Legislative Assembly of Ontario

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to participate in the throne speech debate, although I may say, looking around the House, that there may be some merit in the American practice of having one's speech typed and filed with the clerk rather than delivering it. Perhaps as the evening goes on one or two honourable members will wander into their seats. I would have thought there would be a full phalanx of the newly elected Tory back bench for the throne debate, and they are now trickling in.

I offer my congratulations to each and every one of the phalanx sitting there, all 22 of them. There is an immense field of opportunities waiting for them, as they look at the Tory cabinet on the front benches. There are ample opportunities for advancement, and there are some particular and special opportunities waiting for them.

We have a Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) who has the singular distinction of being invited by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to step down. The member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) has first buy on that job. He has been eyeing it lasciviously for the last three years, but he has been passed over. So those from rural Ontario should be of good cheer, their day will come and probably very soon.

We have a distinguished Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) who has recently enunciated the unusual doctrine that housing in the city of Toronto is only for the rich. I would guess that his days are numbered too, and those members opposite from urban areas could look forward, not to the usual sojourn in the back benches of 10 years or so, but to rapid advancement, and that is one portfolio that obviously awaits a talented back-bencher.

Those members are coming into a House which has changed dramatically, but those of us on this side of the House have been looking for the last six years at a sadly depleted Tory party and a collection of cabinet ministers who really should have been where they are sitting now and they can hope to be rapidly promoted.

We have a minister of corporate protection, the honourable Tanglefoot, the greatest name in legal flypaper. What is he trying to do to the poor souls who made the mistake of investing in Re-Mor? He's trying to tie them up in as much legal red tape as it is possible for his twisty legal mind to devise. I wouldn't bet too much on that one opening up. I have a horrible suspicion that the honourable Tanglefoot is exactly what the government has in mind, and his position may be secure, but we do have a new Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea).

How long will it be before the new Minister of Community and Social Services has exhausted his reservoir of hot air and empty rhetorical promises? I don't think it will be very long before he is forced to show his true colours and to begin rednecking it in his ministry. The easiest way for a Minister of Community and Social Services to get the kind of attention that honourable minister likes to get is by welfare bashing.

I will make a modest prophecy. I don't like to prophesy, but I will venture to suggest a scenario which is that the Minister of Community and Social Services will make a number of promises which he will be completely unable to keep, and at that point he will turn on his clientele with a vengeance.

We have one honourable minister in the front row, the Honourable the Attorney General- Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry), occupying both portfolios with equal incompetence, characterized only by his own capacity to outdo himself as the bully boy of the province. Members opposite may look forward to one of those positions opening up, those of them with a legal background.

Mr. Laughren: Hopefully both of them.

Mr. McClellan: Hopefully both of them but I suppose that is too much to hope for.

We have a Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie). What can I say about the Minister of Labour?

Mr. R.F. Johnston: That's more than enough.

Mr. McClellan: He is too red in his rhetoric for his own good, and given the tenor of appointments in the recent cabinet shuffle, I would say that Bobby the Red's days are numbered. He has an unfortunate tendency to make rash, progressive promises which he finds he is completely unable to deliver.

An example is job security. Whatever happened to job security? The Premier (Mr. Davis) told us what is going to happen to job security.

Whatever happened to the implementation of the occupational health and safety bill? Whatever happened to the designation of hazardous substances under that bill? Not one single hazardous substance has been designated since the bill was proclaimed into law, despite all of the promises and all of the rhetoric about protecting workers in the work places of this province against hazardous chemicals. My goodness, not even lead. They can't even designate a threshold limit value for lead.

8:10 p.m.

Mr. Haggerty: The heavyweights are over there though.

Mr. McClellan: Those of more Neanderthal persuasion can look forward, I suspect in a reasonably short period of time, to elevation to the Ministry of Labour.

Finally, the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) -- I refer to this entire group, if I may, as the Margaret Birch society. Of all the ministers, that minister has displayed not an iota of interest in co-ordinating the various ministries in the social development policy field. In fact, the last thing she tried to do seriously was in 1974, when she tried very hard and very capably to destroy the day care program in the province, but since she failed in that enterprise, she has retreated into her tea service never to be seen again.

The illustrious members of the cabinet who have obviously demonstrated their incapacity or their excessive rhetorical zeal will soon be replaced, I hope in the fall, and I say again to this incredibly awesome phalanx of 22 new members, your day will come and it will come probably pretty soon, so be of good cheer and continue to stick the knife into your colleague's back. It is a tradition in your caucus that needs to be upheld and is well honoured in the observance.

In my contribution to the throne debate, I want to talk about what I would hope would be a priority of this government -- a rather morose hope -- that during a period of economic squeeze, rampant inflation and high unemployment, the priority of the government must be with those at the lowest end of the social and economic ladder, those who are suffering most in our society.

I say it is a morose hope because, having read the throne speech, there is nothing but cruel lip service to those in our society who are disadvantaged, unfortunate or suffering, those who are unemployed, those who are sick, and the elderly. They receive cruel lip service in the throne speech. When they look at the promises that are made, that wonderful slogan, "Keep the promise" -- I almost want to sing it; I do not know why, it just has such a ring to it -- the promises in the throne speech are promises that have already been made in the past and already broken -- and broken repeatedly -- promising to keep promises that have already been broken.

On page 12 of the throne speech we read with amazement, "Continuing emphasis will be placed on community living for elderly and disabled persons." Is this a joke, Mr. Speaker? Are we looking at some demented refugee from Yuk Yuk's? Is this the throne speech or the promise of Ontario, "continued emphasis on community living for the disabled"?

Has this government forgotten the promises it made in 1974 to bring in legislation that would provide for attendant residential services, with attendant care services and support services built in. That promise was made to the disabled community in 1974 and it has not been kept.

Not only has it not been kept, but projects that have come forward for approval from various organizations have been turned down, denied, stalled, strangled in red tape. Last year we had the disgusting spectacle of the Three Trilliums Community Place facility that had been already built and the government refusing to allow handicapped people to occupy these apartments with attendant care services because it was insisting at the last moment, in the face of everything it had said over the last five years, that the municipality would have to make a contributory share to the operating costs of a residential facility with support services.

There is one promise that was broken twice, yet they have the gall in the throne speech to talk about continued emphasis on the disabled and about continued emphasis on the elderly.

This has to be read too, "A five-year provincial program will be started this spring to increase the capacity and improve the standards of homes for the aged throughout the province." A five-year program. That is marvellously symmetrical, because it coincides almost to the day with the preceding five years of an absolute freeze on construction of homes for the aged across the province.

The results are clearly documented. There is a crisis in residential facilities for elderly people in Ontario as a result of this government's cutback program. It has been documented in a number of studies. Most recently the long-term needs committee of the Hospital Council for Metro Toronto sited an immediate need in Metro Toronto alone for 2,070 extra long-term care beds, 2,070 in one municipality. In London, the Thames Valley District Health Council estimated an immediate need for 400 nursing home care beds. In Thunder Bay, a study in the summer of 1980 showed that 100 chronic care beds were urgently needed.

In its throne speech, the government is simply promising to try to undo some of its own damage, some of the thoroughly vicious work this government has done over the past five years by instituting a complete freeze on homes for the aged beds and on nursing home beds.

The throne speech talks about serving the elderly in their own homes. Again, is this some kind of bad joke? How many times has this government promised home support services legislation? Has it been 10 times, 15 times over the last five years?

Mr. Brandt: It is happening now.

Interjections.

Mr. McClellan: I have seen the draft policy statement from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. It was suppressed and has never been released. It was supposed to be released as a white paper as a prelude to legislation. It is being suppressed and not released. It arrived at the office of my colleague, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) via the brown paper bag courier service and I understand well why it was suppressed because it is a piece of trash.

It is clear from the document that the Ministry of Health, which runs half the home support services to the elderly in this province, is refusing to talk at all to the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which has the responsibility for drafting legislation. It is obvious that the Ministry of Health has told the Ministry of Community and Social Services to get stuffed and that there is no possibility of co-ordinated, comprehensive and adequate legislation coming before this Legislature in this session unless some miracle of head thumping takes place. We always live in hope of miracles.

Mr. Brandt: You need one.

Mr. McClellan: No, the honourable member knows the government needs one if it is to bring that legislation in this session.

The draft we saw talked about user fees for home support services. That is really progressive -- user fees for pensioners who are already living in poverty in order to obtain essential home support services. That is very progressive.

Second, the draft policy statement says home support service facilities will be farmed out to private enterprise to be provided on a profit- making basis.

8:20 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Shades of Darcy McKeough.

Mr. Laughren: The private sector has always looked after the needy.

Mr. Foulds: Meals on wheels provided by Versaservices with square wheels.

Mr. McClellan: That's right. Maybe Versafoods could provide the meals on wheels, instead of the network of community volunteers.

On page 13 -- this is really difficult to comprehend -- the government had the sheer gall and hypocrisy to talk about the International Year of Disabled Persons, but it has to be read. Remember the International Year of the Child and all of the marvellous benefits that flowed from that fiasco? I want to read this because this is the kind of promise that is so indicative of this government's intentions.

On page 13, with reference to the International Year of Disabled Persons and all of the wonderful things, "With these and other initiatives, there is every indication that the attention being paid to this special event will produce many programs of lasting benefit, both within government and throughout the community at large."

There is every indication? What kind of a promise is that? The government is even hedging on its promise, and it has already broken the promise to the disabled. Do you remember the promises about an adequate transit service for the physically handicapped, Mr. Speaker? We are stuck with a transportation service that is only available on limited, rigid scheduling. If someone wants to -- God bless them -- go out on the weekend to attend a recreational event or a social or cultural event, or if they want to go out in the evening, they have to book, I think it's two weeks in advance.

I remember last year, during the Three Trilliums fiasco, a group of handicapped people, wheelchair people, was here meeting with myself and other members and the Minister of Community and Social Services. The meeting broke up in considerable disarray because at precisely four o'clock the Wheel-Trans-Service van arrived, and it could not be put off for anything, not even for the Minister of Community and Social Services. If these folks did not catch the van, they would have to -- well, they would be stuck.

