the surface vying for a principal position in leadership -- on a day-to-day basis, in bringing forward not only a speech from the throne that really cribbed all of the outstanding election platforms put forward by the Liberal Party and the NDP during the election, but also in these statements as the ministers rose in their places day by day as the Tory political corpse twisted in the wind, there was something unnatural, something shocking. It was like looking at a corpse that winks.

There did not seem to be any sense to the fact that the present Premier, who is a good politician -- he has seen what happens in this Legislature; he has had to face certain realities in the past and will again later today and probably in the next two or three months -- did not in any way even seem to see when the agreement was made public, with the signatures of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the NDP, that the jig was up.

If he had any sort of grace-and-favour approach to the particular circumstances, he might very well have called in the two leaders and said: "Is this right? Is this what you are going to do?" He would have had the assurances from them in person and would have done the honourable thing -- walked down the hall to the Lieutenant Governor and proffered his resignation.

We have not had any business in this chamber since December 1984. We are currently spending the last few dollars of an $8-billion appropriation, not from this Legislature, but approved by the Lieutenant Governor and the Management Board of Cabinet. What sort of democracy is that?

The Minister of Education has not seen fit to introduce the long-heralded bill dealing with separate schools. There has been no business conducted by the Legislature for six weeks. The Premier has looked over these numbers, frontwards, backwards and sideways. Finally, he was forced to the reality that the Progressive Conservative Party will be out of power as of about an hour and 10 minutes from now. I personally resent the fact that the leader of the government has taken this stand. He is even now waiting for what he calls a miracle.

A miracle will not happen. The miracle, perhaps, is that democracy is going to operate and the government is going to be brought to an end with an assumption to office of the Leader of the Opposition as the new Liberal Premier.

I want to say something that is nostalgic for me. One of the things that I found somewhat amusing in the statements made by the Premier was his glee, expressed at his regular morning press conference, at finding that he was not going to be the shortest-serving Premier in the history of the province. It is great that he feels that way.

4:50 p.m.

I want to say something about the shortest-serving Premier. He was my father, my predecessor as the member for Brant, Harry Nixon. As a matter of fact, his career in one small particular parallels that of the present Premier. He was successful in winning the leadership at a contested convention, on the basis that an election would be held without delay in 1943. This legislative chamber in those days had extended its life twice beyond its constitutional limit. It is an interesting prospect when we think that can actually happen without the Ontario Provincial Police or somebody coming in and saying, "You cannot do that." He felt democracy had to be served by an election, went immediately to the people, and I suppose the rest is history. The Liberals ended up as a small group at the end of this chamber and so began 42 years of Tory rule.

However, I just want to say a word about it. He was elected in 1919. He and I have had the honour of serving Brant without a break and that is why I hesitate to talk about it being time for a change. He came into this House as a part of a government which was a co-operation between two parties, the United Farmers of Ontario and the Labour Party. Further in his career he was leader of a party called the Progressives and as the Progressive leader he entered into an arrangement with the leader of the Liberal Party, Mitchell F. Hepburn, which saw the defeat of the Conservatives in 1934.

The sorts of things that are happening in this House now are democratic. They are a part of the traditions of this House and they serve to give us stability and effectiveness in government. It is too bad the Tories do not understand that simple lesson in constitutional history.

I wanted to speak about another lesson of history which I think is important for all of us. When the former member for Brant, the shortest-serving Premier in the history of the province, came into another new government in 1934 he was faced with three terribly difficult issues. Ontario Hydro had contracts that were unconscionably expensive for the purchase of power from private sources in Quebec. Right now we, as a possible new government, are looking at contracts that were imposed on Ontario Hydro by then premier Bill Davis, which are unconscionable as far as we can understand them, because the contracts are not public. They lead us to buy uranium from Canadian companies mining in northern Ontario at the cost of something around $90 a pound and going upwards almost in perpetuity when the spot world price is $20 a pound. We can see the comparison; it is very similar.

There was a liquor issue in 1934. The Liberal government came in as an iconoclastic group, proposing the sale of beer by the glass. Can we imagine the debate that brought forward. Think of the comparisons now, particularly when it may be that some time in the future all members of the House will have an opportunity to examine legislation of a similar nature, express their views and cast their votes.

The previous speaker in this debate, the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) -- and I congratulate him on his speech -- indicated that under the situation that is coming up with our agreement the members will be able to debate and vote as they see fit, not under some whip of an artificial election threat that was so much a part of the Conservative government back in the minority days. It is an extremely valuable thing.

The last issue in 1934 is one I want to speak about briefly, and that is there was a substantial controversy over the funding of separate schools. We have that same controversy even now, although every member of this Legislature, with the possible exception of the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock), was elected on the promise to extend aid to the Roman Catholic separate schools.

