Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINISTRY MAILING

Mr Daigeler: One of my constituents recently sent me a copy of a letter from the Attorney General that makes me wonder whether the minister reads his letters before he signs them. Apparently this letter is being sent to all prospective jurors in the province, and this makes the minister's carelessness all the more embarrassing.

Instead of "trial date," the letter said "trail date" and instead of "thanking" people for their participation, the minister is "thinking" them for their participation. I do not even want to mention the spelling mistakes in the French version.

As my constituent writes:

"At a time when our education system is criticized for not 'producing' individuals capable of reading, writing and spelling, a letter sent to thousands of Ontario residents should set an example, particularly coming from a minister of the crown."

I hope that from now on the Attorney General will heed my constituent's advice, will make drastic changes in his office and will read his letters before he signs them.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Jordan: Since the outbreak of the Persian Gulf crisis, the people of Ontario have seen dramatic increases in the price of their gasoline. While most Ontarians recognize that gasoline prices reflect world oil prices, they also fear that oil companies have profited unjustly by raising prices before they had to.

The New Democratic Party, when it sat on this side of the House, echoed similar concerns. In 1987, the present Minister of Natural Resources demanded that the previous government "come down on the side of consumers for once and end price gouging at the pumps."

The ironic part of this story is that the exorbitant price that this member was talking about just three years ago was 42 cents a litre, nowhere near the 70-cent levels that my constituents in Lanark-Renfrew are complaining about today.

On 3 October of this year, the Premier promised he would protect Ontarians from unjust gasoline price increases, telling reporters:

"If we find price increases that are totally unjustified and are creating a windfall situation, we have the constitutional power to deal with that. It would require legislation."

Given past articulations of both his party's stand while in opposition and his own promises as Premier, our

Premier seems committed to action. Lanark-Renfrew and the rest of Ontario anxiously await.

GRASSROOTS

Mr Sutherland: I would like to make a statement today on a very active group in my riding known as Grassroots. Grassroots is an environmental awareness group that has been in existence since October 1989. In little over a year they have established themselves as the credible voice on environmental issues in my riding. They have achieved this status through logical presentations based on strong research.

Among the issues Grassroots has dealt with are the following: approaching Woodstock city council requesting a household hazardous waste collection program for the city; convincing Woodstock city council and the township of Norwich to oppose the building of a biomedical waste incinerator based on the fact that Grassroots research has indicated that biomedical waste incineration is extremely harmful to the environment.

Grassroots has also been extremely active in public education about environmental issues through classroom talks, public lectures, environmental fairs, columns in local newspapers and radio spots.

Grassroots membership consists of housewives, professionals, working people and others who are genuinely concerned about the environment. They are successfully fulfilling one of their goals, which is to think globally but to act locally in order to be part of the solution to the global environmental problem.

I want to congratulate Grassroots on a successful first year of activities and hope that it continues to be a shining example of what each of us can do individually to help our environment.

LITERACY

Mr Curling: We speak often about removing the barriers that act to prevent individuals from full participation in our society. One of these barriers is illiteracy. Recognizing this, the United Nations declared 1990 as International Year of Literacy.

Illiteracy is a silent, crippling handicap that condemns too many of our citizens to a life outside the mainstream of society. An estimated one out of every five adult Canadians can be described as functionally illiterate; that is, millions of adult Canadians do not have the ability to read the printed material encountered every day at work, at home and in the community. Twenty-two per cent of our youth who drop out of school are illiterate, and more than 10% of those who do graduate cannot carry out the basic reading and writing skills.

At the forefront of the efforts to promote literacy in Ontario and to make all of us more aware of the costs of illiteracy to our society and to the human spirit are the legions of volunteers in the communities across the province. This Thursday 29 November 1990, the Scarborough Public Library Board, in co-operation with the government of Canada, will be hosting an awards ceremony to acknowledge the work and dedication of some of these volunteers.

I know that all of the members of this House will want to join me in congratulating the award winners, and at the same time I would like to remind the government that these volunteers cannot win the battle alone. Government must match the commitment of these individuals and groups with a commitment of new dollars.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr Tilson: At the annual meeting of the Fair Rental Policy Organization last Thursday evening, the Minister of Housing announced that his government will introduce the changes outlined in its Agenda for People. There will be strict rent controls with no extra bonuses to landlords for capital and financing costs.

The minister, however, did not explain how he intends to deal with the implications of this decision. By removing the provision for capital cost, the minister must now deal with the $10 billion worth of renovation and repair work that his ministry reports is required to maintain Ontario's aging rental stock. The rental housing industry has already indicated that $32 million of planned renovation and repair work will not proceed, resulting in the loss of 16,400 construction jobs.

By removing the provisions for financial loss, current building values will decline by 25.7%, according to Professor Andrew Muller of McMaster University. The province will have wiped out $15 billion in equity.

We share the government's frustration with the current process. This system is not working for either landlords or tenants. But the government's solution does not deal with the central issue of lack of supply. Stricter controls will drive private investment out of the rental market. The maintenance and repair work needed to preserve the existing stock will not be done. The province will be forced to spend billions constructing every new rental unit in the province.

The issue of affordability will not be addressed, since 28% of all tenants will spend in excess of 30% of their income on rents. Other tenants will be protected from large increases in the short term but in time their units will begin to deteriorate around them. In the worst-case scenario, the New York experience will be replicated in our large urban centres. In the South Bronx, hundreds of acres formerly devoted to rental housing are now abandoned.

1340

REST HOMES

Mr Christopherson: I thank my constituents for bestowing upon me the honour and privilege of representing them in this Legislature. The people of Hamilton Centre have a clear message for our new government. They are demanding we provide leadership on a host of critical issues, issues such as the environment, poverty, fair taxes and the continuing recession.

Notwithstanding these important issues, my first statement in this House will address the plight of tens of thousands of Ontarians who are currently living in rest and retirement homes. These homes are also known as residential care facilities or, in the case of my home town of Hamilton, as second-level lodging homes. It is unacceptable that in the dawn of the 1990s, facilities such as these, providing assistance with the activities of daily living, are still operating largely unregulated.

For too long now, local communities have been left to fill this legislative vacuum as best they could and to shoulder the provincial responsibility for what are in many cases unacceptable levels of care. Ten years ago my city of Hamilton showed leadership in passing the first bylaw in Ontario in an attempt to provide at least minimal protection for these residents. I recommend that our government examine the recent Hamilton proposal in developing these much needed regulations.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Miclash: According to Ministry of Health figures, since this government came into office on 1 October, over 570 northern residents have missed out on full, equal access to health care services that were guaranteed to them.

The former government took very seriously its commitment to accessible, quality health care for all of Ontario and worked very hard to ensure that people from the north had the same access to health care services as their southern Ontario counterparts.

In 1985, the former government brought in the northern health travel grant as a short-term measure while it instituted structural changes to health care services in the north. Under the travel grant program, northern patients who had to travel a considerable distance to receive health care services which were not available in their own communities were eligible for financial assistance to cover the costs of these travels.

In 1988 and 1990, after consulting with northerners, changes were made to ensure that this health program would best serve the northerners. In a private member's resolution on 31 May 1990, I introduced changes that were agreed upon by all members in the House. The changes called for the lowering of the travel distance requirement, removal of the age restriction for travel companions and coverage of accommodation expenses.

The people of northern Ontario are waiting for equal access to health care that has now been delayed by this government. Why will it not enact these changes immediately? I am calling on this government to stop making the people of northern Ontario wait for these services.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Arnott: As recently as Thursday of last week, the Minister of Transportation affirmed his government's commitment to highway safety, making it one of his ministry's number one priorities.

In October 1989, former Wellington MPP Jack Johnson raised in this House the subject of safety on Highway 6 between Guelph and Owen Sound and called for an immediate study on the feasibility of constructing appropriate passing lanes on this hazardous, heavily travelled 130-kilometre stretch of highway.

In response, a study was undertaken by the ministry's regional office in London to determine the need for improvements to the highway in this area. The study's findings were to be released at the end of July of this year. To date, there has been no report.

Because of the tremendous support which all municipal councils in the area expressed for this initiative, I am extremely anxious to know whether or not the new Minister of Transportation has received a report on the Highway 6 study and, if so, how soon it will be available to the public and when the government will act on its recommendations.

SAULT STE MARIE

Mr Martin: I want to speak for a few minutes today about the place that I call home, the place I choose to raise four children. Saute Ste Marie is a beautiful city, situated in the very heart of Canada, approximately halfway between the two coasts. It boasts many natural resources, water and the forest being but two. Certainly the production of steel and paper has been the centre of economic activity for many years.

At this point in its history, Sault Ste Marie, like many Canadian communities its size, and because of its dependence on one major industry, Algoma Steel, is experiencing some difficult times. We are being challenged daily to rethink the way we do business and, living across the river from the United States, the reality of living in a global community and all that that entails.

However, the greatest asset of our city is our people. We have a wonderfully diverse, talented, energetic population, people who at moments become rather feisty with one another as we move forward into the next century; people who want to take advantage of those opportunities now present and to come to build a future which speaks of prosperity for all.

This brings me to the need to hold up to members one of our most outstanding citizens, a person many members may know because he served with them here in the House. Karl Morin-Strom represents for me the best Sault Ste Marie has to offer: a very highly educated, Harvard- trained economist, a PhD who chose to return to his community to work and returned to it some of what it gave him as a youth. Karl is a hardworking man of high principles and very well developed moral values. Karl, for me, represents the best in all of us from Sault Ste Marie: principled, caring and committed.

FIRE PREVENTION

The Speaker: Last Thursday 22 November, the honourable member for Carleton raised a point of order about the appropriateness of a statement made by the honourable member for Perth during members' statements. I undertook at that time to review Hansard and report to the House. I have had an opportunity to do so and I must report that I could find nothing that went against our practices in the statement made by the honourable member for Perth, as she is not a parliamentary assistant.

I would like to take this opportunity, however, to remind honourable members that members' statements time is not to be used for parliamentary assistants to make statements that ought to be made during that period reserved for statements by the ministry, nor should it be an opportunity to make personal attacks on other members.

FOOD CONTAINERS

The Speaker: Also on Thursday last during question period, the honourable member for Nipissing, the leader of the third party, asked a question of the Minister of the Environment which dealt with the use of disposable containers. In his supplementary to the minister the subject matter expanded to the use of the containers in the Legislative Assembly cafeteria and, among other things, the windows in the Legislative Building.

During the minister's reply, I interrupted the minister because I felt that the supplementary question dealt with a matter which came under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Assembly and that therefore it should be dealt with by the Board of Internal Economy.

I have looked into this and wish to report to the House that I will be sending each member of the assembly a report on this matter in the very near future.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRANSIT SERVICES

Hon Mr Philip: By way of introducing this important statement, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of previous ministers of transportation who in various ways laid the groundwork for the initiatives that I will be announcing today.