We have not dealt with the safety issue on the transit system for the physically handicapped. I have talked about the promises that were made with respect to accommodation for the physically handicapped and how those promises have been betrayed.

Do you remember the promises about amending part five of the building code? What ever happened to those promises? The last I heard, the last documents I saw on that broken promise indicated that the Provincial Secretary for Social Development was involved in a feud with the then minister of consumer and corporate protection, and the issue was whether or not residential accommodation would be covered in the new code so as to require the adaptation of residential facilities for the physically handicapped. And surprise of surprises. The minister of consumer protection was vigorously arguing against the accommodation of residential facilities to meet the needs of the handicapped. What a swell fellow he is.

Are we going to see that in this session? I doubt it very much. I imagine that whole thing is tangled deep within the interministerial bureaucracy and it will not emerge.

There is the question of jobs for the physically disabled during the International Year of Disabled Persons. We learned last year what kind of wonderful programs this government provides through the sheltered workshops. It provides employment and an average wage for the physically handicapped of 30 cents an hour in sheltered workshops. That is the average wage in this province in 1981.

Each and every one of those 30 cent an hour jobs is specifically exempted from the provisions of the Employment Standards Act and from the minimum wage by the Minister of Labour through a ministerial exemption. The Minister of Labour had promised that he was going to study this matter. He commissioned a study.

Mr. Laughren: Is this the red Tory the member was telling us about?

Mr. McClellan: This is the one with all of the marvellous rhetorical promises.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, I thought that was who he was talking about.

Mr. McClellan: He is going to give us a study as to whether it is such a good thing to give these kinds of exemptions.

The plight of handicapped people, with respect to employment, has not even been addressed by this government. We have made the suggestion time and time again that there is a unique role for the province of Ontario through the establishment of a provincial manpower program whose special mandate would be to provide employment for special groups of people who are traditionally excluded from the work force. We are talking of, among other groups, the physically handicapped people.

We have pointed to examples in other countries. In Great Britain, for example, the Remploy system, which is a network of crown corporations, engages in various manufacturing enterprises on an economically sound basis and provides thousands and thousands of jobs for physically handicapped people. There is absolutely no reason why this kind of a model could not be implemented here in Ontario, and what better time to do it than during the International Year of Disabled Persons? But no, we have a study from the Minister of Labour of the 30 cent an hour wages in sheltered workshops.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, but how could they pay them 30 cents then?

Mr. McClellan: It would be hard to pay people 30 cents an hour if they ever did get serious.

I simply ask, during the International Year of Disabled Persons, will the government restore the money -- how can I put this -- that it stole from the disabled when it brought in the new tax credit program?

Mr. Laughren: Do you think these new backbenchers understand this?

Mr. McClellan: Let me try to explain. The new tax credit program is not available to charitable institutions which do not pay property tax.

I have in my riding a facility called Bellwoods Park House, which is for, in the main, people who have cerebral palsy. It is a charitable foundation. Up until this year, they were receiving $278 a year each under the tax credit program. When the government changed to a tax grant program, these people were disentitled and they lost $278. To replace that, they were given an increase of $10 a month in the comfort allowance. They were already below the poverty line.

The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) wrote to a representative of one of the organizations concerned and said: "The province realizes, however, that the loss of property tax relief may impact negatively on persons of more modest means. As a result, the comfort allowance in institutions was increased $10 a month." I guess that is a net saving of almost $150 a year per person to the Treasurer of Ontario. It is another great accomplishment during the International Year of Disabled Persons. Members may simply prefer to regard it as some kind of theft of money from people who are already living in a state of extreme deprivation.

The promises proliferate on page 13. "The government affirms the commitment to meet the needs of developmentally handicapped children." It goes on to talk about special needs agreements. What they do not seem to be willing to talk about in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, is that they are not only bringing in special needs agreements, they are also bringing in user fees, which they charged against the parents of developmentally handicapped children.

They do not talk about the other promises that have been made with respect to residential facilities for developmentally handicapped children, for example again, in Metropolitan Toronto. Remember the great facility that was going to be built in Etobicoke, with a network of satellite group homes throughout Metropolitan Toronto? Whatever happened to that one? I guess it has evaporated.

8:30 p.m.

What about the promises made on May 20, 1980, by the Ministry of Community and Social Services to rescue approximately 400 developmentally handicapped children from institutional incarceration in homes for special care? Do you remember that promise, Mr. Speaker? Maybe none of the newly elected back-benchers remembers that promise.

It was discovered that there were almost 3,000 mentally retarded people living in nursing homes in this province without a shred of service except for room and board. The day after this news hit the press, the combined ministries of Community and Social Services, Education and Health announced, with great fanfare, a major program to rescue all of these people, starting with the children.

The promise was made that by September 1980 each and every one of the 400 children would have an individual assessment, and an individual program would be designed for him or her and put in place. To my knowledge not a single program has been put in place for a single child, and the government has the hypocrisy to say that it affirms its commitment to developmentally handicapped children.

Another example is the Brant Sanitorium, which houses a number of developmentally handicapped children in the Brantford area. It is one facility. Part of it is a chronic care hospital, part of it is a home for special care and part of it is funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services as a schedule II facility for developmentally handicapped children at about three times the per diem allowed for special care. So it is possible for the Brant Sanitorium to provide adequate program and services to those children who are lucky enough to live in the schedule II facility, but it is completely unable to provide anything except custodial care for those who live in the part of the facility dedicated to special care.

The government agreed a year and a half ago that this did not make any sense, and it promised it would redesignate the entire Brant Sanitorium as a schedule II facility, with a decent per diem, so that they could provide the occupational therapy which would prevent disabled children from developing muscle contractions, which cause muscle shrinkage and necessitate that bones be broken to correct the problem.

The government understands this. Yet, in the throne speech, it affirms its commitment to the needs of developmentally handicapped children.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, before very long your government is going to be in court over the systematic neglect of children in homes for special care for developmentally handicapped children in this province. It is going to be sued for failing to provide the necessities of life. I am afraid that is the only way to compel it to have the decency to honour the commitments it has made over the past four or five years.

On page 11, the government affirms its continued strong support for health care in the province. Yesterday, we saw a wage settlement that will give the specialist practitioners in the province an average income, I gather, of $96,000 a year. The premiums will undoubtedly be increased on May 19 to pay for this generous increase, and extra billing will continue unabated. There is absolutely nothing the government has done to stop the practice of extra billing.

I gather -- and I say "I gather" because it is hard to get information out of the Ministry of Health and our information is in some cases six months old -- the number of opted out full-time doctors in this province is 12.5 per cent for general practitioners and 38.8 per cent for specialists. That is the number of full-time general practitioners and specialists who have opted out of the OHIP program.

When one looks at it on a county by county basis, it is really quite terrifying. In the Regional Municipality of York, 57.8 per cent of the specialists are outside the plan. In Peel, 41.1 per cent of the specialists are outside the plan. In Peterborough, 37.2 per cent of the specialists are outside the plan; and in Metro Toronto 36.2 per cent of the specialists are outside OHIP. In Halton, 32.8 per cent of the specialists are outside the OHIP plan and the government continues to say there is no problem, that there continues to be strong support for the health care system.

The government will probably continue with its program of hospital cutbacks, cutbacks of the purchasing power of the health dollar. It will guarantee to each and every citizen of this province the right of entry to a hospital through the emergency corridor, will guarantee the opportunity to a space overnight in a hospital corridor. There is nothing in the throne speech or in the statements of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) that would indicate the government is prepared even to acknowledge the severity of the cutback program it has unleashed against our hospitals over the course of the last five years, or that it is prepared to deal with it in any way, shape or form.

On page 14 of the throne speech, the government addresses forthrightly and vigorously the problems within our mental health care system and it reads as follows, "A mental health coordinator will be appointed to formulate new policies and plans." Well, that is very reassuring in the light of the excessively documented plight of discharged psychiatric patients in Metropolitan Toronto and other communities. The Minister of Health simply continues to wash his hands like Pontius Pilate. It is no concern of his if they are living in squalor, if they are being exploited by rapacious landlords, if they are the victims of all kinds of political charlatans. He says he has no responsibility.

Surely a minimum act of decency on the part of the Minister of Health would be to consider the kind of program that has existed in British Columbia since 1978 which provides ex-psychiatric patients with a long-term care program. It is available at per diem rates to provide group home facilities with the appropriate support services.

This minister is simply interested in closing psychiatric hospitals like Lakeshore and letting the chips fall where they may. That is a situation that is becoming increasingly explosive within Metropolitan Toronto. The government can smirk and say: "There is no problem. There is nothing wrong. Everything is fine in the mental health care system."

People are dying. Inquests are being held. The number of ex-psychiatric patients who are obviously a risk to themselves and to other people is increasing.

Queen Street Mental Health Centre is obviously overcrowded. I happen to represent the riding in which Queen Street Mental Health Centre is located. There is an increasingly difficult problem at that facility because it is overcrowded and patients are wandering out into the community during the day and during the night.

They are sitting on a time bomb over there. If they do not think it is going to go off they have their heads so deeply in the sand that --

Interjections.

8:40 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: I am warning the government. They are sitting on a time bomb. They are going to have to accept responsibility for the provision of residential services and support services to a defined group of ex-psychiatric patients. They cannot simply pretend there is no problem in this community. There is a serious problem in this community. It will only be solved by the government, first, acknowledging there is a problem, and second, assuming a responsibility to provide the kinds of resources that ex-psychiatric care patients need. Not all patients, of course -- we are not talking about all the patients. But there are at least 2,000 people in the Parkdale area alone who are in real distress. The government knows this, but it continues and continues to deny it, and again, in the throne speech, provides empty promises and empty rhetoric.

The only area of the health care system that seems to excite any real interest on the part of the minister and the cabinet is the current campaign of bully-boy tactics against Ontario's hospital workers.

Compare the treatment of our physicians with the treatment of the hospital workers. The doctors yesterday got a $12,000-a-year increase. The average wage of a hospital worker is just a little more than $12,000. It is not enough that they are discriminated against economically; not enough that hundreds and hundreds of hospital workers have received summary suspension from their hospitals; not enough that dozens and dozens of hospital workers have been summarily dismissed by their hospitals.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: For what reason? Why were they dismissed?