Mr. Breaugh: And the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling).

Mr. Nixon: No, the member for Carleton-Grenville did not oppose that before the election; he was all in favour. It is a little confusing because I understood it was the member for Hastings-Peterborough who had indicated he was not in favour and the member for Carleton-Grenville is another one of those road-to Damascus converts since he has come here.

I just want to make it clear to you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues in this House that whether you say so, or whether the public says so, or not, it was an issue in the election. Not one of us went to an all-candidates meeting but what it was put to us in very strong terms from those opposing and those supporting the concept and we answered and responded.

In my own case, the Progressive Conservative nominee had a change of mind, a change of heart five days before the end, and the net result of the election was that he was beaten even more soundly than when he ran in 1981. The only difference was that he was a Queen's Counsel this time; I am not sure whether that helped him or not.

Do not get the idea we have come here without accepting the promise of extending aid to the Roman Catholic separate school system. I want to say something about the background of this because no one knows it better than I do. We very definitely remember in 1969-70, and the years just around that time, the extension of support to grades 9 and 10 by the Progressive Conservative government of the day.

I remember John Robarts standing at his place in this House and announcing what he called the foundation tax plan that replaced the dollars the Roman Catholic schools might have had if they had access to commercial and industrial assessment with extra grants voted by this House. There was no reference to the courts. It was carried through the House after debate and was considered by all members to be a forward step.

In the late 1960s, the issue of Roman Catholic school financing became ever more pressing. The leader on behalf of the Roman Catholic community was Archbishop Pocock, an extremely capable and fine gentleman. He spoke to the politicians whenever he could, particularly the Education critics, and I was one, and the leaders of the parties. A bit later, I was the leader of our party. Bill Davis was the Minister of Education and later the Premier. The New Democratic Party representative, Donald MacDonald, is in the House at present enjoying this to the full, probably regretting that he cannot speak as soon as I sit down, and other New Democrats were involved.

I can assure the members that the arguments, constitutional and otherwise, were put in their strongest and most effective ways. Everyone agreed it was a divisive issue then as it could be now. We moved forward as three parties discussing this in the community at a time when our budget was balanced -- the last balanced budget we had was in 1971, as John Robarts left the scene -- at a time when the number of students was growing rapidly in both systems, and at a time when the reform of the secondary system would mean the abolition of grade 13, leaving only two grades for completion.

These were matters that led us and the NDP and thoughtful people in the PC party to move in as careful a way as possible towards the reality of accepting the policy on all sides, doing what we considered in our best judgement -- we might be wrong -- to be legal, constitutional and eminently fair for all concerned.

In the 1971 election, after Mr. Davis took over the leadership of the PC party, the issue was established. He had indicated to all interested that he would be making a statement in this regard. Everyone thought he would be moving either partially or all the way towards funding. The members can imagine my feeling as leader of the Liberal Party and Leader of the Opposition when he had a press conference and said there would not be another nickel for Catholic schools. He soon announced there would be an election and he certainly hoped this important issue would not surface during the campaign.

It was an extremely serious matter. Many of us here now lived through that campaign. As a Liberal Party, naturally this was an important issue we defended, and we will continue to defend it, and the election results were quite obvious. The Progressive Conservative Party won. It may have been because they stopped the Spadina expressway or it may have been because Bill Davis was a handsome leader -- who knows? -- but certainly an issue in that campaign was Roman Catholic school funding.

In the election of 1975, our position remained the same. We said that if elected we would establish a committee of the House representing all parties to go across the province and talk to people concerned with it so that it could be implemented in a way that would meet the needs of the community.

5 p.m.

The then Premier, Bill Davis, who felt slightly under the gun -- it turned out that he did not have to worry too much -- made a speech saying: "Remember Nixon's promise in 1971. We will never change. There will be no more money for Catholic schools. That is a fact."

Mr. Speaker, you can imagine how surprised I was that day in June, about a year ago, knowing the Progressive Conservative Party was having a special caucus in the hall right across from my office. The bells were ringing to call us to prayer. I came out of my office and Roy McMurtry, now His Excellency our High Commissioner in London, came up beside me. He took my arm and said, "You are going to be interested in the Premier's announcement today."

I had thought that in preparation for a fall election, he might announce full funding to the end of grade 10 rather than funding at the elementary school level. Instead, he rose in his place and said he had examined the constitutional requirements, and fairness in all proportions dictated the acceptance of full funding. There was a standing ovation all around. I was a little reluctant to get up but I got up. Indeed, every person over there got up and gave him full support for converting his policy 180 degrees.