Public transportation plays an important role in fostering a clean environment, a good quality of life and economic prosperity. But right now our urban transportation in southern Ontario is under pressure, strained by the past decade's dramatic population growth and economic expansion, and we are all aware of the consequences: pollution, energy waste, traffic congestion, commuter frustration, accidents and a very real threat to our economic competitiveness.

There is no single, simple solution. However, I am convinced that we can make a difference through better use of transit systems and transit corridors. Today I am announcing the first of a series of initiatives to encourage this, the greening of transportation in Ontario.

In Metropolitan Toronto we must ensure that the TTC remains the "better way." Riders of the system have come to expect excellent service, the best in North America, this despite the fact that in the 1980s fewer real dollars were invested in Toronto's transit system than in the 1950s. In order to maintain the TTC's service and reputation, my ministry will provide an additional $70 million over five years specifically to improve subway maintenance and reliability. This funding, which will cover 75% of the cost of anticipated capital improvements, will directly benefit TTC riders.

1350

But money for maintenance is not the only answer. It is absolutely essential that workers' skills are developed to meet the challenges of the future. With that goal in mind, my ministry will undertake a review of the opportunities to expand and improve transit maintenance training. We will work with operators, unions and colleges to establish training centres which will promote expertise in transit maintenance for the domestic and international markets.

There has been rapid growth in population around our urban centres and there are now 17 individual transit systems within the greater Toronto area alone. Commuting patterns require that we eliminate artificial barriers. People must be able to travel easily from one public transit system to another. Therefore, my ministry will lead discussion with regional and local governments on finding new ways to link services so that transit use is encouraged.

We recognize that one of the most efficient and flexible means of moving people is by dedicated, exclusive lanes for the use of buses and car pools. For this new thrust, we intend to work with municipalities to encourage and define a network of high-occupancy-vehicle lanes in the major urban areas.

This government knows the importance of long-range planning and we are determined to leave our mark in this area. We must protect the corridors in the GTA for future transit systems. As a result, I am announcing that we will now include exclusive transit corridors in the planning of Highway 403 and Highway 407.

I am also announcing that the first phase of a cooperative federal-provincial study on ground transportation needs for Pearson International Airport and the surrounding area should be available for public discussion in the spring. I would like to compliment my federal counterpart, the Honourable Doug Lewis, on his willingness to work with the provincial government in this area.

In addition, we are discussing with CN, CP and the Department of Transport the potential for using existing rail freight corridors for commuter and passenger rail services. This review will include corridors which are currently being used for passenger rail purposes and those which are not. We will also purchase abandoned railway rights of way which are most appropriate for future transportation purposes. In this regard, my ministry has initiated discussions with CN towards the acquisition of the CN rail line north of Stouffville and through Uxbridge.

GO rail usage has grown dramatically, with ridership up 50% in the last three years. GO Transit will play an ever-increasing role in this government's environmentally sensitive transportation plans. We intend to develop a long-term passenger rail transportation strategy towards the efficient movement of people in southern Ontario. We will also accelerate GO Transit rail service expansion as we move towards all-day, two-way service in the Milton. Georgetown, Richmond Hill, Stouffville, Hamilton and Oshawa GO rail lines. Where demand exists, nothing short of all-day service will suffice.

We are interested in co-operative ventures whenever possible. We have established with Via Rail the conditions under which Via will provide a commuter service between Brantford and Toronto.

I am happy to provide some additional information which was not known at the time that my statement was circulated to the press gallery and members of the opposition parties. Before I entered the House, I had just been informed by the office of the Honourable Doug Lewis that they have approved the service of London through Brantford to Toronto, and I can inform the residents of Brantford that that service will begin on 14 January of next year.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Philip: I am not sure the leader of the official opposition could take that much excitement, but I will continue none the less.

We will be initiating a government-subsidized bus-GO rail link to serve the diverse public transportation needs of the people living in Peterborough and Durham region. We will work with private bus carriers in consultation with municipalities to provide frequent, reliable service. Schedule co-ordination and through ticketing will be available to ensure smooth transfers between bus and enhanced Oshawa and Whitby GO rail service.

This undertaking will not only serve the needs of the people travelling to the many destinations in Metropolitan Toronto but will also carry workers to General Motors in Oshawa and other major destinations of public transit users in the region. Pending discussions with the private carriers, we expect the service will begin in February 1991.

I would like to confirm that this government will support the rapid transit infrastructure investments outlined in the Let's Move program. These include such projects as the Yonge-Spadina subway loop, the Sheppard subway, the Scarborough rapid transit expansion, the Eglinton West corridor and the Mississauga bus way. We are now working with the Toronto Transit Commission and GO Transit to co-ordinate equipment orders for this major program. There are thousands of workers in Thunder Bay and Kingston who will be thrilled to hear this, not to mention the thousands of other workers across the province employed with transit industry suppliers.

The initiatives announced today to expand public transit services and increase usage reinforce this government's pledge to reduce vehicle emissions and lessen transportation's excessive dependency on nonrenewable energy.

To ensure our success we will work closely with local and regional municipalities, transit operators, the railways, the private motor coach companies and others.

Together we will provide transportation which serves people effectively, keeps our cities livable and protects the environment for those who will follow us.

PENSION FUNDS

Hon Mr Rae: My government has instructed its lawyers to withdraw from a case scheduled to be heard in the Ontario Court of Appeal tomorrow, 27 November 1990. The decision to withdraw is consistent with our long-standing belief that all money in pension plans is deferred wages of the pension plan members and ought to be used only to pay for benefits under the plan.

When the case is heard, employees of the Ontario Hospital Association will be challenging the propriety of contribution holidays in their pension plan. The employees are appealing a 1988 decision of the Divisional Court which granted the OHA the right to withhold approximately $82 million in contributions to the employees' pension plan, the hospitals of Ontario pension plan.

The previous government supported the hospital association and not the employees at the Ontario Divisional Court in 1988 and had intended to support the OHA's contribution holiday at the Court of Appeal.

There are many important issues around our government's withdrawal from the pension dispute between the OHA and the hospital employees.

First, for many years as members of the opposition, New Democrats have vigorously argued that so-called surplus funds in pension plans are in reality deferred wages and thus belong to the members of the pension plan. If there are surplus funds, the surplus should be used to improve benefits for plan members. That remains our position as a government.

1400

Second, the pension legislation of the previous Liberal government is unclear on the issue of contribution holidays. For this reason, the hospital employees and the OHA have been forced to resolve their dispute through expensive and time-consuming court proceedings. This case is not unique. Last year, the Canadian Union of Public Employees fought and won a similar case against Ontario Hydro.

Finally, as stated in the throne speech, my government plans to introduce pension reform. We are reviewing pension legislation and upon completion of the review we will be announcing details of our reform initiative. I assure members we will provide clear direction on pension policy and resolve the questions around the ownership of so-called surplus.

My government will not force pension plan members and sponsors to wage expensive legal battles to establish pension policy in this province. We have long upheld the right of women and men to retire with dignity and with economic security, and our commitment to decent pensions for retired workers remains stronger than ever.

RESPONSES

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Chiarelli: I would like to respond to the Premier's statement. First, I want to say that he is doing a bit of grandstanding. He is taking the chicken way out. The New Democratic Party is on record in its Agenda for People to permit surpluses to go to the benefit of workers. They are on record for many years. They are also on record supporting indexation. What the Premier has done here is something that is so small and picayune on the main issue that he is trying to deflect from the people of this province, that he is backtracking once again on a major promise of this government.

He had every opportunity to introduce legislation to deal with surpluses. What does he do? He withdraws from a court case. The Ontario Hospital Association can proceed with the case and can be successful. What if they are successful? What happens to the surplus? Where is the Premier's legislation? Where is his commitment? This is another case of this government backtracking and not having the guts to honour its own commitments.

The people on the back benches over there know what their Agenda for People is. They know that they want the surplus to go to the workers. Where is the legislation? Why did the Premier not come out and support the workers in this case? He simply withdraws. The case probably will be made just as well by the OHA lawyers. If they are successful, what happens to the surplus?

The Premier does not have the courage of his convictions. He has refused to bring in substantial legislation to deal with his agenda and it is another broken commitment.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mrs Sullivan: I would like to respond to the announcement from the Minister of Transportation. I noticed that the minister appears to have taken his speech from the desk drawer, since it really refers to a great deal of initiatives that had in fact been undertaken by the previous government.

The minister, I notice, has broken his GO rail promise relating to Peterborough, but generally we must welcome the announcement of the continuation of the Let's Move program. That $5-billion commitment to rapid transit infrastructure made by the Liberal government is critical in moving people through the greater Toronto area and critical to our environment.

While the Toronto Transit Commission will clearly benefit from the $70 million in new capital allocations, we are concerned that there is no announcement and no mention of additional operating commitments. When will the minister make clear to the people of Toronto that the commitment is a solid and continuing one and that the province of Ontario has a real stake in supporting the Toronto Transit Commission and the movement of people through rapid transit in this area?

I am surprised to see that the remainder of the minister's statement was really a reiteration of policies and actions that had been initiated by the previous government. The integration of public transit systems was addressed in the first stages through the integration of fares of the TTC and GO, and through the gateway programs. The federal-provincial study on ground transportation needs for Pearson International Airport was under way through the last government.

The minister clearly believes in recycling, so much so that part of what he has announced is already under way. His colleagues must have listened carefully and with some disappointment, however, because the minister made no reference, for example, to the Via Rail cuts in northeastern Ontario. There is much that can be applauded here, but much has been left out.

Mr Sorbara: Just one word on the minister's announcement with respect to transportation and particularly on his commitment to actually undertake the construction of the looping of the two subway systems, the two lines, in Metropolitan Toronto. I hope he will be aware that there was a great deal of discussion both within his ministry and in the community to make sure that alignment passed to York University and along Steeles Avenue.

In the throne speech we saw nothing dealing with education and particularly higher education. One of the things the Minister of Transportation could do, if he had the daring, would be to confirm within the next few days that York University will be brought into the Metropolitan Toronto transit system by way of the TTC and that the new line that loops the two lines will pass along Steeles Avenue.

It has been a great burden on York University over the past 25 years of its history not to be integrated into the transportation system. The minister has an opportunity today or in the next few weeks to solve that problem once and for all.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party?

Mr Harris: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sorry; I did not know whether all the leadership candidates had an opportunity to speak yet or not.

Interjections.

Mr Harris: I gather from the comments they all have not. I know what it is like. I have been through it not that long ago, and I understand exactly.

Interjections.

Mr Harris: Use every 30 seconds you can find.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Harris: I tried to make some sense of the comments of the member for Ottawa West and I am really not sure what he was talking about on the statement of the Premier. However, I would like to make a few comments.

Number one, I want to agree with the Premier on page 2 of his announcement where he says his government "will not force pension plan members and sponsors to wage expensive legal battles to establish pension policy in this province."