Mr. McClellan: Here we have the Solicitor General-Attorney General masterminding a witch hunt against all those who broke the law.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Yes, they broke the law.

Interjections.

Mr. McClellan: During the election campaign, at rally after rally, the Premier, his most Christian majesty, said time and time again, "The law must be obeyed; the law must be obeyed; the law must be obeyed."

I have been lectured in this Legislature by his most Christian majesty about the righteousness of forgiveness. Some members may recall that after a transgression by one of his backbenchers, the Premier lectured us, and me in particular, on how nice it would be if we would recall the words of the Lord's prayer, "Forgive us our trespasses." Yet the Premier says day after day, "The law must be obeyed; the law must be obeyed." The only law I think he is referring to is the one that says an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Interjections.

Mr. McClellan: It speaks to a real sense of compassion and fairness and decency, does it not?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. McClellan: I will have to silence my unruly colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) referred to the plight of the middle class. That seemed to be the main theme of his speech, and it is good politics, undeniably. He did refer, en passant, to the plight of minimum-wage earners in the province. I recall that he said what minimum-wage earners want is a decent pension. That is what he said.

Mr. Foulds: Based on their best three years, probably.

Mr. McClellan: Yes, perhaps he meant based on their best three years. I do not dispute that minimum-wage earners want a decent pension, but perhaps they also want a decent minimum wage. Is that too much to ask? Is anyone concerned, in a serious way, about the plight of low income citizens during a period of vicious government restraint and double digit inflation?

As I mentioned earlier, yesterday the doctors got a wage settlement which will bring the average salary of specialist physicians to $96,000 a year, which is about $90,000 a year more than the minimum-wage earner makes.

Mr. Nixon: Is that the average net?

Mr. McClellan: That is the average net, as I understand it.

I do not think there has ever been a period in the history of this country when there were such tremendous wage gaps between the rich and the poor. It is inconceivable to me how anyone can live on $6,000 a year. I cannot remember when there was that kind of spread between those at the bottom and those at the top.

Mr. Nixon: Tory times are hard times.

Mr. McClellan: Perhaps the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk could put that to music. I am sure he could come up with a catchy jingle.

The need for a major reform of our income security system has been self-evident in this province and in this country for over 10 years. I believe it was during the election campaign that the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, jointly with the Ontario Welfare Council documented, once again, the fact that low income people in this province are falling farther and farther behind.

They point out, as well, that between 1975-76 and 1980-81 the human services share of the total provincial budget has decreased from 63 per cent to 61 per cent, that since 1975 the levels of social assistance benefits have fallen behind the rate of inflation. But I heard the government whip say that there are no cutbacks in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: That is not a cutback.

Mr. McClellan: No, of course it is not a cutback. We all understand that. The people who understand that most explicitly are the people on social assistance.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: This has simply been a preamble and I now come to the body of my remarks. I want to address myself to what the throne speech does for those on fixed incomes, for those on social assistance, for those on disability pensions, for injured workers and for those on pensions. It is, in a word, nothing.

The current pension mess in this province and in this country is referred to in the throne speech. Everybody knows it is a national disgrace, and that we have one of the worst pension systems in the western industrial world. We have never put together an adequate pension system in this country.

8:50 p.m.

The government has ignored all of the critical studies of the pension crisis that have been done over the course of the last 15 years. Finally they appointed the Haley commission, which eventually reported.

What did the commission say? "The commission has found that there is at present no system for retirement income provision in either Ontario or Canada." I don't know whether that is exactly what the government was expecting them to report. We have been trying to tell the government over the course of the last 10 years that pensioners in this province are impoverished by the lack of a comprehensive public pension system.

The government seemed, in its own lurching way, to recognize this in the 1978 budget, on budget paper B. Mr. McKeough's staff pointed out in that paper that approximately 82 per cent of the senior citizens in Ontario received 50 per cent of retirement income, and the other 50 per cent of retirement income goes to the remaining 18 per cent.

It seemed to be starting to dawn on the Treasurer at that time that perhaps there was something a little bit skewed about a retirement system that allocated about half of the available retirement income to 18 per cent of the people. Perhaps there was something just a little out of kilter, they weren't really sure what. Now they have the report of the royal commission on pensions to enlighten them.

Before I get into the content of the pension debate as it will take place in this assembly -- and I hope throughout the country over the course of the next while -- I can't pass up the opportunity to make a reference to the issue of whether the Canada pension plan should be fully funded or pay as you go.

Remember how much Darcy McKeough used to rant and howl about how the Canada pension plan had to be fully funded, otherwise the fund would go bankrupt? Remember when it was an article of holy writ on the part of this government that the Canada pension plan had to be fully funded? What does Miss Haley say about that issue on page 22? "The potential exhaustion of the fund with the spectre of disillusioned retirees is a fanciful scenario given prominence by the press."

Perhaps one of the reasons it was given prominence by the press is because it was the official policy of the government of Ontario from the time the Canada pension plan was established until very recently. After all these years of babbling about a fully funded Canada pension plan, the government suddenly realized -- perhaps somebody bought the new Treasurer a calculator and he was able to figure it out -- that if the plan was fully funded, the amount of capital savings in the fund would add up to literally trillions and trillions of dollars. I wonder why it did not occur to Mr. McKeough.

Mr. K. F. Johnston: Darcy couldn't count that high.

Mr. McClellan: It did not occur to Mr. McKeough because he had no interest in anything except cheap borrowing from the Canada pension plan. The present Treasurer has no interest in pensions either, as will become self-evident.

What does the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Pensions in Ontario actually say? First they say there will be absolutely no reforms which will increase the Canada pension plan. It will stay at a maximum ceiling of 25 per cent of pensionable earnings pegged at 25 per cent of the average industrial wage. There will be absolutely no increase or enrichment in the old age security program. They will cut out the spouse's allowance entirely. They will, in a word, rely on thrift -- individual savings -- to meet the needs of retired Canadians, and they reject completely any comprehensive reforms to the structure of benefits for the public pension system.

Our illustrious Treasurer spoke on April 23 and delivered his government's response to the Haley commission. I want to spend some time on this because it is so utterly bizarre. The Treasurer begins, early on in his speech, by repeating the old shibboleth about thrift and individual saving and reliance on the free market and on individual responsibility for the provision of retirement income.

Mr. Martel: This sounds like the debate on old age pensions.

Mr. McClellan: It is the debate on old pensions updated by 40 years.

The Treasurer says on page two: "There is a fundamental premise behind the report that I have no hesitation in endorsing because it sums up quite well my own personal view of pension reform: 'There is general agreement that retirement is an individual matter and ultimately the individual will be responsible for his or her own retirement. Individual needs and desires require flexibility which cannot be given by group programs or universal social programs.'"

Mr. Foulds: That is the biggest cop-out of the century.

Mr. McClellan: He goes on to repeat the same banal theme on page five: "As I stated in my reference to the royal commission report, our government believes in preserving a system that provides flexibility so that individual needs and desires can be met."

He goes on in his statement of guiding principles to give as the first of these that the principle vehicle for reform should be the private sector. "It is a point I have made before in this speech and is one I will repeat again. Only the flexibility of the private sector can meet individual needs and desires. A universal program simply cannot do the trick."

Mr. Laughren: Why have they not done it?

Mr. McClellan: Then in the Globe and Mail, where at least he had the decency not to read from the text, I gather -- he threw the text away -- he was quoted the next day as follows: "Rather than putting their faith in a universal pension plan, Canadians should construct a loose network of private programs supplemented where necessary by government benefits. Ideally the major share of an individual's retirement income would come from employment pension plans, profit-sharing schemes and individual savings."

What does the royal commission on pensions really mean when it talks about individual responsibility for retirement planning? It means the provincial universal retirement system, PURS, which is a money purchase plan, ideally designed to provide somewhere between 15 to 20 per cent of pre-retirement income. It would be paid for, according to the royal commission, by employer and employee contributions. The money in the privately purchased account, the capital, would be invested in the private sector to purchase a retirement pension.

There are certain obvious flaws in that approach. One flaw -- the members may be alarmed to learn or relieved to learn, depending on their point of view -- is that the scheme does not mature until 47 years after its inception. Most of us will be dead by then. That is something we can look forward to in perspective.

Another possible flaw is that an individual contributor could not have the slightest shred of a clue what his or her benefit would be, because that is the nature of a money purchase plan.

So we are offering a plan that does not mature until 47 years from its inception, for which the benefit is completely undetermined, unspecific and unknowable. It does not sound like a very promising proposition for any responsible business to be offering to the public on the free market but, of course, that is not the intention.

On page three of the report the commission states that, in its opinion, it is impossible to achieve portability in a system of individual employer plans. The only recourse is to a universal compulsory plan that will solve not only the portability problem, but the coverage problem as well.

They then go on to rule out for ideological reasons expansion of the Canada pension plan and then they say: "The government of Ontario should adopt without delay a provincial universal retirement system with a money purchase design, to provide a reasonable amount of replacement income on an earnings related basis in a compulsory, portable, universal and fully funded plan with individual choice for investment and forms of benefit." Compulsory?

9 p.m.

I do not recall the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) mentioning this in his speech to the Burlington Chamber of Commerce. I read his speech very carefully and nowhere did I find in there reference to a compulsory, universal, free enterprise pension scheme.

I do not recall him talking to the good members of the chamber of commerce about a proposal to conscript citizens into the free market and into the private insurance industry by government legislation. I do not recall the Treasurer standing up anywhere and saying that he intends to legislate everybody into the private insurance industry. I do not recall the Treasurer laying down in his set of guiding principles about thrift, individual responsibility, individual freedom and freedom of the economy, that he wants to draft everybody by law into his friend's business.

What kind of totalitarian nonsense is the government proposing? The corporate state arrives in full flower in the guise of the jolly Miller from Muskoka.

Those guys opposite are mountebanks, they are charlatans, they are frauds. They are preaching free enterprise and the virtue of individual initiative. At the same time, do they think they can force this kind of scam down the throats of the people of this province? Not likely. Who do they think will fall for this kind of bunk? Who do they think will support government intervention to expand and guarantee a market for the services of the private pension industry?