This meant when the election campaign came, even though there was agreement among the three parties, that still would be an issue. The citizens would let us know their views, but all parties stood firm. We feel we can accomplish it in the deadline. We believe all the difficulties can be put aside, particularly by debate of this House made up of new members, all elected in support of that position. It can go to a committee for the fullest discussion and we can move on to the funding of grade 11, as has been promised by every member here.

I felt a cold hand on my heart as the present Minister of Education got up today and indicated he had examined nine drafts of the bill and none of them was satisfactory. I am not sure what he meant by that, but if there is any thought from the Minister of Education, the present leader or his successor of moving to make that a divisive issue as it has been in the past, then I ask them most solemnly to give it their careful reconsideration. There should be no thought that this matter is going to tear this province apart again.

I believe the results of the vote an hour from now are something we can predict with some surety. There was a moment at the Board of Internal Economy meeting yesterday afternoon when I thought I had blown it, but the flexibility, generosity and understanding of the New Democratic Party are sufficient even unto that situation. It appears the Tories are within an hour of the end of the road of 42 years. My colleague Harry Worton, who is sitting in the gallery, used to say to me, when there were moments of some despair, some lagging of confidence during the 1960s and 1970s, "Bob, it is a long road without a turning." The road is about to turn.

I say to my tense friends on the other side that it is not bad. Actually, the Deputy Premier (Miss Stephenson), who is already scowling at me and shaking her head, cannot wait to sit over here. She cannot wait to take on the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway). Is that not going to be something? That is going to be something.

The Deputy Premier had it right in her quotes yesterday, in trying to balance the comments made by the Premier. I cannot quote her, but she said: "We are not bloodied. We are not bowed. I do not hurt." That is right. Anybody who thinks there is any dishonour in a political defeat certainly does not know much about this system.

The government is going to be beaten. It is going to happen. The ministers are going to have all this extra money to hire these poor sycophants they have had around them, clutching at the hem of their garments and holding the doors of their limousines. They are all great people. But they are going find in the next few days that the shredders are going to die down; they are not going to be run all over the weekend or anything like that. All the stuff is going to be shredded. It is my job to piece together most of that stuff.

They will find the phones will not ring quite as much. The stack of correspondence to sign will not be six inches thick; it will be three quarters of an inch thick, and probably all the same letter, thanking the people for their advice on the school question and that sort of stuff. They are going to find that the reporters are friendly, although they will not remember their wives' names quite as well as they had and that sort of thing. They will be very good. Their speaking engagements are going to thin out a bit, but I will help them get an invitation from the United Church women of Glen Morris if they really have a lot of time left over.

I do not think they should really feel apprehensive. A week from now they are going to think, "This is great." They can read the paper all the way through. They can talk to their friends. They can go down to lunch when they want to without people calling them to the phone. They will be able to look out the window and contemplate both the past and the future. Some of them, of course, will be phoning up their campaign managers, but that is their responsibility.

We in the Liberal Party are on the verge of new and important responsibilities. If offered, we intend to accept the responsibility of government. We have a clear public agreement with the New Democratic Party members of this assembly to maintain electoral stability for two years while a clearly understood program is implemented.

This does not mean that the Tories cannot bring their no-confidence motions in as prescribed by the rules. We can debate them for an afternoon on certain occasions. I can predict now that the votes on those no-confidence motions will be 72 for confidence and 52 against, as long as we do our job properly.

To tell the truth, I am hoping the Conservatives over there, not being implacable, mindless politicians, will see that our reform program -- entered into with co-operation and to some large and important degree independently our own, but all of it a program upon which we stood in the last election, all of which we campaigned for -- is going to be worthy of their support. It has already been put in their own speech from the throne; so we can count on 100 per cent support.

This is an historic day, but we should not allow it to be blown out of proportion. One of the ministers, in eight or 10 statements made earlier, referred to the Barrie situation. It was the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. Leluk), because we are going to have a Frank Miller memorial library in Grand Valley, if that is it. It is our unbelievably good fortune to be in a part of the world where this assembly concerns itself with a triple-A credit rating rather than with 1,000 per cent inflation; that we concern ourselves with extra billing by doctors rather than with a mortality rate, as in some countries, of positively medieval proportions; that we are concerned with the overproduction of food rather than with starvation camps full of children; that we are concerned with the pollution of our bathing beaches, not with how the government is going to bury the bodies left by a tidal wave; that we are concerned with policing speed limits, not with daily terrorism and mayhem.

5:10 p.m.

I thought about those things and I could list them further. The point is that we are engrossed in the politics of what we are doing. A government is going to change. Forty-two years of tradition, not all of it bad, is going to be replaced with a new government. But when we look at the problems of the world, ours pale into insignificance.