I agree with the Premier. It is a disgrace the way the situation has been left for far too long, not just by the former government over the past five years, but by all governments that have allowed this situation to deteriorate and the uncertainty to be there over this past decade.

The opportunities in the past five years to come forward have been numerous. In fact, we have slipped backwards from the progress that had been made in the early half of the decade, but admittedly not enough had been done. I agree with the Premier that the sooner we get on with this, the better it is, so everybody knows where he stands on these matters.

I have a question, though, on page 1. The Premier indicates clearly: "If there are surplus funds, the surplus should be used to improve benefits for plan members. That remains our position as a government." He states that was his position in opposition and that is his position in government. I understand that. I accept that position. It is a position I have talked about as well.

However, there is another side that must go with that position. I would ask him, since he is now in charge, if the surplus funds should be used to improve benefits for plan members, what happens when there is a shortfall? Is that shortfall then made up by plan members or is the shortfall then cause to reduce the benefit being paid to those pensioners?

I would suggest to him that is the question that has to be resolved. Everything that he has come forward with is an add-on, is an add-on, is an add-on. I appreciate that and appreciate the concern, but until he answers that question, it is not good enough to answer just one half of it.

Finally, since he indicates that there was some $82 million that the former government had planned to use in capital for hospitals, aside from the pension argument, I was surprised that his statement made no mention of that $82 million. Does the Premier plan to make up the $82-million shortfall for capital for hospitals that had been announced by the previous government, recognizing that even that was not enough to keep up with capital construction required by hospitals in this province?

1410

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr Arnott: On behalf of the third party, I wish to respond to the series of announcements by the Minister of Transportation this afternoon. I must say that I am pleased, generally, that the government has stated its intent to proceed with commitments made by the former government, the $5-billion Let's Move program, although without a time line for the important transit initiatives it wishes to undertake, including the Sheppard subway, we are still left not knowing specifically when these initiatives will be undertaken.

I am pleased that these measures will be taken in this economic climate, when infrastructure investments provide good value for the dollar. I am also pleased because the throne speech was significant in its lack of interest in transportation issues, with only a fleeting mention of infrastructure improvements, which were not well defined. I might add that had the GO Transit announcement to Peterborough been made earlier, the GO train service to Peterborough could have commenced on I January 1991, instead of February, and it is going to disappoint a lot of people in Peterborough.

I am disappointed that the much-vaunted promise to four-lane the Trans-Canada Highway has obviously been put on the back burner at this time.

In closing, I would like to say I was very pleased to hear the members on the government side breaking out in spontaneous applause to support the federal government and the Minister of Transport, the Honourable Doug Lewis.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the Premier. His views have been stated publicly that he does not believe the present constitutional arrangements and the Constitution of the nation are serving the province adequately. He has since said and referred in the throne speech to his hope that all members of the House can be involved in the development of Ontario's stance in this regard, and yet we have had nothing concrete to lead us in the matter even though other jurisdictions have established a variety of committees and agenda items that would allow the consideration to go forward there.

Can the Premier explain to the House and give us some clear indication of what his intention is so that the government and this House can be informed of the views of the people of Ontario and also the direction which Ontario should be taking in order to maintain its position of leadership in these constitutional discussions?

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition, and I will say that the reason there was nothing specific proposed in the throne speech was very simple: because I thought it would be better for me to discuss it with him and with the leader of the third party prior to announcing it to the House, and I genuinely regard this as a non-partisan question, as I think I have mentioned to the Leader of the Opposition in discussions I have had with him. I will be having these further discussions with him very shortly, as well as with the leader of the third party, and it will, I hope, allow us to have a discussion in this province and indeed in this Legislature which will serve the country well.

Let me also say briefly that it is not simply a question of the fact that the Constitution is not working for Ontario simply from an Ontario standpoint. It is the fact that I think many Canadians feel, as we said in the throne speech, that our federal institutions, and indeed all our institutions, can be made to work better.

I genuinely regard this not as a partisan exercise, so rather than make an ex cathedra announcement in the throne speech I thought it would be wiser for us to engage in this in a genuinely non-partisan way. If he is impatient for our proposals, I can only tell him that they are going to be coming very soon indeed.

Mr Scott: I want to thank the Premier for his answer, but it seems to me it does not respond to one of the problems that we confront this week. There was considerable consternation in the House a couple of years ago when the federal New Democratic Party ran a candidate in the province of Quebec who was committed to sovereignty. That was heightened when in a recent by-election the same thing happened. As the Premier will know, last week Mr Edmonston, speaking for his federal leader, presented the New Democratic brief to the Bélanger-Campeau commission.

In that brief, he said that things were looking up because Ontario had a new Premier who was committed to decentralization of the federation. Then he went on to recommend, on behalf of the federal New Democratic Party, that Quebec should be granted sovereignty and the central government should have only the powers that were delegated to it by the province of Quebec.

I understand that the Premier has his plans for some kind of consultation with the House, and we are entirely supportive of those, but can the Premier tell us today -- and I think Ontarians are entitled to know -- what the government's position is with respect to the policy enunciated last week in Quebec City by the federal New Democratic Party?

Hon Mr Rae: I have had all kinds of views ascribed to me in the past on the subject of the Constitution and on many other matters. I can assure the members that Mr Edmonston was not speaking for me. I had no discussions with him. He does not represent my views, particularly, on this subject.

There are Liberals who are members of the Bélanger-Campeau commission; there are Conservatives who are members of the Bélanger-Campeau commission. I say to the member for St George-St David that it would be very regrettable if he were to try to turn this into some kind of partisan exercise, because that is not the approach we are taking and that is not the approach I am taking.

I say to him quite sincerely that if he wants to know where I stand on this question, I believe in a renewed federalism, I believe in a Canada which means something to Canadians from coast to coast, and I believe in the government of Ontario expressing as clearly as it can the views, not just of the New Democratic Party, not just of the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party, but indeed of all the citizens of the province who deserve, it seems to me, to have a chance to recognize that this is not a partisan question.

There will be people appearing before the Bélanger-Campeau commission who will be putting forward a whole range of views. That is not the agenda of the Legislature of Ontario, it is not the agenda of the government of Ontario, and I do not believe it is the agenda of the people of Ontario. I am sure the former Attorney General, who served the province well in his capacity in constitutional discussions, would not want to see this turn into some kind of partisan discussion.

Mr Scott: I remind the Premier that we are exercising precisely the role he saw fit to exercise almost daily when he asked the Premier of the day his position on constitutional matters as we went through the Meech Lake exercise. The difference is that the Premier of the day answered in the Legislature and answered to the people.

The question I am asking is not what the Premier has to say about Mr Edmonston's opinion of him. I am asking the Premier if he supports the policy of his own federal party which was expressed to favour a sovereign Quebec with central powers only as delegated.

It is not partisan, and I reject the assertion, to ask the provincial leader of the NDP whether he supports what Mrs McLaughlin and her party have submitted in Quebec City. I think the people of Ontario, without being partisan, are entitled to know the answer to that question.

Hon Mr Rae: I do not know how I can be clearer. Perhaps I will try again. I made it as clear as I possibly could.

Mr Scott: Well, I did not understand.

Hon Mr Rae: Then I will try to make it clear again. To be perfectly honest with the member for St George-St David, I do not know whether what Mr Edmonston has said is a total reflection of all his views. I do not know that. I can only say to the member that the views which he has described, where the powers of the federal government would be only those delegated by a series of sovereign provinces, is not my view of either the current Constitution or a realistic view of what a good Constitution for the country would be. I think the former Attorney General, in his heart of hearts, knows that; I think he knows that perfectly well.

As I say to the member, I look forward to a number of discussions about Canada in this House, but I also want to say one other thing to him. I believe the preoccupation of the people of Ontario is ensuring, first of all, that we have an economy that is working and that will help us to get out of recession. That is the first priority of the people of this province.

The constitutional approach we take, the discussions which we will have as a Legislature, should reflect that priority, our concern that Canada must be made to work better, that our institutions must be made to work better. We will do it best if we approach it not as simply expressing a narrow regional view or a sectoral view or a partisan view, but if we approach it in this moment as an issue that should unite Canadians, that should unite all the members of this Legislature, as we tried to do, if I may say, when we were in opposition. We will certainly try to apply that same spirit when we are the government of the province.

1420

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Mr Nixon: I appreciate the Premier's comments about the preoccupation of the people of the province with the economy. I recall very clearly that the Premier, since taking office, has contacted his colleague first ministers and the Prime Minister of Canada with the thought that a first ministers' conference on the economy might very well be held. I think all members of this House would agree that many policies of the federal government are detrimental to the strengthening of our economy and that the bad impact of high interest rates and the federal deficit probably is focused here more than anywhere else.

Will the Premier report to the House on the success of his efforts through the other premiers to convene such a conference, which could co-ordinate provincial approaches to national policy on the economy?

Hon Mr Rae: I would be glad to. Let me give the Leader of the Opposition a little bit of background.

When the former Premier met with his colleagues in Winnipeg in August during the election campaign, it is my understanding that one of the things they tentatively agreed to was that they would try to arrange a meeting at the end of November in Calgary. I was not aware of that agreement, but I was made aware of it after the election of 6 September when I received a letter from the Premier of Alberta, Mr Getty. The Premier wrote me a very friendly letter, congratulating and welcoming me as a new Premier, and said he wanted to know how I felt about the idea of there being such a meeting of first ministers. I phoned him up right away and said I thought that would be a very good idea. I was then asked about it by a number of reporters and said I thought it was a good idea. I have spoken about it with some other premiers. As recently as a few days ago, when he was here, Mr Filmon and I agreed it would be a good idea.

I continue to believe that a national conference on the economy of all the first ministers, including the Premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister, would be a very good idea. I continue to express that view. I can only tell members that I suspect the momentum for this will grow, particularly if the member keeps on asking these questions.

Mr Nixon: May I say that I believe such a conference would be worth while. The fact that the Prime Minister does not want to participate probably means he does not want another group of people, including a number of Progressive Conservative premiers, to be criticizing the monetary policy of the government of Canada, as it has had such dramatic and bad effects on the economy of the nation, but particularly here in Ontario.

I think a person might also understand why the Premier's new-found friend, Premier Filmon, would support him in this. The Premier of Alberta does not seem to be as enthused as he was.

Is the Premier thinking perhaps of going it alone and conducting some sort of conference here in Toronto to which representatives, at least, if not the first ministers of the other provinces, might be invited so that we can focus the problems which we feel here probably more than in any other province, and that these can be used perhaps to adjust the policy of the government of Canada, which has been so detrimental to our economy?

Hon Mr Rae: I do not want to hold just a media event. I want to do something that is going to be effective.