Mr. Laughren: The back-benchers.

Mr. McClellan: Is that what the government is seriously proposing? Is that what the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) is proposing as the solution to our country's and our province's pensions?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We support our colleagues over here.

Mr. Laughren: Do you support this? Never mind that, do you support this? Why don't you answer the question?

Interjections.

Mr. Foulds: You make your father look good.

Interjections.

Mr. McClellan: I have already reached the summit of my ambition, I want to tell you that, Mr. Speaker. I would like one member of the cabinet to stand up here in this House and say that he supports that recommendation of the royal commission on pensions and that it is the policy of the government of Ontario to support government intervention to expand and guarantee a market for the services of the private pension industry.

Are there any takers? I suspect not.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Treasurer speaks for us.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Since when did you let the Treasurer speak for you?

Interjections.

Mr. McClellan: I suspect that sooner or later even the members of this cabinet are going to read the report of the royal commission on pensions. I suspect that even the Minister of Industry and Tourism is liable to gag on its contents. Even he is liable to be just slightly unnerved at the enthusiastic response of the Treasurer to this utter bilge.

Mr. Foulds: That is if he does not gag on his own tongue first.

Mr. McClellan: There are only two possibilities. The royal commission on pensions has clearly established that there are only two choices.

The choice it has set out is patently absurd, it is idiotic, and that is why we have a select committee instead of a package of pension legislation. You are not going to get a government to support that kind of nonsense, Mr. Speaker. The member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn) is laughing hysterically at the prospect of government conscription of the private insurance industry.

There is only one possibility. There is only one proper path for reform of the pension system of this country. It has been set out dozens and dozens of times. There is only one rational choice and it lies in the expansion of the public pension system.

The only problem with the pension system structurally in this country is that the structure of benefits has been set too low. The reform of the pension system is remarkably simple. It has been undertaken in virtually every other western industrial country except ours. It lies in the following points and I would like to set them out.

The Canada pension plan benefits should be increased to 50 per cent of earned income up to 1.5 times the average industrial wage. That is not a radical notion in any sense. It is simply common sense and common decency. It was endorsed by Senator Croll's committee and was the recommendation of the federal task force on retirement income policy. None of this Rube Goldberg stuff about PURS -- a simple upward adjustment of the structure of benefits under the Canada pension plan to 50 per cent.

Second, old age security benefits could be established and pegged at 15 per cent of the average industrial wage. Third, a minimum CPP benefit based on 50 per cent of the average industrial wage would be established to recognize the value of labour outside the economy.

There are a number of other refinements which will be dealt with when we get into the debate in full and when the work of the select committee on pensions begins. For the life of me, I do not understand how the government is going to get out of the mess the royal commission has got it into. The PURS program, I repeat again, is absolute insanity.

There are no ways of providing artificial respiration to the private insurance industry except by forcing everyone into it by legislation and I doubt very much if even this government is that stupid. Now I could be wrong. We could all be wrong.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Be charitable now; be charitable.

Mr. McClellan: Yes, I will. The minister may be that stupid. I know the Treasurer is. The question is, do the rest of them know what he is up to? I am just trying to help the minister. We are just here to help him.

I would like also to suggest that, when we get to the details of working out a pension reform proposal that recognizes the only course is to reform the public pension system, we do two things as well. First, that we make provisions for flexible retirement between the ages of 60 and 70, so that the kinds of things the member for Humber (Mr. Leluk) is talking about with respect to flexible retirement can actually take place. We are not going to support flexible retirement until we have a pension system that makes provision for early retirement.

Second, the government should bring forward proposals that recognize some occupations are more hazardous than others and that some workers cannot be expected to work fully to the age of 65. I think of miners. I think of some construction workers who simply are unable physically to continue to work past clearly marked ages. Work has been done in other countries around developing hazardous occupation schedules that are fitted into the public pension system so that people do not have to work until they drop dead.

9:10 p.m.

I have been going on at length and I will show mercy to all by cutting out the rest of my speech. I just wanted to echo the remarks that my leader made and conclude this discussion of the need for income security reform by talking about the needs in this province and in this country for universal accident and illness insurance.

The number of people in this province who are on social assistance for the exclusive reason of illness, accident or disability is phenomenal, something in the order of 40 per cent of welfare recipients and 52 per cent of provincial family benefits recipients. The cost to the provincial Treasury is a major one.

There is nothing more agonizing for members of this Legislature than trying to put together a package of income for a family whose breadwinner is disabled. It is made up of a combination of paltry amounts of money from workmen's compensation, Canada pension disability, provincial family benefits and general welfare assistance at the municipal level. And after you put together the complete package of income for a disabled family, they are still living below the poverty line.

The throne promise of implementation of the Weiler report is clouded because the Treasurer has already given veto over reforms to the Canada pension plan. It is more difficult to accomplish universal accident and illness insurance when the government has vetoed, in advance, the possibilities of enriching the Canada pension plan disability proposal. Nevertheless it is clear that the kind of short-term reforms that Weiler indicates would be the basis of his legislation will still not be adequate.

We are prepared to adopt a wait and see attitude towards the Weiler report. We have generally been pleased with the work that Mr. Weiler did in his study of the workmen's compensation program, but we see it as a short-term reform.

I would warn the government that any legislation that they might bring in is going to have to deal with the tens of thousands of injured workers who are currently on Workmen's Compensation Board pensions. Mr. Weiler seems to be of the opinion that he could ignore those who are currently victims of the Workmen's Compensation Board if he brought in a brand new day for those who will be injured in the future.

I want to put the government on notice that that is not nearly good enough, if that is their intention. It is going to have to deal with the needs of the disabled who are currently on workmen's compensation permanent pensions.

Ultimately the government will have to bring in a reform that acknowledges that it is absolute insanity to award a disability pension to somebody who injures himself between nine and five and to deny entitlement to somebody who injures himself off the job. It simply does not make any sense.

The proliferation of bureaucracies and programs serves no one's interest; not those of good government or decent administration and, least of all, the needs of those who are in need of income support by virtue of accident, illness or disability.

Universal accident and illness insurance has been demonstrated in other jurisdictions to be a successful program, a successful approach to the kinds of problems that have plagued both the social assistance program and the workmen's compensation program from time immemorial. Technically we know how to bring about these reforms. All we need is the will and commitment on the part of the government to proceed.

As I say, we will adopt a wait and see attitude to the legislation that the Minister of Labour will be bringing forward. We hope that we can support and applaud it. I mean that very sincerely. For many of us on this side of the House there is no issue that has been more important to us or to our constituents. We look forward to that legislation with real anticipation. I want to say that I hope that we are not bitterly disappointed.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your kind attention.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gordon.

[Applause].

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that is not the last time the opposition will clap for one of my speeches, but I am sure they are going to give very careful consideration to what I have to say this evening. I am sorry to see those young people who were here earlier this evening had to leave, otherwise they could have heard an edifying speech from the other side of the House.

There is one thing I am very conscious of, and I think the people of Sudbury are conscious of, and that is the importance of having roots. I think back to the time when my grandfather Gordon came as an immigrant from England. When he first came to Canada he got off the boat and went up to Cobalt. He did not have any money left so he went to work that afternoon in the concentrator. He lived two miles down the track outside of Cobalt in what could be termed, quite accurately, as a log shanty. They had to chink between the logs in order to make a habitation that was at least half decent for the raising of children.

As well, some years later, my own father worked for a number of mining companies such as O'Brien Gold, International Nickel and even the Moose Mountain people, as I would point out to the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). When he was 50 years of age he left Inco. When he left, he left without a pension. I am not unaware of some of the problems that arise out of that particular situation.

My grandfather on the other side, grandfather Kilby, came with his family from Buckingham to Sudbury in 1894. I well remember the story about how he had to lead the horse and buggy through the sulphur gas that hung so heavily along the ground.

I relate these incidents because I think it is important to understand that we all come from different backgrounds, we all come from different faiths, nationalities and languages, but all of us, if we look deeply enough into our own lives and the lives of our ancestors, will see that we all came from people who had to work hard. People had to make a lot of sacrifices to build the kind of Ontario we live in today.

What we have today did not come about by accident. It did not come about necessarily because somebody complained, but it came about because people had a faith in the future of Ontario and Canada. I have to say here, very clearly, that I have that faith in Ontario.

9:20 p.m.

So that the opposition and my own government members will perhaps understand me a little better in the years to come, I will tell them that my first working experience was at about the age of 13, in a bowling alley. I might say that I was one of the better pin setters, good at dodging those five-pin balls that were thrown down the alley. Those of you who are from the Sudbury area may recall that it was across from the courthouse, which subsequently burned down. Now there are offices for a number of lawyers on the site.

I later moved on to work for Gamble and Robinson Limited, unloading boxcars, and when I was 16, I worked underground with Smith and Travers on 1600 level at Creighton. I well remember how my ears rang for a couple of weeks after I started, which was long before men were required to wear the devices designed to save their hearing. Mr. Speaker, you can be sure that there are many former miners or smelter workers who are still suffering from the ringing that I experienced at a very tender age. We must all be very cognizant of the problems and disabilities that people have.

We on the government side and those who are sitting on the opposition side have to give very careful consideration to the Weiler report on workmen's compensation. I have read it and I am impressed with what Mr. Weiler has done to date.

The speech from the throne contains many things which show that we are still a progressive province with a progressive government. It states that the province will develop specific research innovation centres in auto parts technology, computer assisted manufacturing and robotics and microelectronics, and that a special multimillion dollar fund to finance new high technology firms will be established through the Ontario Development Corporation. This is important for Ontario's and Canada's future. We cannot afford to fall behind the United States, the European common market, Japan or Germany. I am excited by the prospects.

The province of Ontario has recognized that we must spend money in this field, but at the same time I want to say that Cliff Pilkey talks about the changes that are going to come through automation, computers and the technology that we have today, and they are going to be severe changes for the people who work in Ontario. I think we have to keep that in mind. I would hope that, as a government that is responsive to people, we will launch a two-pronged approach to the whole problem of automation and technology, especially as it affects Ontario.