Every one of us shares in this good fortune: residents of Ontario, citizens of Canada and members of this assembly. We also share in a responsibility to be generous -- my very word -- and broadminded because of it, to look beyond our differences and to realize that all of us are committed to honest, open government with fairness and equity for all.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It certainly is a historic day today in our province, one that will be remembered for a long time by those of us who have followed the events and by the thousands of people watching us via the media. I wish we could have this kind of attention every day. It is the kind of attention we deserve in this House, but so seldom get. We would all benefit by the scrutiny of and participation in the political process.

I listened to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) talking today as he went through the traditional congratulations to the Speaker, and it took my mind back. I too want to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker. By coincidence, the first time I spoke in a debate on the speech from the throne, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk was the leader of the Liberal Party and Stephen Lewis was the leader of the New Democratic Party, and I was chosen to follow those two. I have told the story often.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk stood up and referred to his father, as he did today, and he told with pride how he had learned his politics at his father's knee and how he was even more proud to follow his father into this House and become the leader of the Liberal Party. As is usual -- well, almost always -- he gave a good speech. Then Stephen Lewis stood up and said he would not be outdone by the Liberal leader: "I am even more proud because my father currently is the leader of the NDP in Ottawa. I am the leader of the NDP in Ontario, and I learned my politics at my father's knee." Again, he gave a great speech. Stephen Lewis could soar to heights with his rhetoric.

Like all engineers, I had a seven-minute, condensed, concise, thoughtful speech, but I had nothing in it of this kind of thing, nothing about my political background because I had none. I said I had a problem. I had listened to the other two leaders speak, and I thought back to my political background and to my father. He died when I was 13. I did not recall his telling me which party he supported. So, unlike the other two, I was able to choose the right one.

I have told that often. It is in Hansard, and it happens to be true. It probably caused the three of us to have the kind of close friendships that often exist in this House.

I came in today and looked at the white carnations worn by the members of the NDP. That is not their normal colour, although they should certainly pale today. I wondered, why white, why a sign of purity. It is, as my colleague the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) said, a sign of surrender. They are losing their pristine purity of principle and prostituting themselves for power. That is what they are doing. It is the last day they will be able to wear white and be credible.

I listened to my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. I have always respected him as one who knows more about the rules of the House than does almost anybody else, but I have to correct him on one point. Really, he knows a government must be defeated before it goes to the Lieutenant Governor. Yes, he does.

That is why we are here today and that is why we have followed the time-honoured tradition of the House, entering the speech from the throne, going through the required eight days, facing our peers in this House and honouring the result as we must in a parliamentary system under the rules as we understand them.

I think there are few greater honours than being an elected member of a parliament. It is a humbling experience. Believe me, I know. It reminds us that for all its drawbacks, for all its frustrations, there is no greater calling than public life. I for one will always be thankful for the privilege of having had a chance to serve my community and my province in whatever way I could.

As a new Premier heading a new government, I am especially pleased today to speak in support of the speech from the throne, because this is the first chance I have had to do so since I became the party leader, and I am the leader of a great party. It is an innovative, a comprehensive, a balanced, a responsive program for the upcoming session of this House, and I bet members opposite will adopt it. It is a credit to all of us on the government side of this House that criticism of the proposals has been really quite muted during this throne debate.

As someone whose background is in small business, who knows how important it is to have a job and to be able to create jobs, I am particularly happy and proud of the measures in our throne speech, which the opposition parties would not have had, designed to encourage job creation and economic growth.

Those of us in the Progressive Conservative Party have a great respect for economic growth because we know that is the answer, the only answer to providing for the social services of our fellow citizens, the ones they have every right to expect. I learned before that it takes a good, solid, dependable government to attract the investments which create jobs. Indeed, we know that economic growth means jobs, jobs mean security and security means self-respect and the ability to provide for ourselves and assist others.

We are going to create 200,000 jobs in Ontario this year. Our legislative program also provides for more affordable housing, a better health care system, upgrading of our excellent colleges and universities. It contains tough, new measures to deal with pollution and polluters, new employment and training opportunities for women and for young people and measures to help make our government more responsive to every group in society, especially minority groups.

Members ask, as the member for Bellwoods did, why we did not do it before. We have done a great deal before. One can be very proud of this province and the record of this province. We have an outstanding system. We simply are doing more to make it better, and this is my first chance to show members where I would go.

Our legislative program reviews and strengthens our commitment to our senior citizens. We have proposed changes that would bring more equality and more justice to the work place. In fact, as the opposition said, we have proposed more than 90 ambitious projects that would have wide-scale benefits for the nine million residents of Ontario.

In the short period of time this House has been in session since the election, we already have a lot of accomplishments to our credit. They like to make fun about it, but let us look at what we have already done since the House opened on June 4.