I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I have done everything I can to express the view as clearly as I can that the interest rate policy of the federal government is devastating to our economy, as it is to many other economies across the country, that the dollar is too high and that this is affecting our ability to export to the United States and elsewhere, and that we need to have a change in federal policies, particularly in these two areas but not only. That is why I have said I think it is essential that the first ministers get together.

The suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition makes is, I think, an interesting one. It is not something I am rejecting out of hand, and if he has any other suggestions he can make as to how we can get the federal government to change its position and its policies, if he wants to convey these to me privately or publicly in any way, I am listening, because I believe the policies of the federal government are wrong. I think they are bad for Canada, not just for Ontario. They are the wrong policies for Canada at this time. Anything we can do together as a Legislature in order to get the federal government to recognize how destructive these policies are would be a positive contribution. If he wants to help us in that regard I accept his help 100%.

Mr Nixon: It will probably take the electorate to change the policies of the government of Canada, but that will probably happen, as its support rating has now dropped below the interest rates that are part of that monetary policy.

I do have another suggestion. It seems to me, as I recall in the mists of the past, that the treasurers meet in December. Quite often, these meetings are held in Toronto, as the treasurers gather together with their retinue of minions to do a little Christmas shopping. The treasurers themselves, of course, have their noses to the grindstone, their shoulders to the wheel and their ears to the ground -- which actually only this Treasurer could do without inconvenience.

I believe, failing the conference the Premier was moving towards earlier in his ministry, that there is an opportunity when the treasurers meet for some very frank exchange of views. I do not know whether such a conference is planned -- and it may very well be in Toronto -- but it could be an appropriate time for the Treasurer or the Premier or others to have a chance to get the views of the House before they express them to the other ministers of finance. I think we are the only people left with a Treasurer.

On that occasion, the federal government is represented by Michael Wilson. Certainly that is a good way to express directly the views to the government of Canada. Perhaps the Premier could indicate what special efforts would be made to see that we can focus and concentrate our concerns here in Ontario in these economic matters.

Hon Mr Rae: I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that the finance ministers are going to be meeting in Winnipeg, not in Toronto, on 5 and 6 December. It is not a federal-provincial meeting, but it is a meeting of provincial ministers of finance to which the Treasurer will be going.

The Treasurer is shaking his head -- the Leader of the Opposition -- I will get it right. The Leader of the Opposition is shaking his head and saying it is strange that the federal Minister of Finance is not there. I can only say to him that this is what is happening. It is happening in Winnipeg. We are going to have a debate on Thursday on the economic situation in the province. I think that will be an opportunity for the House to focus its mind and its attention on this question before the Treasurer leaves for Winnipeg and speaks on behalf of the province.

I say it is crucial for us to work together in this matter. I repeat, interest rates are too high; they are very destructive of the real economy. The dollar is too high, very destructive of our economy right now. This is a view shared by business people, by small businesses. by larger manufacturers; there is not a business person I talk to in this province, large or small, who does not share the views I have just expressed. How we can get Ottawa to wake up and smell the coffee is a challenge for all of us and something we should all unite in doing in this Legislature.

Mr Harris: I understand why the Premier mixes up the Treasurer. They are both big-spending treasurers who really do not care about the taxpayers' money and I see little difference in either one of them.

An hon member: He didn't invite you to the Dome.

Mr Harris: I thought the member would be embarrassed to go to the Sky Dome, or I would invite him to go there.

1430

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Government Services. Last week the minister, contrary to previous statements that were made by the Premier, assured the House that this government would honour the commitments made by the former government to relocate some 5,000 civil service jobs outside of Metropolitan Toronto. As a former negotiator for the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, I am sure the minister was well aware of the impact this could have had on many employees who are unwilling or unable, for a variety of reasons, to relocate.

However, following the throne speech it was reported that the minister told a union delegation that the government would guarantee job security before any relocation takes place. I wonder if the minister could share with the House, as she did with the OPSEU members, what specific guarantees for job security have been promised to OPSEU members.

Hon Ms Lankin: In fact I did share that with the House last week in response to a question from the member for St Catharines-Brock, and the answer is that we have put in place or are putting in place over the next four months a human resources package that will include as a cornerstone of it a job offer guarantee -- not a complete job offer or job security in that sense. That is the same program that was in place with respect to the northern Ontario relocation program.

I would say that we are attempting to put in place more of a program with respect to training and retraining, but the plans for that are being developed in conjunction with senior management and with some discussions with the bargaining unit over the next four months and I hope to be able to report to my cabinet colleagues in March what the actual package will look like.

Mr Harris: We are told by the secret report of the Premier's Policy and Priorities Board of Cabinet which surfaced last week, "It may be difficult for the civil service to absorb all of those who wish to stay in Toronto." The former Liberal government, in relocating the ministries of Northern Development and Correctional Services, was able to provide suitable job offers because at the same time as it was relocating 2,000 civil servants it was busy hiring 8,000 new ones. So it really was not difficult to maintain the job offers and, in fact, if 2,000 went outside of Toronto, presumably Toronto got 6,000 new ones anyway, occupying all this new space. So they did not have a problem.

I would ask the minister if in fact she too intends to increase the size of our now inflated civil service and how much this is expected to add to the projected billion-dollar cost of the relocation program, as best I understand that cost to date.

Hon Ms Lankin: The plans for a human resources package do not include any plans to increase the size of the civil service to take care of that. We are concerned, in fact, that the Toronto area will not be able to absorb all of the surplus employees if we move ahead in an unplanned fashion.

One of the things we will be doing is attempting to phase the job relocations by moving some people, in advance of the actual date of completion of the building, into temporary locations in the cities. That might help phase the process of being able to replace and determine who is surplus and find them other locations and jobs over a longer period of time.

I am not sure what the member speaks to when he talks about 6,000 new jobs. It may be that there were a number of jobs that were converted in the past number of years from unclassified to classified, which may have changed the numbers as well. I am not sure if there were new jobs created. That is not part of the strategy. However, I would tell him that we are facing a series of litigation cases of who is the employer -- that is left over as a result of inaction and inattention of the previous government -- which may, without any proactive, I guess, activities on our part, increase the size of the civil service in a way that we are not able to control. But I am hopeful, looking at that and trying to get an understanding of what that may mean in terms of an impact to the size of the civil service.

Mr Harris: I believe we have heard enough conflicting information about relocation. The Liberal plan was not a relocation plan. Of the 8,000 new civil servants, 2,000 would go to communities outside of Toronto, for which we are very grateful and which we think was a good decision. However, that is assuming you are going to add 8,000 new civil servants. So what we have in the minister's situation is that she has now committed to carry on this plan with over 5,000 civil servants. If the same statistics are true, some 3,500 of those civil servants will not relocate out of Toronto, and the minister has guaranteed them a job.

I would like to know if she has factored in the cost of accommodating here in Toronto those 3,500 or so civil servants who will not and do not wish to, or cannot, move. How much saving is there actually going to be if the minister is going to provide jobs for these people? Presumably they are going to have an office in Toronto to stay in through that. Since the minister has made the decision to proceed with the Liberal plan unequivocally, I gather -- that decision, as I understood it, last week -- could the minister table with us all of the cost-benefit analysis information that she has, or is she going to keep it secret and hidden the way the Liberals did throughout all that period of time?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think the member has misunderstood or is making a mistake in his statements. I have not said that there is a job guarantee: I have said that, similar to the NOR program, there is a job offer guarantee. I hope that we will be able to absorb all of the people, but given the numbers involved here, we may have problems doing that. We are going to put a plan in place to phase in an attempt, to the best of our ability, to absorb those people with jobs that come open and jobs that are available. There is a very big difference between a job guarantee and a job offer guarantee.

On the second part of the question, with respect to tabling information with respect to costs, I can table estimates with respect to the capital costs. We are not sure until we review that program. I am hopeful of trying to scale that down. At this point in time with respect to the human resource costs, I can say, in a global sense, there is a guess that it could cost around $150 million for relocation costs, retraining costs and others. Once we have some plans more definitely put together and we have a sense of that, and of how many people may or may not be relocating, I would be glad to share that information with the members opposite.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Cousens: In view of the absence of the Minister of the Environment, I will call upon the Premier to respond, if he will, please. Last week the Minister of the Environment stated that her plans for a long-term landfill site would avoid the need for interim sites in the greater Toronto area. The Premier has to know that indeed all the existing landfill sites will be full by 1993; and even if he exceeds his 25% reduction strategy of the next few years, there will still be two million to three million tonnes of garbage to dispose of annually. So the waste reduction strategy must begin immediately.

Is the Premier prepared to table the government's plan today for waste reduction in landfill sites so that we in this House can share his government's confidence that he will not have to use emergency powers and bypass public hearings?

Hon Mr Rae: In the absence of the minister, who I am sure the member knows is unavoidably away today, and indeed for a good deal of this week, I want to say to him that I am not in a position to table that information for him today but that we will be in a position to do that in the near future.

I also want to say to him that there are two keys to what we are doing. The first is that we have to mobilize the people of this province in a recognition that reducing and reusing and recycling waste are the foundations of a policy; that this has not been done up until now and it has to start. That is the key to what we are proposing with respect to the interim sites.

The second thing that the member did not mention, and that I want to mention to him, is that we are also attempting to speed up and to give greater focus and attention to the determination of the so-called long-term site; that this again is something that we cannot have done on the never-never. That is something where we have to focus. So the work that the minister is proposing on the environmental assessment review and the work that we are proposing with respect to giving the authority some clear legal power in the ability to do its job are equally important to the strategy of reduction.

I can assure the member that the reduction strategy is intended to work and that it will work if it has the support and the understanding of the members of this Legislature and the people of the province, and that is exactly what we intend to do.

1440

Mr Cousens: There is not anyone in this House who does not believe and accept the need for the 3Rs, and I know that we will all do our best on that. But it goes to the deeper question, which is the long-term solution that the Premier is talking about, and that is how the Environmental Assessment Act would be amended to speed up the whole environmental assessment process.

What we have to look at is, if this discussion paper on what the Premier is going to do to handle the long-term resolution is released immediately and amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act are finally passed in June of next year, which would be fairly good timing the way this place moves, the process then has at least six months before it gets under way. Then we have to find a site, and if it is as large a site as I think it is going to be and as the minister has indicated it is going to be, we are going to be talking about a full EA. At that point he might well have a judicial review, and he will still have time for engineering and construction of the site. This could take up to five years.

How does the Premier feel it would be possible to avoid using his emergency powers to open the Whitevale and Brampton sites and to expand existing sites, all of which will be done without the full benefit of an environmental assessment?

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the member that this is one of the major priorities for our government. I think it has to be one of the major focuses of the Legislature, and it will be, as I have said to the member. All I can say is that the key to this succeeding is that we get on with the 3Rs, that the 3Rs be the focus with respect to the initial problem and that we also get on with speeding up the process of finding a long-term site. That is precisely why we are taking the steps we have.