We must recognize that there are going to be problems for our people. The time has come when we have to get away from the idea that business is business, labour is labour and government is government, and that although we happen to touch or talk together sometimes, one is the other's enemy and we cannot trust each other.

The changes you are going to see because of technology and automation and robotics in the 1980s are going to be such that no government, and certainly no opposition, can afford to be negative and not to take a positive stance with regard to the problems that we are going to face. I view this as a challenge to which I am sure everyone in this Legislature will be glad to respond.

The BILD program has particular significance for Sudbury, and I would like to review with this Legislative Assembly why it has caught the imagination of the people of Sudbury and the north and raised their expectations. In one sense Sudbury is an anomaly within the framework of Ontario. It is a mining town that grew into a cosmopolitan city of 93,000 and a region of 160,000 -- and I would like the member for Sudbury East to listen to this -- despite the fact that its economic engine was and still is rooted in two multinational firms.

Unlike other mining communities in Ontario and in Canada's mining history that had a much shorter span of life because their ore bodies were short-lived, Sudbury has continued to grow and prosper because the ore body in the Sudbury basin is of such a size that new reserves of ore are being found each year.

However, in September 1979, Mr. J. Edwin Carter, chairman and chief executive officer at Inco Limited, came to regional council in Sudbury. He told the regional council and the community that, in spite of the long-term prospects of growth for the company: "Our Canadian ore bodies are sufficient to support production at an optimal rate for decades. The people of Sudbury should begin to look to other areas for diversification of the Sudbury basin economy."

The message was clear and unequivocal. Ore is a diminishing resource and it takes time to develop new economic activities. The one positive note that existed in Mr. Carter's speech was the promise to work with the community: "We are prepared to work with you and others to ensure that our policies, plans and actions are co-ordinated with those of the community. We pledge our continued general support" -- I would like members to note the words, "general support." -- "of significant diversification, efforts that will strengthen the economic base of Sudbury."

It is upon this last point I wish to dwell. While it is clear in the BILD program the government recognizes mineral production is Ontario's leading primary industry and that more must be done to foster its growth, it also recognizes Canada has had a poor record of performance in designing and building machinery and equipment for its resource sector.

In 1977, the last year for which figures are available, the mining industry spent $900 million on new equipment and parts, of which $480 million or 53 per cent was imported.

Mr. Martel: You are stealing my line. That is my working paper.

Mr. Gordon: No one has the monopoly on facts. It is just that some people like to believe they have the truth. There are some people who sit there.

In my view, Mr. Speaker -- I am glad I have your attention, Mr. Speaker; I noticed you were sort of nodding there -- we have been too caught up in being a resource nation and province rather than a manufacturing one. I do not think I would get any argument from anyone in this Legislative Assembly this evening.

However, the BILD program addresses itself to this serious problem and makes a commitment to establish in Sudbury a resource machinery advisory board and states the province is, "Prepared to make direct equity investment in existing machinery companies to aid new companies to establish and to encourage companies to invest in creating a more vigorous and versatile resource machinery industry."

The people of Sudbury are heartened by the clear intent of the BILD program. They are keenly aware that, unlike other major economic centres in North America where a major employer usually means the community has many suppliers and small manufacturers feeding the major economic engine, this has been woefully lacking in the Sudbury basin.

The fact Sudbury is the dynamic city and region it is today, with its hospitals, university, civic square, excellent municipal services and strong community spirit is largely due to the people of Sudbury, a people who never quit, a people who know how to produce in the work place and a people who are determined to make it happen.

I want to state categorically that two of the components necessary to make this BILD program a success in Sudbury are present -- the province and the people of Sudbury. But we will only succeed if the third component, the multinationals within the Sudbury basin, throw their full-hearted support in specific ways behind the program.

9:30 p.m.

While their role may involve a financial commitment, it is quite conceivable that economic activity directly or indirectly related to the mining industry will come about because of the influence and power that Inco and Falconbridge can exert in the boardrooms of the nation.

Much is to be gained by all. Ontario will reap increased revenues from mining suppliers and manufacturers; the people will gain from the jobs created and the future community stability engendered by it. At the same time, Inco and Falconbridge will find a new attitude towards them in the community and throughout Canada.

It is my firm conviction that the multinationals, if they truly desire to be good corporate citizens, can make a difference in Sudbury. But there is going to have to be more consultation amongst the parties involved if BILD is to be a success. To illustrate, I would give one example.

Not too long ago I had a conversation with a vice-president of one of the companies. During the discussion the point was made that the company was in the process of locating a plant in southern Ontario. When asked why, the reply came back that transportation rates dictated that location. Had there been consultation among the representatives of the company, the province and the community, as is outlined under the BILD program, I am sure we all could have found a way to locate that plant in Sudbury.

In any event, the way to ensure the success of our program in Sudbury is to make sure that both Inco and Falconbridge have their most senior executives on the resource machinery advisory board.

Mr. Martel: Jean-Jacques Blais would not give them a loan.

Mr. Gordon: There is only one problem and that is that the member for Sudbury East believes there is only one party that has any answers. I am sorry, but that just is not the case.

As well, it is absolutely vital that the two major unions are represented. The labour people have been very active and dedicated in fostering the future diversification of the Sudbury economy.

Well I remember the resolve and time spent by Dave Patterson of the Steelworkers and Jack Gignac of the Mine Mill union in the birth of 2001. What was particularly interesting about that was that both of these gentlemen, being presidents of labour unions, came out, along with the mayor and the regional chairman and a number of other people from the business community, and really did put their shoulders to the wheel. With that kind of participation and that kind of resolve on the part of all parties within the Sudbury basin, I think we can see some very real progress.

To recap: First, the BILD program requires close consultation and co-operation amongst the province, the region of Sudbury, Inco, Falconbridge and labour. Second, we have the will and the capacity to make it happen in Sudbury. We are northerners, and no matter what our nationality or language spoken, it is our resolve that Sudbury will and must begin to diversify. It is a community, and it is a dedicated and a committed community. We are prepared to work as a people with any group, business or government that shows a sincerity and a commitment to Sudbury and the north.

Given the fact that both the province and Inco have clearly stated that they have committed themselves, each in its own way, to the diversification of the Sudbury region, it should be crystal clear now why the BILD program has caught the imagination and raised the expectations of Sudbury people and northerners.

In conclusion, there are many challenges facing Ontario in the 1980s, but I believe the foundation for meeting those challenges and building an even better Ontario, an Ontario that is even more responsive to the needs, desires and aspirations of her people, can be found in the BILD program.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Boudria.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt such an interesting conversation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Boudria has the floor.

Mr. Boudria: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, I hate to interrupt such an interesting conversation between my honourable colleagues here, however --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the Minister of Industry and Tourism please stop?

Mr. Boudria, please.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister is finally going to calm down and listen to what some of us have to say.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Order. Would the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) please take his seat. Will the minister please be quiet.

Mr. Boudria, please.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I did not know that a Liberal speaker could get NDP and Conservative members into such a rowdy state, but I do realize it is an event which perhaps does arise from excitement in this House as I see now.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating you on your appointment as Speaker of this House, and also to extend the same congratulations to the Deputy Speaker and to the deputy chairman of committees. I would also like to congratulate all of the members who were elected to this assembly on the election of March 19.

I would be remiss if I did not thank the electors of the riding of Prescott-Russell who have chosen to make me their member in this assembly for that constituency. I feel very fortunate to represent such a great constituency as the riding of Prescott-Russell. It is a very large riding by urban standards. Perhaps some of my colleagues who have northern ridings would not think it so large; nevertheless it is one of the larger ridings that have urban components to it.

In the east of my riding lies the town of Hawkesbury, a very historical town in the history of the county of Prescott, and a town which is now largely industrialized.

Most of the rest of my constituency is of a rural nature, with the exception of the urban areas in the western end of the riding, that mainly being the township of Cumberland, an area which I was fortunate enough to represent at the municipal level before being elected to this House.

I was very fortunate to be at the municipal level under the great leadership of the former reeves, Mr. Henri Rocque and Mr. Wilfred Murray, both of whom gave me very good advice and helped me to eventually secure the seat for the riding of Prescott-Russell for the Liberal Party.

I would like to go through some of the history of our riding, Mr. Speaker. Some of the greatest explorers in the history of our country stopped in Prescott-Russell. I think of Samuel de Champlain, who of course navigated the Ottawa River. I think of the Dollard des Ormeaux battle, for instance, which occurred in my constituency near the town of Chute-a-Blondeau, near Hawkesbury. I think of famous people, like Senator Cairine Wilson, who was from Cumberland, Ontario, as we all know, and who was also of the same political affiliation as some of us are. Of course, Senator Cairine Wilson was the first woman senator of our country.

9:40 p.m.

Monsieur le président, c'est un honneur pour moi d'être député de Prescott-Russell. Comme vous le savez peut-être, Prescott-Russell a élu cette fois peut-être le plus jeune député qu'il y a jamais eu dans l'histoire de notre comté.

J'aimerais peut-être vous faire remarquer une citation de Racine, poète français du 17e siècle, qui dit entr'autres, "Aux âmes bien nées la valeur n'attend pas le nombre des années." Ce qui veut dire monsieur le président que l'âge d'une personne ne veut pas nécessairement dire l'habileté de faire quelque chose.

Monsieur le président dans l'histoire de la politique provinciale de Prescott-Russell il y a eu beaucoup de grands hommes venus de ce comté. Je compte parmi eux, Aurélien Bélanger, par le même nom d'une autre personne qui est venue par après. Aurélien Bélanger, monsieur le président, on se souviendra, a représenté le comté de Russell de 1923 à 1929 et a été député de Prescott de 1934 à 1948 dans cette assemblée. Grace à ce grand homme, monsieur le président, on a réussi à abolir le projet de loi 17. On se souvient que c'est grâce, justement, à monsieur Aurélien Bélanger, si aujourd'hui les francophones ont réussi dans leurs modestes accomplissements.

Je trouve cependant, monsieur le président, certaines remarques que j'ai entendues dans cette chambre, dans les derniers jours, peut-être un peu tristes. Des remarques faites par le ministre des Affaires sociales et communautaires contre des gens que je considère mes ancêtres. Monsieur le président, les francophones sont en Ontario depuis prés de deux cent ans. J'y suis et j'y reste. Et l'arrogance de telles paroles, comme je les ai entendues, ne nous fera pas changer d'idée.