5:20 p.m.

We have had new initiatives to combat acid rain, revised control orders for Inco and Hydro, liming and restocking of our lakes, the introduction of family law to bring about a more equitable sharing of assets on marriage breakdown, highway initiatives and transit initiatives to save both time and money in providing services under the GO advanced light rail transit program.

We introduced the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act, the omnibus bill that was designed to bring a number of our laws into conformity with the charter and our own Human Rights Code.

A new Ministry of Skills Development was established, evidence of this government's recognition that our education system must respond to changes in this important area of skills and training development. In addition to the $600-million, three-year program already under way, we announced another $100 million for youth employment and training initiatives this year.

We had initiatives to expand tourism -- one of our most important businesses -- in New York, New England and Quebec; measures that would help to create jobs in this province.

We introduced bills related to the charter that recognize our changing society: the Change of Name Act, the Vital Statistics Amendment Act, the Children's Law Reform Amendment Act and bills designed to fulfil our pledge to better enforce custody and support orders. These bills are companions to the Family Law Act and show my government's commitment in this vital area of need as it affects children and women in particular.

As my colleagues in this House recognize, one of the bills was the Support and Custody Orders Enforcement Act, which would create a new office to enforce the orders in question. The second bill was the Creditors' Relief Amendment Act, to give a creditor under a support order priority over all other judgement debts.

We had housing initiatives, including $12.5 million under the convert-to-rent program, which has been so successful. That would have created 1,800 more moderate-cost rental units. Also, we had a draft version of the proposed Ontario Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

We had an impressive list of initiatives in the area of occupational health and safety, including a designated substance enforcement unit, an update on our work in drafting regulations with the right to know in cases of hazardous substances in the work place.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is too late for you.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is never too late.

We proposed regulations adopting exposure values for 600 toxic substances and publication on June 22 in the Ontario Gazette of a draft regulation that will set mandated exposure limits for a number of solvents. In the area of mine safety is a $4.2-million research program regarding rock mechanics and ground control.

We announced the implementation of an integrated homemaker program for our frail elderly and disabled adults.

We have approved the Niagara Escarpment plan, which is the result of many years of planning by the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development. This is a very important plan and we worked hard to complete it. We are proud of it and so are the people who have been concerned with it.

We had additional funding for labour-sponsored help centres to help unemployed older workers. We had agricultural initiatives, including the new crop development program and others.

We also introduced in this House a bill to provide more effective access to the courts in a situation where pollution from one jurisdiction causes harm in another.

We announced increased funding for hospitals and our hope to build a correctional facility near the Bruce Energy Centre industrial park in Bruce county.

On June 12, Ontario signed the Great Lakes Charter, which is designed to protect the Great Lakes from large-scale diversion and overuse.

That is not a bad record for a government the opposition is not prepared even to listen to or to consider supporting, I would say.

I also remind honourable members that the comprehensive financial statement to this Legislature by our Treasurer (Miss Stephenson) on June 10 included the fact that our deficit has again been reduced. The deficit is down not only from its 1983-84 level but also from the projected 1984-85 level.

The reason we could dedicate our attention to the list of issues the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk ended up with -- and I am proud those are the kinds of issues we do deal with, as he is -- is that we have had good government in this province and we have solved so many of the basic problems human beings face in the rest of the world. That is why members can put their attention on them.

Unemployment in Ontario has dropped from 9.3 per cent a year ago to 7.7 per cent. This is the lowest rate in Canada. Since the end of the recession in November 1982, we have seen 455,000 net new jobs created in Ontario; that is 54 per cent of all the jobs created in Canada. I would say our recent economic performance has been, in the words of our Treasurer, nothing short of remarkable. We are in the midst of a sound, substantial recovery and we are poised for a third year of continuous growth.

On n'avait aucun doute que les politiques des gouvernements conservateurs successifs sont à l'origine de la force de l'Ontario, puisqu'elles ont assuré et maintenu la stabilité économique de notre province. Nous avons créé un climat de confiance et un environnement propice au développement et à la croissance des entreprises, ce qui nous a permis de consolider notre économie et de relever de nouveaux défis. Nous avons également réussi à limiter la croissance de l'appareil gouvernemental et à réduire la taille de notre fonction publique, tout en préservant la qualité des services à la population.

We on this side of the House are proud that despite our enviable record of social services and other priorities, our deficit on a per capita basis is the lowest of all the provinces in Canada. We have maintained our coveted triple-A rating, which enables us to save millions of dollars a year in borrowing costs, money that can be channelled into programs instead of servicing the cost of foreign debt.