The member says there is no opposition to the 3Rs. All I can say is that there has been a lot of talk about the 3Rs, but there has not been the kind of leadership and detailed action that is required. I also say to him that we are working on this as quickly as we can as a government. We will have proposals not just for the House; we will have proposals for the people of this province. Essentially, it is in the people's hands as to whether this 3Rs solution can be made to work. We will be prepared to exercise that leadership, but that is the reality -- all of us have to be involved in finding that solution.

Mrs Marland: I suggest that is the most accurate statement our new Premier has made, when he says it is in the people's hands. That is exactly where the garbage will be before we get much longer into this history.

I suggest to the Premier that when we talk about the 3Rs, that is a very realistic and also idealistic solution and it is one that we all support. That is not the question here. The question here is what is going to happen in the meantime. That is the concern of the people of this province and certainly the people in the greater Toronto area.

We do not need another environmental assessment review. That was already done under the environmental assessment program involvement project, which the Liberal government shelved. We have all that information on hand.

Last week the Premier's minister said she believes that she will not have to use her emergency powers to open the Whitevale and Brampton sites, but I suggest that sounds like Alice in Wonderland, because this Premier may not be aware that when the minister attempts to invoke her emergency powers to expand the Britannia Road and Keele Valley landfills, her government will be opening the door to lawsuits from both the city of Mississauga and the town of Vaughan. Certainly if we get into lawsuits, I suggest we will be into a very extended time frame.

During the election -- and this is my question -- this Premier went to Whitevale and said, "The people of Whitevale have every right to protection under a formal assessment." I ask the Premier today how he can justify those remarks in light of the admission of the Minister of the Environment last week when she said she is prepared to open those sites without an environmental assessment.

Hon Mr Rae: It is precisely because this government is convinced that there is a better solution that we are putting as much emphasis as we possibly can as a government on reducing, reusing and recycling. It is precisely because of what was said during the election and what was said before.

The member talks about the possibilities of litigation. The possibilities of litigation, in terms of what various groups might or might not do, is a reality that all of us in government have to contend with, and that is why there is so much importance in our proceeding. It is a process that will parallel -- it does not have to wait for -- the passage of any amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act. The authority can be up and looking and doing the kind of preparatory discussion with respect to a long-term site as quickly as is humanly possible, and that is exactly what we have been trying to do and what we are trying to do as a government.

The second thing that needs to happen is that all of us have to recognize that the 3Rs have not really been tried. A lot of the rhetoric that has been put forward, a lot of the things that have been said have been said in the absence, frankly, of any clear policies with respect to the 3Rs of reducing, reusing and recycling. That is the commitment of our government. That is a commitment that has to mobilize all the people of the province in finding a solution, and we believe that together we can find that solution. We believe we can find that solution.

The Speaker: Before we continue with question period, I offer an observation, not meant to be critical at all, but simply an observation of the clock, that the leaders' questions and responses in total have occupied 35 of the 60 minutes available.

Mr Mancini: Very, very long answers given by the other side, Mr Speaker.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Mancini: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The minister made an important policy announcement last week, stating that he would not go ahead with the previous government's plan to allow 53-foot trailers to operate in Ontario. First, I would like to express my disappointment that the minister avoided the Legislature in making this important public policy announcement. I would like to ask the minister about his method of making important public policy announcements.

As the minister will be aware, he caught the trucking industry by surprise with his announcement on 22 November. Given that the minister failed to consult with the Legislature, with industry trade associations or with individual companies, could the minister tell the House how he made this particular decision? Whose advice did he take?

Hon Mr Philip: My predecessor announced the lengthening of the truck and trailer lengths at the Ontario trucking convention, not in this House. If my honourable critic then is critical of me for making an announcement, in fact the announcement that was made was simply an announcement of the position that they expected, because it was the position that our party had taken in opposition. We voted against the bill that was introduced by the previous Liberal government and the previous Liberal government considered that legislation so important that it did not bring it forward; instead, it called an election.

Mr Mancini: We are anxious to find out whom the minister consulted and whose advice he took before he made this announcement. In recent public interviews the minister stated that he made his decision based on the following observation: "I am not saying that the public perception is correct; I am simply saying that there is a perception" that these longer trailers are not as safe.

Given that an impartial study by the Roads and Transportation Association of Canada recommended in 1987 that Ontario bring in 53-foot trailers for safety, environmental and economic reasons, and given that numerous experts have agreed with this advice, I would like to ask the minister, does he believe that these important decisions should be based on perceptions that he acknowledges are incorrect, these decisions which will further damage the industry, or is he going to make decisions based on fact, impartiality and backed up with scientific advice and evidence?

1450

Hon Mr Philip: What has damaged the industry is not the 53-foot trailer; it is the deregulation instituted by the previous Liberal government. That is what has damaged the industry. What has damaged the industry is the fact that the previous government did not negotiate any kind of reciprocal agreements with the states of Michigan or New York so that we could get access to their markets instead of simply having them with access to our markets. That is what has damaged the industry. along with the free trade policies of the federal government and the high interest rate policies of the federal government. That is what is damaging the industry.

I can tell members that this government is undertaking a very broad-ranging safety study that will involve broad consultation with the industry and with all of the vested interests and that based on that safety study we will be making statements in this House as to a wide variety of safety measures, but at this point in time the public and others are not prepared to have the Liberal legislation for larger trucks go ahead.

Mr Arnott: My question is also to the Minister of Transportation. On Thursday of last week, the Minister of Transportation announced to the Ontario Trucking Association's annual convention that he would not be introducing new legislation which would allow longer trucks on Ontario highways. Because of the cancellation of orders for 48-foot trailers after the previous government's announcement on its intention to legislate the use of longer trucks and responding to pressure from trailer manufacturers who threatened to lay off workers, the former Liberal government issued 2,000 special permits to allow the use of the new 53-foot semitrailers that meet RTAC standards. I understand now that all 2,000 permits have been issued.

Now that the minister has announced he will not proceed with legislation, it is my understanding that many manufacturers and operators have been caught with undelivered trailer orders. Will the minister inform this House if he intends to issue additional special permits to take care of these operators and manufacturers and the number of permits he will issue?

Hon Mr Philip: The condition that the industry is now in is caused largely by the economic factors of the federal government and the high interest rates. That is what is causing the problem with the industry at the present time.

I can tell the member that the Liberal government did introduce, by administrative procedure, the issuance of 2,000 permits for the 53-foot trailers within the existing overall limitations, but that in no way lengthened the actual 23-metre lengths of the truck, pending the legislation, which the Conservatives voted for and the Liberals introduced. It is not my intention to reintroduce the Liberal administration for longer trucks in this province.

Mr Arnott: In his statement to the press on Thursday, the minister made a surprising and disturbing announcement indicating that his decision not to move ahead on the longer-truck legislation was based on the public's perception that these trucks were unsafe. Can the minister inform the House of how this perception was derived? Will he tell the House what specific empirical studies or polls have been undertaken to justify or support this perception? Is it this government's intention to govern by perception rather than by a rational assessment of the facts?

Hon Mr Philip: We have done a number of tests recently that indicate, and I shared this with the Ontario Trucking Association, there are major problems in terms of not only the perception but the reality of trucking, particularly with regard to unsafe brakes on trucks. We shared that with the trucking association. We indicated that we were going to take a number of initiatives with them to correct that problem. It is all part of a total safety package, and we in this House are committed to safety. I wish the honourable member shared my same concern for the safety issues.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

[Applause]

Mr B. Ward: I think they are clapping because I remembered to stand up.

My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues. It is dealing with a very important topic for this month, and that is wife assault prevention. I think this House is aware that some of us have been wearing little tags from time to time. My question is, what are the initiatives being taken by the Ontario women's directorate which concern Wife Assault Prevention Month and, furthermore, what is the minister herself doing in relation to this month?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: I am particularly pleased to be able to answer this question for two reasons. First, it gives both the member for Brantford and myself our first opportunity to get used to speaking in this House. Second, it gives us, as a House, the opportunity to participate in our own way in the wife assault prevention campaign this month.

I know and recognize that the member who is responsible as the critic for women's issues and labour in the third party did spend time the other day in her member's statement on this important area, and I really thank her for that. I think it is really important that we all find the ways to play our parts.

I think that is especially important because there are still an awful lot of people out in our communities who remember that it has been only eight years since the majority of MPs laughed when this subject was raised in the House of Commons. I think it is especially important that we, as parliamentarians, show to our communities how importantly we treat this subject and how much we view wife assault as a crime and as a crime for which there is no excuse.

Some members, the honourable member for York North included, are aware of the fact that I have been a member of the board of directors of Yellow Brick House, a shelter for battered women. A few members also know I have had friends and neighbours who in fact have been battered spouses. So I am especially pleased to be able to take this on as one of my new responsibilities as the Minister without Portfolio for women's issues.

I know that some members, especially members of the opposition, are aware of some of the details of the campaign and the government initiatives against wife assault. I do not think, though, that we all are. So I would like to take a moment to take us through a few aspects --

Mr Runciman: Wait for the supplementary.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: That is what was directly asked to me of what this government does.

The Speaker: Perhaps the minister would consider making a statement on another occasion, giving us a brief response now and perhaps following it up later with some more detailed information during ministers' statements.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: I would like to give credit to the past government for some of the things it has done in this initiative. It did initiate a five-year initiative, and I will be brief in some of its activities. This is the fifth year of that initiative. That initiative gives my ministry, the Ontario women's directorate, the opportunity to co-ordinate the activities through 16 ministries to try to initiate prevention education, support services to victims and the enforcement that is needed to truly show that this is a crime that we must rid ourselves of as a society.

1500

Mr B. Ward: Could the minister briefly explain what this government plans on doing that is different from past governments?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: There are two things this government is already doing that are very different from what any past government has been game to do. The first thing is, we recognize that this is not a temporary problem that is going to be eradicated by temporary initiatives, and so we have made an ongoing commitment to make long term planning arrangements to get rid of this problem.

The second thing is that this is the first government, to my knowledge, that has been willing to recognize that violence against women is rooted in the power imbalance between men and women in our society. I have heard no other government talk openly about that nor take the kind of steps that this government is already taking to redress that power imbalance, such as appointing strong, feminist women as 42.3% of the cabinet of the government of Ontario; such as appointing women to be 50% of the members of the most powerful committees of cabinet; such as appointing women to positions such as --

Interjections.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: I think that is crucial to the changes that are needed in our society.

The Speaker: I think that all the members are fully aware that we have in total, out of 130 of us, 70 who are new, and we are attempting to grapple with the procedure of asking questions and giving answers in a relatively short period of time. I trust that the members will learn quite quickly what is acceptable and what is not. Your patience has been tried somewhat. The Speaker will add one minute to the clock.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Kwinter: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and before I place it I want to congratulate him on his election and on his appointment to the cabinet as the minister. The New Democratic Party and its leader, Bob Rae, have been very critical of the previous government on the issue of opposing free trade. During the election campaign, the Premier promised that he would not implement any of the provisions of the free trade agreement under provincial control. I quote from the Premier on 23 August:

"We would not feel in any way, shape or form bound by the agreement. We would take our decisions as to what we would do and how we would intervene and on whose behalf we would intervene without regard to the free trade agreement."