I also think of some of the comments I heard from other ministers in this House in my very short stay here of the last week. I remember last week hearing the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) and some of the replies he had for us. I do not think they were very satisfactory to those of us who represent rural constituencies. I also think of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) -- he is not here now, of course -- who does not even think he should have the job of Minister of Housing. One really has to wonder what people like that are doing representing those people who expect results in the housing sector.

I am looking at my copy of the speech from the throne and I would just like to go over some of the items that are in it. I read, "Many opportunities for action lie in key federal areas of monetary and fiscal policy planning." There we see that the government is passing the buck on to the federal government for the problems of this province.

Why is it that other provincial jurisdictions have the same federal government we do, yet they have found a way to find results for some of the problems they had? I am thinking of the agricultural sector in Quebec where the government has found a mechanism to assist the farmers. Today to be a farmer in Quebec is a much better situation than to be a farmer in Ontario.

I read further, Mr. Speaker, "We are a strong and vigorous province." It is unfortunate that we do not have a strong and vigorous government, but yes, we do have a strong and vigorous population in this province.

I read even further: "The new industrial leadership and development program, an explicit program for economic expansion and growth will be the basic industrial development blueprint of this government." I will not comment too long on that, other than to say that my leader, of course, has told us what it involves -- a net decrease in expenditures by the present government.

We read a little further -- this is very interesting, Mr. Speaker -- that: "The government will expand the training in business and industry initiatives of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and provide a major funding allocation for technical and technological equipment for the province's colleges of applied arts and technology. A community counselling program will be developed to tap the resources of our young people and guide them towards worthwhile and productive jobs."

That is interesting, when we see that those same community colleges are right now looking to abolish the position of community animators. Perhaps it is a coincidence that it is those same community animators who were there in Penetanguishene when we needed the French schools. Perhaps it is another coincidence that it was those same community animators who brought us the notorious Burton case in Hawkesbury, for instance. Now we see those community animators are going to lose their jobs.

I read even further, "Ontario is determined to ensure that its agricultural sector remains among the most modern in the world." That is interesting, Mr. Speaker. Not long after the speech from the throne was read in this House, we saw the government vote against having a debate in which we could probably have found help for the farmers of this province, as the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) indicated to us on that day.

I read further, "Ontario has endorsed the United Nations designation of 1981 as the International Year of Disabled Persons." That is true and, of course, that is very commendable except that we have just heard in the House today, I believe, from the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) that a community college in Ottawa, Algonquin College, is going to reduce its health services branch so that disabled people now attending that facility will no longer be able to do so. That, Mr. Speaker, is all occurring in the International Year of Disabled Persons.

We, as a party, were not as fortunate as another party in this House in the last election. I say not as fortunate because they are not better, they are just more numerous than we are. What we lack in quantity, this caucus makes up in quality.

We have the quality leadership of the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Smith). We have quality representation from all parts of Ontario in this caucus. We have quality representation from these members. All of the members of this caucus are cabinet material and some day we will be called upon to form the government and we will have the quality of people to do so. There may be four years before we achieve that and in those four years we will be equipped to do the job even better.

I see the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) is looking, because he obviously is eyeing a higher position in his own party, but he may be the Leader of the Opposition at that time.

I would like to make a few more comments on the speech from the throne. I am very dismayed to see that there is little or nothing to help the agricultural industry. Our farmers in Ontario are the most industrious group of workers we have. I hear, and a read again in this speech, that there is nothing to help the farmers with the rural-urban rate differential on hydro. There is nothing to assist our farmers with that. Other provinces have helped out with this.

In Quebec, for instance, there is no such thing as an rural-urban rate differential in energy. Everyone gets the same break. The farmers there can do a much better job because they have less burden and they sell their products at the same price as the farmers in Ontario, and they have a higher return on their investment.

9:50 p.m.

The government, again, is passing the buck for everything to the feds. It says it cannot do anything. Well, some of us in our caucus agree with the statement that they cannot do anything. The people in my riding have recognized that the Conservative Party cannot do anything, and look at what happened to the incumbent member for that constituency. In the next election we will do the same in other constituencies.

The government is saying to us that it cannot be specific in the speech from the throne. I heard at a press conference after the speech was read that the Premier (Mr. Davis) said it was just a general outline of what was going to happen, and not everything is in there.

That is unusual, because 18 months ago in a similar speech from the throne there were things announced that were very specific. It was announced there would be an agricultural college in Alfred, Ontario, for instance. That was very specific in the speech from the throne at that time. I am sure all the members will remember that. That was a half-hearted election promise, poorly planned, poorly organized, and now we see it is poorly delivered.

We listened eagerly the other day to the throne speech, looking to see what help was in it for a small business, and of course, there is very little in there. The only thing we saw in there was the buy-Canadian policy. That is very interesting, and it is also a Liberal policy. It was a bill, of course, that was introduced by our member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins). Our member at that time proposed in a small business bill something similar to what the government is going to do now. As critic on government services, I will do my utmost to ensure that this promise at least is not broken; that we, in fact, have a buy-Canadian policy, and that we do buy Canadian in this province.

Monsieur le président, en ce qui a trait à la francophonie, je suis déçu; déçu de voir ce discours du trône faire seulement mention très brève de l'amélioration des services aux Francophones. Je vais relire le texte pour que nous nous en souvenions bien comme il faut.

"Le gouvernement adoptera des politiques et des programmes spéciaux visant à améliorer la prestation des services en français. A faire connaitre ces services et encourager la population francophone à les utiliser. C'est le ministère des Affaires intergouvernementales qui coordonnera ces efforts et des fonds spéciaux seront affectés pour faciliter la création du nouveau service en français au sein du gouvernement et dans toute la collectivité franco-ontarienne."

Mr. Speaker, that is all that we hear for the some 600,000 franco-Ontarians in this province. I have just read to you in the last 10 seconds everything that is going to be done for those 600,000 people. That is not much. As a matter of fact, we could say that is nothing. That is just nothing there.

Je trouve qu'il est déplorable, face aux résultats de l'élection, et je trouve que le gouvernement devrait prendre des initiatives dès maintenant. Le président de l'ACFO qui est heureux d'avoir un gouvernement majoritaire en Ontario, nous a dit qu'il s'attendait qu'un gouvernement majoritaire serait en mesure de prendre des décisions difficiles, de prendre des décisions fortes face à la situation que nous voyons dans le moment en Ontario.

Comme il a du être déçu lors du discours du trône, de voir les 10 secondes de texte que je viens de vous lire. Quelle déception de voir que le gouvernement n'a pas le courage et n'a pas la fortitude de reconnaitre le droit des Francophones.

As a representative from the forgotten east -- that is, close to the far east -- I find it unusual there was nothing in the speech from the throne to discuss major issues affecting eastern Ontario. I fail to see why the capital of our country does not even have a decent highway linking it to Highway 401.

I want to tell the government there is life beyond Oshawa, that eastern Ontario goes beyond Kingston. There are more things out there. Perhaps they are unaware. They should be aware because they used to elect solid Tories in that area for many years. As a matter of fact, I think in the 1971 election our caucus only had one member east of Toronto. Now, of course, we have increased that number considerably.

I even see amongst some of the members on the opposite side some people who could easily cross and come and sit here because at one time they were nominated as Liberal candidates. Now, of course, they are not sitting here. That may change through the years when they see the inaction of the government to eastern Ontario.

There is no mention in the throne speech of Highway 416. There is no mention of Highway 138. There is no mention of such worthy projects as Le Rang du Fermier in Prescott-Russell, no mention of locating the high technology centre in Ottawa-Carleton. If I were a government member from the east, I think I would be awfully tempted to cross the floor right this minute.

When those Tories from eastern Ontario vote against our no-confidence motion, I urge them to think of the mandate and the responsibility given them by their electorate before they do so. I think those members should remember why they were elected. They were elected to represent those constituencies which will again get nothing from the present government. They should remember that because we will remind them at the next election.

I will be brief. I think I have been brief. I know some of the other members made very lengthy speeches on the throne speech, but I think in being brief sometimes it is possible to say all that has to be said and be to the point.

I urge the government to cease this arrogance, to become more sensitive to the needs of the population of this province, to accept the input and the constructive criticism, not only of their Progressive Conservative friends, not only of their corporate friends, but of all members of this Legislature and to admit that sometimes opposition members can come up with good and constructive ideas, not just to steal our private member's bills and make them legislation. Sometimes a private member's bill could be enacted.

I hope Ontario can be, once again, the great province it once was.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin this evening by saying that you are kind of a fresh breeze out of the north 40 blowing over the great manure pile yonder and may be good for the roses this spring. I would hope this kind of Americanization of the parliamentary process you have embarked upon will do us all some good. It may. There are lots of traditions in this House which do not necessarily have to be maintained. It may well be that certain changes may take place and I want to speak about that a bit later.

10 p.m.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I heard the term "manure pile" used to refer to the members opposite, and I find the term rather insulting.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see it has achieved its purpose.

Mr. Roy: Is that your exercise for the day?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That was the high point of the speech. So much for the high roads.

Mr. Breaugh: Do not get too familiar. I have noted that a number of opposition people have expressed some disappointment that the BILD program is long gone. But on this side of the House the members ought to remember that since about 1942, I believe, each time the Conservatives have run for office there has been some new program put together.

I recall in my experience this last time that the BILD program came into play and before that there was the Brampton charter. There has always been some very nice, neat package contrived by an expensive public relations firm to convince the people of Ontario that it really was not the old Tories who were running but the new Tories.

Here is a new package of promises which they will present to the people of Ontario in a very effective manner -- and we should not deny that -- that manages to convince the people of Ontario that the Tories have somehow renewed themselves, that the turtle has stepped out of its shell, that it is no longer what it once was and that as soon as they get elected they will do the great things they have promised.

The BILD program will take its place along with the Brampton charter and all of the others. Members on this side of the House should not be disappointed neither should they be surprised at various promises that were made, promises that we are now supposed to help the Premier (Mr. Davis) keep. They will be very quickly forgotten.