I already see the handwriting on the wall. The leader of the Liberal Party is setting up the paper tigers, setting up the excuses, because he knows his programs will lose that triple-A rating. Even with the new programs we have already announced and those the Treasurer would have had in her budget of June 25, the credit rating would not have been placed in jeopardy. I believe the public recognizes the bold new initiatives committed by my government while practising fiscal management and responsibility.

I also believe the public has confidence that our Treasurer's scheduled budget of June 25 would have been both responsive and responsible. It would have won her a place in history for being not only the first woman Treasurer of Ontario but also the best Treasurer of Ontario. With three of us in a row, that is some comment.

It will be on the heads of the opposition parties that she was denied the right to bring in that budget and that this government was denied its responsibility in following through its sound legislative programs. I believe it is the kind of legislative program that our people demanded with their votes on May 2. I also believe that as legislators we have a responsibility to listen to them and to react accordingly.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the compromises I have been willing to make in the throne speech in an effort to make this minority parliament work. I make no apologies for being willing to compromise. I believe that by returning a minority government, the people of Ontario expect us to do everything we can by way of co-operation and compromise to govern on their behalf. I have never denied the realities of May 2.

5:30 p.m.

Perhaps one example is the way our speech commits us to legislating equal pay for work of equal value in the public sector, along with an equity commissioner to help us implement the same concept in the private sector. Indeed, I would say the legislation is an indication of my willingness, even eagerness, to be pragmatic. Like a lot of other people, I still have major concerns about how we can carry out equal pay in an equitable and just manner and make sure it is truly effective in bridging the gender gap in salaries.

However, I have a positive attitude and I want to make it work. That is why we have taken the position we have. I believe it is responsible. It does not go nearly as far as the opposition would go, but I suggest that to commit this House to legislation for the business community before we have put our own House in order, before we have determined how it can be worked and enforced and what the costs and effects are, breeds hypocrisy for our laws and brings us no closer to solving the problem for which the law was intended.

Make no mistake; we are as committed to pay equity as they are, but we have to take a responsible approach in finding the real answers as opposed to those that could be easy or popular at any time.

Under Progressive Conservative governments, we in this province have brought about steady, constructive reform by building consensus carefully and effectively, while other jurisdictions have attempted different methods, often with poor results.

For example, I am reminded how members on the other side of the House have demanded for years that our government adopt official bilingualism in this province. I wish I had a dollar for every time I have heard in this House that we should follow New Brunswick's example in bilingualism. I want to say that New Brunswick right now would gladly trade with us the relative co-operation and acceptance we have been able to attain and the significant progress we have been able to make by following our own instincts, not the demands of those who believe passing laws and hiring bureaucrats to enforce them are the answer to everything.

The people of Ontario are basically fair-minded and decent, and they want injustices and inequities removed from society, but they know as we do that it is often a painfully slow process because it requires consultation and co-operation. I believe that is the lesson to be learned from the impact of the separate school funding issue in the recent election campaign. All three parties have supported the extension because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do both in historic terms and because commitments have been made.

Where we went wrong, in my view, was in our failure to assure the public that we would not proceed before consultation and public debate had taken place. I found that many times during the election campaign. Some people disagreed with the principle, but most wanted to be sure this House would debate it and they would have the chance to speak. That is why my government has insisted that the legislation will not go forward until public discussion has concluded. That is why we will oppose attempts by the parties opposite to railroad the bill through this House this summer. Such tactics are not what the public wants. Ontarians are used to consultation, not confrontation.

The tragedy of this minority parliament, which history will record, is that we alone were willing --

Mr. McClellan: You are going to be sorry for this. If you play this game, you are going to be sorry.

Mr. Rae: If you play this game, you are in trouble. You won't know what hit you, fellow.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Does the honourable member mean that listening to the public is bad? Is that what he is telling me? He wants to pass it through without discussion. Not us; we want discussion. Now that they have auctioned themselves off to the highest bidder, they do not want the parliamentary process anymore, do they? A party that has to put "democratic" in its name probably is not. That is all I can say.

The tragedy of this minority parliament, which history will record, is that this party alone was willing to take the honourable course and seek the kind of responsible compromises expected by those who elected us. Let us remember that in 1975 the Conservative Party had only 35 per cent of the popular vote and 51 seats. In 1985 it had 37 per cent and 52 seats.

The system that worked so well between 1975 and 1981 depended upon a daily consultation on the business of the parliament. It required each party to assess the risks in not finding a solution. It allowed them, every day, to examine each issue in the light of that day's facts, figures and feelings. It made government responsive and responsible without precommitting any one party to slavish support of another. It maintains the essential discipline of a minority parliament, the essential discipline being the vote of no confidence, and the threat of an election if one were called. It made each party careful and co-operative.

It always amazes me that today the vote of confidence is good enough to get rid of us, but tomorrow it is not good enough to get rid of the opposition.