Now that the NDP has formed the government, and since there was no mention at all of free trade in the throne speech other than a passing, one-time reference to it, could the minister tell the House if his government is still committed to the statements that the Premier has made?

Hon Mr Pilkey: In response, the simple answer to that question is yes; and that goes for all statements that the Premier of this province makes.

I want to indicate as well that this government, since having taken office in this very difficult recessionary period, has used its very best efforts through the Ontario

Development Corp and other resources to assist those Ontario industries and companies which are in need and which we believe have an opportunity to be successful and to go on in this province to be gainful employers well after this recession is over.

It is our policy as well to try to assist those workers who have not been adequately looked after through the federal government in their commitments to looking after workers who had been displaced or affected. Those initiatives have not been taking place by the federal government, and through programs earlier announced by this government we will attempt to do that for the Ontario work force wherever possible.

If there is a supplementary I will attempt to answer it, but that is a brief response.

Mr Kwinter: I am delighted that the minister seems to be so positive that he would in fact implement the Premier's statements. I even detected that the Premier was quite pleased and was nodding that yes, they would implement them.

Could the minister explain why we are in the present situation? We as a previous government had authorized the issuing of 2,000 permits for operation of 53-foot trailers pending the proclamation of Bill 96, and these permits were directed to Ontario operators and manufacturers. Immediately thereafter, the United States launched a complaint; their complaint was that we had in fact breached the free trade agreement, that under the agreement that could not be done. As a result, we in fact did have to issue permits to American companies.

I am sure the minister will know that when the 2,000 permits were made available, 1,400 of them were in fact picked up by Ontario manufacturing companies which provided jobs, as he said they want to do; it provided manufacturing, as he said they wanted to do, but within the last two weeks, close to 700 of those permits -- the last 700 -- were picked up by Americans.

Now, those permits were picked up by Americans, which meant that Canadian manufacturers could not produce them, it meant that labourers working for Fruehauf could not build them and it also meant that the NDP government has again reneged on a promise that the minister has reaffirmed today. Could he tell me why this has happened and what he proposes to do about it?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I appreciate the opportunity from the former minister. The information supplied to me is that 69% have in fact been picked up by Canadian carriers.

ONTARIO SCIENCE CENTRE

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications, and I take this opportunity to welcome him and congratulate him on his appointment.

As the minister is well aware, there is currently a great deal of controversy about the events at the Ontario Science Centre, and it seems that under the previous Liberal government, Science Centre management signed a contract with Oman which discriminated against Israeli suppliers. Later, after receiving the advice of government lawyers, the contract was amended to include the North American contract and had that clause added.

Last Monday, the minister fired the director of the Science Centre who signed the contract -- fair enough, apparently. However, given the comments of the Premier outside this House last Wednesday when he said, "It isn't over yet," my question to the minister is, what is not over yet? What are the government lawyers looking at and why, and can we expect more firings?

Hon Mr Marchese: I do want to say that in relation to the whole Science Centre matter, an action has been taken against this ministry, so I cannot comment at all about specifics on that, but my ministry is not carrying out this investigation at this moment; the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is doing that. That is something that is happening and is still going on, but in relation to the specifics, I cannot comment on that.

Mrs Marland: Perhaps the minister is misunderstanding my question. I am not asking questions at all to do with the dismissal decision that has been made by his ministry in light of the director's position. In fact, it was reported that the minister had requested all the legal correspondence on this matter, and the Premier said there is an investigation ongoing and the board of directors has also launched an investigation.

What I would like to know, in the new spirit of openness which the Premier keeps promising us, to keep the members of this House and this province informed of all the ongoing investigations, is whether the minister would table in this House the original contract and the legal correspondence surrounding it and empower a committee of this Legislature to examine this issue. Would the minister agree to do those three things?

1510

Hon Mr Marchese: Again, I do believe I have understood the question well. Because an action has been taken against this ministry, there are things that we cannot bring to the attention of this House or of this member because obviously, since it is a legal matter, it would be a problem to bring such discussions to her.

In relation to other matters that are going on, I did point out that there is another minister who is carrying on other investigatory matters in relation to that, and the minister will be doing that. In relation to whether or not I can table anything else connected to this, from my understanding it would be very difficult to bring this matter to the attention of this House at this time because of the legal action. That is all I can add. If the Premier has anything to add, he might want to do that.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Chiarelli: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. In April 1987, the minister's Premier and his adviser, Mel Swart, said: "People want no more of the massive insurance rate increases. The solution is a driver-owned system of car insurance, and the time to set it up is now." On 30 October, the minister promised in a prepared speech -- and this was after he was appointed minister -- "a public, driver-owned, non-profit insurance system with access to courtrooms for injured victims."

The NDP has put forward a very clear blueprint for a state-run auto insurance scheme. Will the minister explain why he now delays in producing legislation? He promised a plan. Can we see it now?

Hon Mr Kormos: You see, Mr Speaker, I was anticipating the question.

The Speaker: And you have a brief response.

Hon Mr Kormos: Being able to read minds is an onerous responsibility. Legislation, as was promised in the throne speech, is expected to be tabled in this assembly come spring of next year. In the meantime, we are talking with as many people as want to talk to us, including long and lengthy lists of representatives from the insurance industry. We are as interested in what they have got to say as we are in what the victims have to say. the victims of the Liberals' so-called no-fault scheme. We are going to keep listening and, as I say, table the legislation come the appropriate time as promised in the throne speech.

The Speaker: Time has expired.

Mr Chiarelli: I thought we had agreed to --

The Speaker: No, I added a minute to the clock earlier. The time for oral questions has expired. I know you are disappointed.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Mancini: Mr Speaker, pursuant to standing order 33(a), I wish to advise you of my dissatisfaction with the response of the Minister of Transportation to my question on safety, environmental and economic reasons for longer trailers on Ontario highways, and the reason for my dissatisfaction is that the minister failed to answer my question.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

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

Mr Harris: I am pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on the speech from the throne. For those who are concerned about timing, I have let the pages know that I need a couple of glasses of water anyway. It is about a two-glasses-of-water comment today.

I know that all members were impressed. as I was, with the dignity and the authority which His Honour's presence brought to the chamber last Tuesday and the remarks that were prepared for him by our first NDP government. I mention this because there is a tendency, even in this Legislature -- he said somewhat tongue in cheek -- to take lightly the historic traditions of our democratic parliament, traditions which are upheld by the various rituals and ceremonies that we undertake in this chamber.

Our parliamentary institutions have evolved since Confederation in a manner really unique to Canada. They are continuing to undergo change and discussions of further change as Canadians seek to achieve a broader degree of participation in the political process.

I draw attention to His Honour at the opening of my remarks because I believe that at this point in the evolution of our economic and our political institutions it is important for all of us here in this province to remember our national political heritage.

It is important that we build on the lessons that were taught to us by our political history, such as how our constitutional monarchy evolved out of absolutism to a free democracy and how the ownership of political power by a privileged few gave way to a government by the majority, freely elected by free men and free women, all equal under law.

We must be mindful of how we evolved from a class society with inherited rights and inherited wealth into an economy in which hard work, initiative and enterprise were rewarded, and how this helped our society to evolve from gross economic disparity between the very rich and the very poor to a society which is a long way from perfect, I think we would all argue, but which has achieved a remarkable balance between the right to create and preserve personal opportunities and our obligation to share these opportunities fairly.

Above all, we have a rule of law that is continuing to reach out to remove the barriers of inequality, to eliminate prejudice, to guarantee the inalienable rights of Canadians to enjoy freedom of association and expression and individual liberty. This is what we have inherited from those who have preceded us in this Legislature and our successive parliaments of Canada.

I see the former Treasurer has come back to the chamber. I could talk about some of the other things we have inherited as well and no doubt, during the course of these remarks, I will. However, the traditions we nave inherited and the changes we have made -- I think it is important that we do reflect on those and that we do appreciate those. Our parliamentary traditions have shaped who we are as a society today and they also serve, I believe very strongly, as a basis for us to determine where we are going.

1520

I have also congratulated you earlier, Mr Speaker, on your election and I do again today. I and members of my caucus look forward to working with you in a spirit of co-operation, no matter how many bad rulings you might make.

There is no doubt that these are volatile times for all of us in public life, and rightly so, I say to the members. Those of us who represent the Ontario public today are here because voters delivered a message, in my view, that they are totally fed up with the politics of the past. Some of us are here in spite of that.

But I believe that was the predominant message from voters I talked to over these past two years, particularly in the past year and, of course, in the 37 days of this summer. They made it very clear in the last election that they felt the way in which our political process had been operating is no longer acceptable. People are demanding a government that is more open than it has been and a government that is seriously engaged in the business of representing people rather than simply serving the needs of politicians.

For far too long, I believe, politicians have been treating this political process, especially our government's decision-making process, like an inside baseball game. They do not understand it. I am not sure we understand it ourselves from day to day and from week to week, but the public does not. Politicians are the only players. Everybody else -- the media, the public and especially taxpayers -- is a spectator. They are outsiders to this game that it appears to them that we play.

By voting as overwhelmingly as they did and expressing as overwhelmingly as they have to me and voting to remove from office a short-lived government, the people have served notice, not just to the party that formed that government, but to all of us on all sides of the House, that we will get essentially the same treatment if we do not respond to what they have been telling us, if we do not begin to change.

The people told us they were fed up with what they perceived as cynical politicians. They will no longer tolerate those politicians who promise Utopia one day and then turn those dreams into dust on the next day. They will no longer tolerate politicians who attempt to manipulate the voting public through policy set by polls or by headlines, to serve only politicians themselves or to appease special interests.

I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you and other members of this House sense an unease in many quarters about the future direction and the quality of public policy. Given what has transpired since the election, I understand this public confusion. I think it is fair to say that even government members themselves here in this chamber are somewhat confused and disoriented in their first, and perhaps only, brush with this awesome responsibility of power.

In his younger days, even the Premier himself was confused, flirting with being a Trudeau Liberal by working for Charles Caccia in Davenport riding, because, as the Premier wrote at that time, he "could not stand the unbearable self-righteousness of the NDP." Today, I suspect, the Premier has changed that view.

But I suspect, quite frankly, that the Premier still feels torn between allegiance to what I feel are radical socialists in the party he leads and his less radical socialist friends, many of them in the Liberal Party. So far, at least, he has gone out of his way to assure bankers of Wall Street and Bay Street that he wears a navy-blue suit with some accustomed ease.