In this House in the speech from the throne, and indeed in the first afternoon the House was in session, the government immediately went to work. It talked to the workers of Ontario who had been kind of promised there would be some form of severance pay presented to them. The government in various forms -- in the House by ministers responding to questions and outside with little press conferences -- made it very clear that there is a promise that is going to be a long time coming, if ever.

Then the government went to work on the tenants of this province and it said, inside the House and outside the House, in its various forms and through its various ministers, that that one too may get rearranged. The word play is rather cute because there was a good deal said, from the Premier especially, that rent control will stay. What he did not talk about was the shape and form of the regulations that would accompany that control. So the tenants got it in the neck just about day two as well.

About the same time I thought I saw the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) give it to those people who might be thinking about buying a house. In about one afternoon's work the Tories put their priorities back in shape and the government said very clearly where it was going. Never mind the BILD program. Never mind the promises. Never mind the media campaign. They are back at ruling the roost. The arrogance is going to flow and they are going to do what they want to do. They have their priorities quite clear.

The people of Ontario -- at least the one in every four Ontario voters who voted for them -- probably did understand that and the rest of the people in this province perhaps did not get a clear enough alternative put to them. Who knows what happened? Maybe, as I sensed, many of them are just fed up with the whole political process. So there should not be much surprise on this side. The promises that were made in the heat of the election campaign by the Premier and many other members opposite will go by the board.

One of the things which I find strange about the whole process is very simply this. I seemed to have heard a number of very prominent Tories talk a great deal about preserving the family. That was important.

Let me tell members how tough it is for an auto worker who does not have a job to preserve a family. Let me tell them how tough it is for someone who is trying to run a small business with the current interest rates. It is the kind of problem this government seems to feel is not its responsibility at all.

Let me tell the House how tough it is for those people who decided to stay on a farm, or take up farming, to deal with those interest rates. Many people in here seem to feel that because the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) is not too eloquent that he is not doing a good job. That is not really my mark for him at all. My mark is how well he does the job he is assigned to do in the cabinet. The answer to that, unfortunately, is not very well at all.

How well does the Minister of Housing do the job he is assigned in the cabinet? Does he care? Is he interested in young families who want to have a decent house for themselves for the foreseeable future? No, he does not. He seems to feel it is okay to have housing prices in Toronto and he seems to forget that there are places in Ontario outside of Toronto where the effect is the same.

He seems to assume that's okay. He seems to feel that when we ask questions about the escalating prices of housing, we are talking about the downtown, trendy, sand blasted townhouses. There aren't too many of those in Oshawa. There aren't very many at all in Ottawa or Sudbury or Thunder Bay or Sault Ste. Marie or any of the other places where we live. When we ask those questions, we are not particularly concerned about somebody who is turning over a $200,000 townhouse in downtown Toronto.

I am more concerned about someone who is trying to raise a family, trying to keep that family together, where man and wife both have to work to meet the interest rates, where virtually no one can purchase a house unless there is some buy down provision in the sales agreement. That's a serious thing and if he doesn't know about that, if his staff doesn't know about that, that's an even further admission that the minister himself and the people who we pay in this province to run the Ministry of Housing don't really know what's going on inside that field.

Because I come from a community which is dominated by one major industry, let me speak just a little bit about the auto industry itself. Without question, in the last couple of years it has been in a decline. It has had many serious problems. In my area alone we have lost probably somewhere around 2,000 permanent jobs. We hope that in the whole Oshawa vicinity we are more fortunate than other people in Oakville and in Windsor have been and the people who worked in all of the small parts plants that are all through Metropolitan Toronto and throughout the rest of Ontario.

We hope that there is, with General Motors being the prime mover and shaker in the industry, some stability in that area. The very best we are hoping for is that the layoffs will be temporary. The very best we are hoping for is that a year, perhaps two years from now, the market will recover, and that the kind of research and development which has never been done in this country, let alone in this province, will come about.

The assurances are slight. For those people who worked at Chrysler who are on either a temporary or a permanent layoff -- depending on what the labour relations board finally determines -- for them, all of these other problems about trying to keep the house they are in, about rent control, about buying new houses, about interest rates, about mortgage rates, are not just inconveniences. They don't just mean that the family savings plan is going to suffer for the next year or so.

To them it means that one Saturday this spring, they are going to back a truck up to their place of abode, if it's a townhouse or one of the condominiums in our area; they are going to pack it up, try to get a quick clean and get out of there because they don't have much of an economic future in this province.

Most of them I think now have come to a realization that with the Tories back in a majority, there really isn't much of an opportunity for anyone to do anything to help them, because most of those people basically understand who the Tories work for and what their purpose in life really is and what their priorities are. If they don't, I predict by the time the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. F. S. Miller) brings down his first budget in this session, they will have a very clear understanding.

I want to speak just briefly about things having to do with the Health ministry. The government of Ontario has gone through a phase in the last two or three years where the Ministry of Health has been discussed. It has been talked about, and a number of problems have been raised. A number of very serious areas have been discussed by a lot of people.

We have had, for the first time that I can remember, three strikes in one year in our hospital system.

The one in the fall was a strike by the interns and residents and we saw the government's attitude to them; quite a reasonable one in fact. Although there wasn't much of an open admission there was responsibility on the part of this government to do anything about it, things certainly did happen and a settlement occurred, a fair and reasonable settlement.

In February of this year our hospital workers were driven to the point of doing something which they really didn't want to do, a hospital strike, by an offer that was hardly acceptable to them. I think it's interesting to compare the government's reaction to those two strikes in the same institution.

Certainly, in both of those instances -- if the government is worried; if it feels the prime focus of its concern ought to be the care of the patients in the hospital -- we should have seen with our hospital workers the exact same amount of concern, the exact same amount of money put on the table as we saw for the interns and residents. We should have seen at work that backroom negotiating we saw in the fall for the interns and residents. We should have seen the same people from the ministry out in the same hotel lobby in the same meeting room working to get a settlement. But we didn't.

10:10 p.m.

What we saw in that instance was the Attorney General of this province (Mr. McMurtry) decide that all of a sudden injunctions had to be sought, that the full force of law had to be brought against the hospital workers. We saw in those days an immense amount of activity on the part of the government, not attempting to get a settlement but attempting to punish the hospital workers.

Perhaps that would have been a clear choice of the priorities of the government of the day. Perhaps it is, I do not know. Perhaps to the government at that time it made some sense to try to use the legal process to break that strike. Much as I regret it, it seemed to have succeeded.

I will explain one thing I do not understand, though. Why is this happening now, almost three months after the strike has been ended, when we ought to be doing everything we can do as a government, as hospital workers, as hospital administrators, to resolve those open wounds that are left there from that strike; when the activities, the interests and the focus of the government should be on bringing peace back to our hospital situation; when we ought to be bringing together administrators, people from the unions and people from the ministries and saying, "Okay, a strike occurred"?

In every industrial strike there is always some rancour. One does not get out of those things pleasantly. Strikes by their very nature are not pleasant activities. No one I know, certainly not those walking the picket lines, likes a strike.

But afterwards, everyone who has been involved in a strike understands very clearly that there needs to be a period of reconciliation when you put down the swords, you sit around the bargaining table, and sometimes out in the hail, and you talk to people to try to make sure that the people who are working in our situations, in hospitals now, feel that they are not totally abandoned -- when the rancour of the strike is set aside, when the attempt is made to heal those wounds, when the attempt is made basically to put peace back into that situation, when you attempt to put some stability back in there.

It is beyond me why now, more than three months after the strike has ended, the Attorney General's office is still conducting what one of their own officials described as one of the largest investigations they have ever done into the activities of the hospital workers. Why is it that three months after that strike is over the ministry is still looking to do some kind of secret police activity on our hospital workers?

Is there any surprise that some of them were on the picket line? We know that. Is there any surprise that other members in the trade union movement, in opposition parties, and maybe even one or two on the government side over there, went out to talk to people on the picket line to express some support for hospital workers? That is not news; that was in the newspapers three months ago. Why do we now have a massive police investigation into the activities of the hospital workers? I can find no logical explanation for it.

I asked a question during the question period of today's session about that. Frankly, I did not get much of an answer; it was something about justice having to be seen to be done. I do not know how that relates to hospital workers who have lost their jobs, who have grievances going against them and who now have some kind of unstated police action going against them as well.

In our western free democracies, we are very careful about the activities of our police officers. We say that over here is a set of laws and over there, if you allege that someone broke those laws, you say so and then you attempt to do an investigation which leads to some laying of charges and some judicial process.

We do not normally have police officers going around doing this kind of surveillance after the fact. We do not normally have the Ontario Provincial Police conducting an investigation over a three- or four-month period for no apparent purpose. They do that in other places. The KGB is quite good at that. I am told the CIA is quite good at that. But I do not think of my Ontario Provincial police officer as someone who does that. That does not strike me to be a clear role for them to play.

When they came to Oshawa and asked the local newspaper reporters for copies of pictures that had appeared in the Oshawa Times, they did not have much of a reason as to why they were there. It got me to thinking: why exactly did we send police officers from the Whitby detachment, and this morning from the downtown Toronto detachment, out to Oshawa to get copies of pictures they already have? Is that all that our police officers have to do? No, I am afraid not. I am afraid that our police forces are a little undermanned in most communities in this province.

I thought our priorities were such that the financial arrangements there were pretty stretched. I thought Ontario was having difficulty coming up with two-man patrol cars in remote areas. The argument basically was not that it was not a desirable idea, but very simply that they financially could not afford to do that. Yet they can afford to conduct a four-month investigation into this kind of stuff?

Just this afternoon in the Toronto Star, to kind of encapsulate one day's comments on problems that police officers might have, I read that the fraudulent use of credit cards is up somewhere over 30 per cent. That may be an inconvenience to Eaton's or Simpsons or the Bay -- and they are all practically the same thing now -- because they can roll that on into the price. They are big enough to absorb some of that loss. But to a smaller merchant that is disaster time, because he or she has to absorb that loss.

Would it not be a sensible thing to have our police working in that area? If the government has such great concern for small business, such great concern for the family and such great concern for law and order, why does it not go and do something about that?