Mr. Nixon: To stay, you have to win them.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We won the election, my friend. Let us have some votes of confidence. Let us call them all votes of confidence from now on.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: If the members opposite will quit on the first vote of confidence, we will see what happens.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They will not risk that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, the members opposite will not risk it. That could cause an election. That could be democratic. That would let the people have their say. Oh, my goodness.

Mr. Nixon: They have had their say.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You intend to have an election. We know that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The opposition party intends to have an election on September 15. We know that. That will be a day to remember.

However, after the election of May 2, the goal on that side of the House was never to try to get on with providing the services and reforms our people want. The only resolve from the opposition parties was to connive and concoct in a frenzied bid for power. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the leaders of the two opposition parties, who find themselves in this compromising position in their lust for power, will rue this day.

The two opposition leaders will not respect each other in the morning. Neither will the voters of Ontario, because they are on to them. Otherwise, why would the leader of the NDP take so much time on the weekend to talk about jots and tittles? They will not forget and they will not forgive the rather hokey deal that both parties got, with the NDP sitting there with 20 per cent of the seats, 25 per cent of the votes and 100 per cent of the power in this House.

I say to the member for London Centre and his party that he should be ashamed of what he is doing. I suggest to him that he proposes to betray not only those people who voted Liberal but also the more than 75 per cent of the voters in Ontario who voted against the NDP and who on May 2 said they wanted another form of government.

We bargained with the NDP; of course we did. It would have been irresponsible for us not to do so. We tried to reach some kind of compromise in the one meeting they gave us, but where we differed from the Liberal Party was in how far we would go to get the support of the NDP.

Mr. Rae: All the way.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

5:40 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We were willing to discuss particulars, but we were not willing to give up principles. That is the bottom line of all this. That is why we are here today facing this vote with the results already dictated by the NDP members even before they heard the proposals of a new government and a new leader. The two opposition parties -- I should say one opposition party because there really is only one -- have done in the back rooms of Queen's Park what they could not do in an election, namely, moved our party into second place.

On this historic day, I will remind those in the New Democratic Party that when they signed this historic accord, this enténte, this jot and tittle, this no-election pact of theirs with the Liberals, they signed their own death warrant. I hope it is etched in black because Ontarians who want -- and I think a lot do -- to vote for socialist principles and socialist programs no longer have to vote for the NDP, whose members have become the pied pipers of the Liberal Party. They are leading all those on the political left directly into the Liberal den, and the New Democratic Party will cease to count, mark my words.

I am a practical person. I know I had no mandate to come into this House and attempt to govern as if I had a Progressive Conservative majority. But, unlike the Liberals, I also know that I had no right to govern on behalf of the NDP platform either.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Back in the ridings they are hearing that on Saturdays and Sundays. They come back nervous on Monday morning because they are hearing it all over Ontario.

I would like the Bobbsey Twins in Queen's Park to come clean. If they are determined to govern as a coalition, which does have lots of historic precedent, they should have the intestinal fortitude and fess up. If they are really as united as they pretend to be, they should legitimize their relationship and face us in the Legislature as the coalition party they really are. This province and its people deserve better than a puppet Liberal Premier with the NDP pulling the strings.

Some of the members opposite have suggested I am angry over the turn of events. I am. Not with the electorate -- I have the greatest respect for the electorate -- but with the opposition parties and their leaders. To them I say it is a hollow victory they intend to celebrate today. As a citizen and as a taxpayer, I worry about their alliance and what they will do. It was because of the kind of politics they intend to practise that I sought election 14 years ago. It is because of the kind of politics they intend to practise that I will remain here and oppose them and what their agreement represents.

[Applause]

Hon. F. S. Miller: That should put everybody's mind to rest. I am unanimously accepted.

Unlike some in this House, I did not set out at an early age to be a politician, let alone Premier. In my youth, I was too busy working my way through university and supporting a young family as a rather inexperienced engineer. Then I became a schoolteacher and turned to the family business. With each and every job I had, I grew increasingly concerned about the growth of government and its influence on our lives. I wanted to do something about that, to stand up and to defend the private sector, to bring in measures that would create and maintain jobs, and to help build a better society.

I entered politics for many reasons, all of which had to do with my love for this province and this country, and my desire and that of my family to be of service. I wanted to repay some of the benefits I had received from society. I wanted to preserve what is good in our way of life and to bring about improvements we still need to make.

A lot of people have worked long and hard to build this province and to create its standard of living. Right now I think some of that is at stake because of what my colleagues across the House may have in mind.