He has been so accommodating in fact that he has not even referred to the Globe and Mail as "just a Toronto rag," which was his view in 1984. So perhaps the Premier is content to have us believe that he is, as he was described in the media the other day, a conservative progressive.

However, one cannot help but be suspicious. The agenda of this government is far more extensive than the spending of a few dollars on housing, or the raising of the minimum wage, or the other vagaries the throne speech would imply. After all, the Liberal Party is also well practised in the art of alluding to one thing and doing another. It has always throughout resulted in higher taxes, higher spending and bigger government, something which I am sure does not faze the current government.

The Premier once said as well that "public ownership is an expression of our determination to take over our economy." I am not sure if the Premier feels that the mandate he received on 6 September was one mandate that was given to take over the economy or not, but if it is, it was not the message he has handed out to the financial community so far. Nor did the Premier remind the public or the financial community of other positions put forward by his party in the past. positions which I am tempted to repeat here, but I believe they are pretty well known and I will spare all members of this government any embarrassment.

The fact is that we are facing extremely grave challenges as a province and as a government. We face a recession that is already more severe in many respects than the recession of 1981-82. That recession resulted from high inflation and high interest rates. This recession, I suggest to members, was brought about by high-spending and high-taxing government. Inflation at current levels of 5% would not on its own trigger a recession, nor does it on its own justify double-digit interest rates. What is causing high interest rates is high-spending governments, which have accumulated the highest levels of debt in recorded history.

We can argue and debate about whether a policy of high interest rates is the best policy to fight this. But what disturbs me from the government and disturbs me from the now leader of the official opposition is that no one is talking about the structural problem. They are disagreeing with the federal government as to its solution. They disagree that high interest rates is the way to fight it.

1530

I have some concerns myself and have expressed those, but what about the problem? What is causing the problem? Why are we spending all our time on debate over whether or not the solution is the right solution? The problem is big-spending, big-debt governments that we have had in this country. I tell the members that when it comes to the province of Ontario, we have led the way. We have led the way as a province in putting inflationary pressure on to this country, spending two or two and a half times the rate of inflation each and every year over the last five years; tax increases like we have never seen before in the history of this province.

What is disturbing to me is that I have not heard anything from this new government that recognizes that this indeed is the problem and that this indeed is contributing in a more significant way than any other provincial government across this country -- including the federal government -- when it comes to spending. We are the worst culprits, here in this province of Ontario.

This debt, I might add, is really nothing more than deferred tax.

Mr Nixon: More than you take in that causes inflation; it's the federal deficit.

Mr Harris: I do not mind being interrupted because he is the one who says: "What's the matter with the debt? Two and a half billion? So what? What's the big deal?" We have heard this many times from the Liberal Party, and I understand that both parties I am talking about, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, see nothing wrong with adding to debt.

The Liberal Party, in this province's biggest boom, added some $10 billion to our debt, took it from $30 billion to $40 billion in a period of five years, in the biggest period of boom we have ever had sustained, over some seven years. I find that abominable. I just cannot accept that is responsible public policy.

Mr Elston: Seven years. Part of that was yours, wasn't it?

Mr Harris: The member points out that two of those years were years when my party was in power. That is an abominable record too, one I am not proud of. The fact of the matter is that I stand up and say it. He refuses to admit it and the government party refuses to admit it.

This debt is nothing more than deferred taxation. I do not think one can run around this province and say, "I am opposed to high taxes." or "I am opposed to this tax," and still be in favour of a deficit, which is deferred, even higher taxation. That is not being up front. That is not being straight with the voters. If you believe that deficit financing is okay and high deficits are not a problem, then you are saying high taxes are not a problem. You cannot have it both ways.

This is deferred taxation that we are putting in a most irresponsible way, in my view, on the shoulders of our children and our grandchildren.

I believe it will come, but I am surprised that to date the young people are not taking to the streets and saying, "Look at this mess you have left for us, over $400 billion of debt federally, $40 billion-plus provincially just in the province of Ontario."

I do not believe there is any more fundamental principle I believe in than paying one's own way; we have an obligation to pay our own way, to not take out of the economy more than we are prepared to pay for, to not say to the next generation, "Sorry, both fiscally with the debt and environmentally we were not prepared to pay our own way and we've left you with this mess to clean up."

For any part that my time in public life has contributed to that, I apologize to those young people and I say to those young people: "There is a party that is speaking on your behalf. There is a party that accepts as one of the fundamental principles we must adhere to that we have no right to take the environment or to take the dollars and spend them on ourselves and leave you with the legacy of cleaning up."

We have no right to take a plant and 50 jobs because we wanted those jobs today and then say to young people: "Sorry, you clean up the mess. We weren't prepared to pay for that at the same time." We have no right to spend $2.5 billion more than we are prepared to tax ourselves for the right of spending that money.

It is commonplace for provincial governments to try to blame the federal government, but the provinces have been the net beneficiaries of excessive taxation through transfer payments, through regional equalization grants, through the UIC and other federal programs. I am appalled that nowhere in this throne speech does the government acknowledge that it has any responsibility whatsoever for the serious economic plight Canada finds itself in.

I am also appalled by the total lack of any hint of initiatives to address the immediate need for public and private sector corporations to be competitive. There is not a hint of that in the throne speech. I submit that it is our lack of competitiveness, burdened by high taxation and unwarranted government intervention, that is costing this province investment and jobs at the expense of tax-paying families.

Employment is and should be of concern to all Ontarians during this difficult period, but government must learn that full employment should not equate to having five people doing the job of one. That is surely a short-term solution that will lead to the loss of all of our jobs. Jobs flow from prosperity. Prosperity results from successful enterprise in a highly competitive global economy, where governments co-operate both with business and with each other to remove trade restraints and artificial trading boundaries and by enhancing the free flow of goods and services.

Responsible governments provide education and trade training programs based on a standard of excellence, yet this throne speech says nothing at all about improving the quality of educational programs; nothing at all. Nor is there any reference in this throne speech to the gifted, to the entrepreneur, to the creative mind or to the need to enhance personal growth and development.

The government did spell out its desire to establish a Fair Tax Commission. I predict that this commission will not recommend one single reduction in our overall tax burden, not one, because I have not heard this party in opposition, have not heard this party now in government say that it is even a problem, this overall tax burden.

In fact, more to the point, the Treasurer believes that there is still room to tax. He said that the companies are not leaving this province, so obviously there is room to tax them some more. I do not know which companies he is talking to. Obviously the ones that are not leaving -- but he perhaps should take up a point at the border east of us and west of us to provinces to our east and to our west and to the United States to the south of us, because I suggest that there are more companies searching for a competitive place to do business, and that is not Ontario.

From what I can deduce, the entire focus of the NDP concept of tax fairness is more taxes: "Is there some little place where we are missing that we could squeak out and squeeze out some more money?" I have never heard a suggestion in this throne speech or from the New Democratic Party, from its current leader and Premier, that taxes are too high.

I want to make a few comments as well on the remarks that were made by the former Treasurer, now Leader of the Opposition. In his comments on the response to this throne speech, the former Treasurer said some very revealing things to me. For example, when we were talking about the $700 million, and he referred to it -- this is the $700-million announcement that the government has announced in the throne speech. We still have not been able to determine whether it is new money or old money or out of the slush fund or where it comes from.

1540

The point I want to get at is that the Leader of the Opposition says, "I was interested in the exchange with the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party when the Treasurer was asked where the $700 million was coming from." He says that is a relatively easy answer: "It's about three days' revenue." You see, $700 million means nothing to the former Treasurer or to the Liberal Party of Ontario. It is just three days' revenue. What is $700 million? Then he proceeded to criticize the government. "Let's get spending it faster. Let's get spending more of it."

It is $700 million that they do not have. It is not three days' revenue. With the $2.5-billion deficit and the new spending that the government wishes to bring in, and now the new billion dollars that is going to be required for the hospitals and all the others, it is three days' revenue as long as there are 600 days in the year. But there are not 600 days in the year. The revenue only comes in for 365 days and that money is spent, gone.

Now they have borrowed another $2.5 billion, so they tell us, to meet the commitments of the former government. But for the Leader of the Opposition, of the Liberal Party, to piddle on $700 million, that that is only three days' revenue, is a very, very telling statement. It points out the difference, I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, between I and my party and the other two parties in this chamber.

Mr Nixon: Yes, we're grammatical.

Mr Harris: Me and my party. I will correct the grammar if he wants, too.

Even if you have it, $700 million is a lot of money. It is money that no magic can allow you to spend when you do not have it.

The leader of the Liberal Party pointed out as well -- I should say "interim leader" all the time; I know that used to bug our former leader when he was referred to as "interim leader" all the time.

Mr Eves: It won't bother Bob. He's been down this road three times.

Mr Harris: I can appreciate and understand why it does not bother the interim leader of the Liberal Party, particularly in these times.

He points out that in this budget there is $3.2 billion of capital works already. I am not sure whether that is the case or not, because I heard announcement after announcement from the former Liberal Party on health care spending, on hospital funding. There was so much magic and figure juggling going on that I do not know whether that $3.2 billion is in there or not. However, I know that they spent $800 million, I believe it was, on the campaign of new hospital capital funding. They spent it in the 1985 campaign and the 1987 campaign. They told us it was in the budget every year, and not one single hospital bed was built in that period of time. So whether that amount of money is in there or not, I do not know.

There was something else that concerned me. That is this phrase that is used by the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. The leader of the Liberal Party used it in his remarks. He talked about the relocation program and said, "Six thousand recession-proof government jobs would certainly be a boon to these communities."

I do not want to get into the relocation program, the merits and what is there. I referred, in a question earlier today, to my great concern that these were announced as -- well, let's say they were very politically opportunistic. My sense was they were not costed out. My sense was there was no analysis to ask: "Are we fulfilling our mandate of delivering government services in the most efficient way possible? Are we using tax dollars to deliver services as cheaply as possible so that we do not have to continue raising taxes?"

I still feel that. I have not heard an answer today from the minister that indicates there is any well-thought-out plan. In fact, there has been not a shred of documentation tabled. I asked for that information of the minister today, the same as the Liberal Party. He said, "Oh well, in the fullness of time, once we figure it all out, when we get all this, then we'll give you the information." They will give us the information to try to justify a decision already made.

That is what was wrong with the way it was proceeded with by the former government, and that is what is wrong with the way it is proceeding now with this government: "We are proceeding, regardless of the cost. We are proceeding, and then we'll table the figures to you as soon as we can make them up and make them look okay." I object to that. The Premier will know that I object strenuously to not sharing that information.

I know it is a commitment he has made. I would ask him to consider it in this example. When a decision is made by the government, the public, the opposition parties, the media, we are all entitled to the information that he had before him to make that decision so that we can judge whether it is a good decision or a poor decision, and the public can judge whether they agree with it on that basis.