Again, on the same front page, I read -- and this is supposedly the responsibility of the same minister -- that some 75 hotels here in Toronto cannot meet the various fire standards that are around. Why not? Where are these hotels? How do I know, if I check into one tonight, which ones meet the safety standards and which ones do not? Why is it that the Inn on the Park fire was supposedly under the jurisdiction not of the Ontario fire marshal and not of the local fire department, but of the Ontario Liquor Licence Board? How does that happen?

How is it that since 1975 there has been a draft consolidation of the fire acts which, if enacted, would have clarified all this maze of regulations, made our hotels safer, streamlined the process, done the investigation and informed the public? Where has that one been for five years? On many occasions one finds here that good ideas are thought up, brought down to Queen's Park, put on a shelf somewhere and never reappear again.

The hospital workers had the same kind of major investigation, because in 1967 when the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act came into play, there was recognition on the part of the government that more than 90 per cent of the people included under that act were not really in essential services. Until that time, they certainly had not been considered to be in essential services. So they set out the usual routine for a major committee to do a study on that. In 1974, that committee reported. It said there really had to be a rather massive streamlining of that system to decide what was an essential service in a hospital, what the different roles are that should be played and what kind of compensation should be offered to different people in the hospital work place. That one has gone nowhere either.

Just this week the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) announced he has his priorities all lined up. His major concern is not the hospital workers, but the physicians. I think most of us on this side will recognize that the physicians in this province, by and large, are a decent group of people and deserve to get a decent buck. I am not going to argue against anybody getting a salary increase, but the priorities are wrong. Surely the priorities are wrong when a government can offer to the highest paid person working in a hospital that kind of money -- 14.75 per cent or something like $10,000 to $12,000 -- while at the other end of the scale for the ordinary hospital worker all they have really got to offer is a little more police surveillance for an activity that occurred more than three months ago.

I ask today again is that the benchmark? Is that the standard by which all salary contracts are going to be judged this year? I have listened to various Treasurers establish those benchmarks. First it was seven per cent, then nine per cent and then less than 10 or maybe 11. For the highest income group in the province the minister has set the benchmark. Whether he wants to call it that or not, whether he is pleased with that or not, he has made that first settlement; he has made that benchmark. He made it at 14.75 per cent, but he is going to have a very difficult time talking to the remainder of the people in the employ of the civil service in Ontario or people out there in private industry. They are going to say, "If the highest income group deserves that kind of increase, then surely the lowest income group just by the nature of fairness deserves a similar amount of money." All those in between have a rightful claim to come pretty close to that mark as well.

That might be a problem for this government a little later on, because I sense a lot of people out there in their homes with their mortgages coming up for renewal, with money borrowed from a bank or a credit union at 16, 17 or 18 per cent, are going to be saying: "I need a little catch-up on this too. I need to have my wages reflect the cost of inflation as it comes into my house. Though my income may not be in the $60,000 to $70,000 bracket, as a lot of physicians have, I pay the same kind of interest rates as they do and the cost of housing for me is the same as it is for them."

10:20 p.m.

If they live in rental accommodation, they will be taking a look at the kind of weaseling around we have seen from the government already on precisely what kind of rent controls they are talking about. When they go to negotiate this time, in this round of negotiations, they are going to be saying just precisely that. The government has set a benchmark.

We are all looking at costs in many fields that are around 14, 15 and 16 per cent over what they were last year. Many of them are going to say out of fairness, "That is what I want." The government of Ontario in one of its first acts in a new parliament made that benchmark.

I want to conclude this evening by offering a bit of discussion about this place, wonderful old institution that it is. I began by saying, Mr. Speaker, that I recognize you are going to make some changes here. I want to preface my remarks by saying that all through the minority government a great many changes took place in the rules, the procedure and the way things happened around here. I would make a plea to both sides of the House that not all of that work go out the window just because there is a new majority government in place.

For many of us who worked on the procedural affairs committee or who worked in this House debating the reports of that committee, I think we found something in the course of those five years. It was not just a way to make a minority government work, not just a way to do some things in a little different way, but I think we were beginning to carve out something which has been a problem on both sides of the House for a long time.

The ancient parliamentary tradition really is that the government consists of those people who occupy the front benches. The people who form the cabinet with the Premier run the show. For all of those people who have been mentioned by a number of speakers as being here for the first time, one of the saddest lessons to learn is what the role is of a backbencher in a majority. It is sad to say it often turns out to be that the role is a pretty simple one. He stands up when he is told to stand up and says "yes" when he is told to say "yes" and "no" when he is told to say "no." The rest of the time he sits down and shuts up. That is not too complicated a life to lead, but after a while the thrill of standing with the government gets a little bit hazy.

Many of us, some of whom have been here during majorities and some of whom have never seen a majority at work, having spent all of their parliamentary careers in a minority situation, followed the lines laid down by the Camp commission, the Morrow report and the procedural affairs committee report, out of all of which comes a common line, namely, that there is some talent in here other than those people who are named to the cabinet.

I heard some lighthearted remarks about the brilliance or near-brilliance or the almost brilliance or the tarnished brilliance of some of those people who occupy cabinet positions now. It is true, and government members will see it from that side every bit as clearly as we will see it from this side. If there is somebody sitting in the back benches over there who looks down at the man who made Brylcreem famous and says, "I really couldn't do the job as well as that person is doing the job," he should get out of here now because he should not be around here.

I know there will be people in all parties who have a contribution to make to the workings of this government. Whether one is a government member or not, front bench or back bench on either side of the House, there are things one can do, which in a municipal setting one would do and which in a school board setting one would do. The great tragedy here is that one often does not get a chance to do very much unless one makes it to the cabinet.

This House is not the size of the federal House. It is not the size of the House of Commons at Westminster. Most of the members here are here almost every day. Most of the members are here anxious to make some change that will help the constituents they serve back home.

I would recommend for new members' reading the reports of Camp and Morrow and the procedural affairs committee where we tried to lay out a role for the individual member, for the private member, to play. We talked about a lot of things. We talked about committee structure and we talked about the way we would go about those things. Through that I think members will find a consensus. It is my hope that all of that work which has gone on for almost a decade now will not be lost all of a sudden.

On both sides of the House, on the government side and on the opposition side, I think members will find in all of that discussion, in all of those reports, in all those debates, that there is something which should not be lost, and that is a better form of government for the people of Ontario.

In many respects we went through what I guess is pretty standard form now -- discussions about how relevant anything is in here. If new members look around tonight, they will see what they had better get used to because on Tuesday and Thursday nights there is not always a jammed gallery to be seen. As a matter of fact, in this Parliament since I have been here I think I can recall about a dozen times when the galleries were full of interested citizens. The remainder of the time members will find one or two people in here and will see up there in the press gallery tonight what they will see most nights here, except on some rare occasions during the year when some great event will be taking place.

I recall the first evening I saw Darcy McKeough present a budget. I had never before seen drama of that high a form in the political forum. That great, ultra right-wing Tory, with the gallery full of adoring fans and the television cameras on, gave a really good show. But that will happen maybe once a year. Most of the time nobody will care what is said. Hansard will record it and its very faithful staff will usually get it right, but there will not be a lot of attention paid to the members.

One of the things we talked about in the last session was the need to make this Parliament worth watching, like the federal House, which has an electronic Hansard which provides something to give constituents some idea of who their member is and what he is doing and saying at Queen's Park. That may dictate that the procedures of the House be such that the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) will not be putting his feet up on his desk in the late evening hours, because he would be very media conscious and afraid that somebody might catch him doing that. The people will not sleep while someone is making his maiden speech on the throne speech. There will not be just a handful of members from one's own caucus there; the House will be in session as it ought to be.

We also talked a great deal about committees, who should chair committees and what committees should be able to do so that they could have a little bit of scope. Many of us came from someplace else in politics, from municipal council, for example, where each and every person who is part of that body has some job to do and gets a chance to participate.

Although new members do not run the whole show, they really do get a chance to change some things for the people they represent. In all of the recommendations which Camp and Morrow made and in those the procedural affairs committee made, that element is there, namely, that every person who gets elected to this House should have the opportunity to make some changes, to do some things for the people back home -- that is the traditional role -- and to participate in the process and not just be an observer or a critic, but actually change the nature and the structure of government in Ontario.

I think that is important, and I sense in the decade of debate which has ensued since Dalton Camp and his group first approached the problem that we came to some conclusions. They were not always perfect, and I do not think anybody who worked on the committees which investigated those reports suggests for a moment that ultimate solutions are there. But through it all is that key role of the ordinary member. That is important and the reason it is important is not that it gives a member something useful to do, but simply that there is something in that for the government.

If the government of Ontario works better, and I believe it would if we readjusted our committee systems a bit here, I have no illusions about who will get the credit for that. It will be those people who are traditionally referred to as the government of Ontario, that is, the cabinet. For the opposition members, there ought to be a clearly defined role of what they are to do here. It should not always be that of sitting in the estimates committee for 20 hours when nobody is listening or paying much attention. There one gets a chance to say whatever one wants to say, but it will not change anything very much.

I must say, as someone who has been here for a little while and has seen this House change in small ways, facing a Tory majority is going to take a little getting used to. I do not have any illusions about the political process. You win some and you lose some. I have done both, and I really would rather win, but I have to accept at the end that that is precisely what elections are all about. What is important for all of us to remember is the rather sad fact that two things happen.

One thing is that a government can get this size of a majority in this province with only one out of every four people eligible to vote voting for it. That should speak to all of us here. The political process is a long way from being perfect.

The second thing is of lesser concern to me, I suppose. It is that the current Premier in all of the elections he has won and some which he almost won has one steady line. He has managed to drive down consistently the number of people who vote in an election. That, I think, is a sad thing from the Premier's point of view. It may be even sadder for everybody else who sat around 33 March 19 and said, "I just don't have the time to go and vote. I can't be bothered to go and vote."

For the next four or five years I think it will be important for all members in all parties on all sides of this House to see what each one of us can do in our respective roles as government and opposition members to turn that around. That indeed is a formidable challenge.

On motion by Hon. Mr. McCague, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 10:31 p.m.