It is not the socialist policies of the New Democratic Party that have been responsible for our economy in Ontario growing at a record rate of job creation, outstripping all other provinces; it is not the socialist policies of the NDP that allowed us to restrain government spending and growth in the public service, all the time maintaining the high level of social services, and it certainly is not the socialist NDP policy that has allowed us to maintain our credit rating, bringing about needed reform through consensus-building and reducing our deficit.

The leader of the Liberal Party is willing to hand the NDP a blank cheque and hijack our parliamentary process. That is why the members of my caucus and I are angry. If it is the will of the House today, we will go into opposition and we will go with our principles intact. We will return to this side of the House in very short order because the people of Ontario will not put up with the kind of opportunism the Liberals intend to practise.

What happens in Ontario does have consequences for the rest of Canada because, of course, we are the industrial heartland. We on this side of the House join with thoughtful Canadians far beyond our borders who view with concern what may happen. Our country cannot afford to see Ontario's economic leadership imperilled. Our country cannot view without concern the historic linchpin of Confederation being held hostage by a Liberal and NDP lynch mob. Our party will earn its way back to government. We will repair the damage that will have been perpetrated. We will indeed make sure that particular marriage is not made in heaven.

We have already begun preparing for an election because we see the Liberals as the opportunists they really are. We know that at the first opportunity -- I want the members to remember this -- they will engineer an excuse to run to the polls so they can get that socialist monkey off their back.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Look who is saying that. I would remind the leader of the NDP that it was not long ago he was worrying a little himself. To quote him, "I cannot believe the people of Ontario really want David Peterson to do for us what Pierre Trudeau has done for Canada."

An hon. member: Those are grounds for divorce.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The marriage is tomorrow.

Hon. F. S. Miller: They are grounds for divorce before the marriage. The marriage is tomorrow. Those are our sentiments exactly, multiplied tenfold at the prospect of seeing the NDP leader move into the Deputy Premier's office so that he will be closer when it is time to co-sign the cheques.

We do not fear an election. We will be ready. We have already begun our comeback. We will return. We will repair the damage. We will pick up where our predecessors in our party left off, building, not destroying what has been created by the men and women who went before us. They built well and we will rebuild well.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I hope all members will pay attention to the motion and the amendments. On Thursday, June 6, Mr. O'Connor moved, seconded by Mrs. Marland, that an humble address be presented to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

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

On Friday, June 7, Mr. Peterson moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon, that the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session be amended by the addition of the following words:

"but it is our duty to respectfully submit to Your Honour that Your Honour's present government does not have the confidence of this House."

On Friday, June 7, Mr. Rae moved, seconded by Mr. McClellan, that 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 be further amended by inserting between "but" and "it" the following words:

"since the Miller Conservative government, even while borrowing frantically from the policies of other parties, has failed to provide progressive leadership for Ontario, and failed to deal with the major challenges facing the province; and since it is the responsibility of this Legislature to reflect the democratic will of the people as expressed in the election of May 2, 1985."

6 p.m.

The House divided on Mr. Rae's amendment to the amendment to the motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Bossy, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Callahan, Caplan, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cordiano, Curling, Eakins, Elston, Epp, Ferraro, Fontaine, Foulds, Fulton, Gigantes, Grande, Grandmaître, Grier, Haggerty, Hayes, Henderson, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Keyes, Knight, Kwinter;

Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Morin, Morin-Strom, Munro, Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Offer, Peterson, Philip, Poirier, Polsinelli, Pouliot, Rae, Ramsay, Reville, Reycraft, Riddell, Ruprecht, Sargent, Scott, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sorbara, South, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Ward, Warner, Wildman, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Guindon, Harris, Hennessy, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Lane, Leluk, Marland, McCaffrey, McCague, McFadden, McLean, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, O'Connor, Partington, Pierce, Pollock, Pope, Rowe, Runciman, Sheppard, Shymko, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, Timbrell, Treleaven, Turner, Villeneuve, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Ayes 72; nays 52.

The House divided on Mr. Peterson's amendment to the motion as amended, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Ayes 72; nays 52.

6:10 p.m.

The House divided on Mr. O'Connor's motion, as amended, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Ayes 72; nays 52.

Resolved: That an humble address be presented to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

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

"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us, but since the Miller Conservative government, even while borrowing frantically from the policies of other parties, has failed to provide progressive leadership for Ontario and failed to deal with the major challenges facing the province; and since it is the responsibility of this Legislature to reflect the democratic will of the people as expressed in the election of May 2, 1985, it is our duty to respectfully submit to Your Honour that Your Honour's present government does not have the confidence of this House."

Hon. Mr. Grossman: After certain consultations and discussions, I believe it is appropriate that the House do now adjourn until two o'clock in the afternoon of Tuesday, July 2, 1985.

The House adjourned at 6:20 p.m.

18 juin 1985