But it is the words "recession-proof government jobs" that concern me. This is a phrase that flows so freely off the lips of so many people. The assumption is that it is recession proof. It does not matter whether you are broke, and it does not matter if you are $2.5 billion in deficit: the government never has to be concerned about how efficiently it operates. That is the message the leader of the Liberal Party is sending, that they are recession proof.

Everybody else has to lay off people. Everybody else has to cut back. Everybody else has to cut back their spending, home owners, individuals, whether they make $5,000 a year or $25,000 a year -- there are some who make $50,000. In a recession everybody has to cut back. Companies have to cut back, but government does not have to cut back. It is recession proof. It just keeps carrying on as if everything was rosy. It does not have to recognize, if you have a civil service job or if you are in government or if you are a politician -- we have to worry every four years or three years, when somebody is really arrogant and decides to go early. But this is what concerns me.

Mr Elston: We get this for $1,000 for the dinner?

Mr Sorbara: No dinner; just hors-d'oeuvres.

Mr Curling: Speeches.

Mr Harris: It is those types of comments that suggest to me there are two parties in this Legislature that are totally out of touch with reality, totally out of touch with the man on the street, with the worker coming home from his job with reduced expectations of whether his job is going to be there or not. I find that difficult to understand.

There were some other things, by the way, in the throne speech that specifically concern me, before I wrap up. I do not plan to be lengthy today, members will all be pleased to know.

The throne speech talked about non-profit housing, a commitment to, I think it was -- I did not get the number -- 30,000 new units of non-profit housing. It has been pretty well documented and it has been pointed out that the former government, in its non-profit housing program, wasted billions of taxpayers' dollars, that we are all paying far too much for this housing, whether it is because there is big profit in non-profit, which I suggest there is, or whether it is because as soon as government is paying 100% of it and it is non-profit, nobody cares how much it costs. I have talked to the Premier about this. I have raised this in the House.

When the Miss Starr affair was brought up, I raised time and time again, not Miss Starr herself, not the impropriety -- others can deal with that and the courts will deal with that as well. It is: Why is the temptation so big to be involved in non-profit housing? What is fundamentally wrong with the system that everybody wants a piece of this pie?

1550

As well, I pointed out the example of the luxury condominiums in Scarborough. When this issue came to light there seemed to be great consternation that the government of Ontario was subsidizing tenants. taking those who required subsidized housing off the waiting list and putting them into luxury condominiums in Scarborough.

The Ministry of Housing responded: "Well, don't you understand that this is a good deal for the government? If we build them ourselves, doing it the non-profit route, we have to subsidize $1,500, $1,600 a unit," for a standard two-bedroom box outside of Toronto. "Don't you recognize," the Ministry of Housing spokesman said, "what a good deal this luxury condominium is? We only have to subsidize $700 or $800 a unit."

But nobody seemed to ask themselves, not the Liberal Party, not the New Democratic Party, because it blindly wants to go ahead with the same program -- nobody even stopped to scratch their head and ask, "Wait a second, how is it that the private sector can build luxury condominiums in Toronto, paying the price they pay for land in Toronto, and provide them cheaper than the government can provide non-profit housing outside of Toronto?"

How could this possibly be? Nobody seems to be delving into why that is, and yet I have raised this in the House, I have pointed it out to the former government, I have pointed it out to the Premier. And what do I see in the throne speech? Well, we are going to take that great Liberal program that costs $1,500, $1,600 a unit each and every month for 35 years to subsidize. That is how we are going to house people.

I suggest to members that somebody is making a lot of money, or a lot of money is being wasted and frittered away. If we want to spend that many billions of dollars -- I am not suggesting we should not; we have a serious problem on our hands. How does it add up that the private sector can provide two-bedroom luxury condominiums in Toronto cheaper than government can provide the standard old two-bedroom boxes across this province? Maybe we should be looking to the private sector. Maybe we could have twice or three times as many units.

Do you know the other thing with this story? That was not the angle the media came on; they were not interested in my comments. As I recall, they wanted to talk about how terrible it was that we were putting subsidized tenants alongside those who did not have to be subsidized. That did not bother me, quite frankly. It concerned me that all of a sudden 80% of one building was going that way, as opposed to a government policy that would help people who need help.

This is what happened. The government said: "We have people on this waiting list. We do not have enough non-profit units. What are we going to do?" And the private sector, because we were there with surplus capacity in luxury condominiums, was able to say, "Well, we'll do that for half the price of your own non-profit programs." Should we not be saying: "Let's do more of that, let's help twice as many people, let's help people who need help"?

Maybe we should examine our policy of throwing billions and billions of dollars subsidizing bricks, subsidizing builders, subsidizing buildings, and go back to helping people who need help. That is what I suggest to you is the fundamental difference between my party and the other two parties in this Legislature; fundamentally, the problem with the policies they have come forward with.

I was not going to do this today, but I think I will. I want to relate the story of a man who came to me during the leadership -- it could have been any one of a number of people, because I was travelling around this province -- and it had to do with rent controls.

I was asked a question in one of the public forums which my colleague the member for London North and I were delighted to participate in -- others say, for some reason or other, "subjected ourselves to." but I think we would say, on balance, "delighted to participate in." This gentleman said, "I have concerns with your criticism, Mr Harris, of the current rent review policy of the government." This gentleman felt that we needed strict rent controls. He said, "I think we need some protection for tenants."

I said: "Well, I understand where you're coming from. What business are you in?" He said he owned a hardware store, that he lived in an apartment and he was concerned about rents.

I said: "I appreciate your concern about rents, and I believe there is a role for government to take a look at what policies are helping or contributing to this problem. I accept that, but nobody seems to want to look at the other side, why builders don't want to build apartment units." So I asked the gentleman this: "You own a hardware store. How would you feel if the government came to you tomorrow and said you have to cut all your prices by 20%? And you said: 'My profit margin is only 15%. If I cut my prices by 20%, I am going to lose 5% on everything I sell.'"

"The government came to you, and you followed that, you sold your hammers, you sold your nails and you lost 5% of your own hard-earned money that you invested and put on the line and risked; on every sale you made, you lost 5%. Finally, after a year or two, you said to yourself: 'Well, I can't go on losing my own money, I'm not jeopardizing my family. I'm going to go out of the hardware business.'

"And then the government came to you and said: 'No, you can't go out of business, sorry. You have to keep selling that stuff and losing 5%. You can't convert your hardware store to something else. That's the law.'"

Do you think there would be very many people wanting to invest in hardware stores in Ontario if this is what happened? Do you think there are very many people who want to invest in rental accommodation in this province? Because that is what we have said, in effect, to landlords. We said: "We will tell you what you can charge, even though you are losing money. Second, you can't go out of business, either. You have to stay in business, you have to keep renting them, you have to keep losing money."

The Liberal policy has not addressed that to the satisfaction, certainly, of landlords or tenants. I do not know whether the New Democratic policy will address that to the satisfaction of landlords or tenants. It is a challenge, one that if the Minister of Housing and the Premier are truly prepared to sit down and work on, I would be prepared to participate in. But as long as this is a policy, there will be no private sector involvement in the housing industry and rental accommodation. Therefore, government will have to build it all.

I ask the government, with its experience of building non-profit housing at double, sometimes triple, the cost of what the private sector could do it for, is this the way you want to fritter taxpayers' dollars over the next five years?

I also want to comment on a point that was talked about by the leader of the Liberal Party. I am sure other members have also noted a certain tendency among the NDP to present themselves as spokespersons of a more humane society. The NDP mythology has always contained a somewhat sanctimonious self-perception, one referred to by the Premier, as I related to members in my comments when it looked like he was going to be a Liberal, that the NDP, and it alone, speaks for the poor and the disadvantaged. This mythology is reflected in the throne speech, where the government has the temerity to suggest that it will be the outsiders in from the cold. I gather that the Premier shares this view, that he too has been an outsider for far too long.

1600

The Progressive Conservative Party will challenge this proposition. We intend to challenge the notion that by limiting individual freedom through excessive taxation and an even more complex web of bureaucracy and red tape, government is actually helping outsiders. This approach will not create jobs. Mandated minimum wage increases, for example, no matter how laudable, no matter how much they might help or appear to help those who already have jobs, will do nothing to help create new jobs for those who are on the outside trying to get in.

What this and so many other principles embraced by this government do is denote privilege and special status on those who are already on the inside. It is that privilege and that special status that we must attack. It is that privilege and special status that we must remove, especially those on the inside with the NDP, and even more specifically, I suggest, at the time of a recession.

My party led this province for more than four consecutive decades. We provided sound and effective leadership during periods of enormous economic growth as well as periods of economic contraction. We faced the challenge of reconstruction following the Second World War. We led Ontario under the economic downturns of the mid-1960s and of the mid-1970s. We provided sound and effective leadership during the recession of the early 1980s. Despite all these challenges. we built an educational system that produced many of today's world business, legal, cultural and intellectual leaders. We had affordable homes. We had hospitals from which no one was turned away. We had an industrial base here in this province that brought wealth to workers as well as to investors. This was all possible while still maintaining a taxation base that was envied in many quarters of the world.

Today my party will take its responsibilities here in this Legislature and beyond the walls of this Legislature no less seriously. We will provide the people of Ontario with a vigorous opposition, with a clear alternative to high-taxing, big-spending, interventionist government represented by both the other parties in this House, and a clear and common sense alternative to any other parties in this Legislature who practise and who promote it.

I think it is customary at this time: I wish to move an amendment to the amendment to this throne speech.

The Speaker: Mr Harris moves that the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session be amended by adding the following thereto:

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

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

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

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

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

Mr B. Ward: It is an honour to be here among my colleagues, for whom I have great respect, on both sides of the House.

It has been suggested that this government is a democratic socialist government or a social democratic government or other names that the opposition may think of from time to time. Whatever people want to call us, we are, for the first time, a government representing the average working person in Ontario and I am very proud to be part of this historic event.

As the representative for Brantford, I am happy to be here to express my satisfaction for the social and economic direction that this government will take now and in the future. I am very pleased to see the speech from the throne address a number of areas that are of great concern to the people of Ontario and the city of Brantford in particular.

As you know, Brantford, like Windsor and other communities, has been hammered by the recession. The current recession has been caused, in large part, by the misguided economic policies of the federal Conservative government. Every day there seems to be notice of another plant closure or a layoff. That is why I feel this government made the right choice in battling the recession, in attempting to cushion the economic hardship that working people are experiencing.

The $700-million commitment towards public works projects is an excellent way to provide short-term relief. These projects will not only employ many of the people who have been thrown out of work through plant closure, layoffs or bankruptcies but will have a lasting effect on our communities. The projects will not simply consist of digging holes and filling them but will help improve the province's infrastructure which has been neglected for years and constantly underfunded.

Along with the capital works projects, the throne speech includes a commitment to ensure that as our economy restructures, the burden of change does not fall solely upon the workers and their communities.

I am pleased that we will create a wage protection fund for workers of bankrupt companies, support labour adjustment committees, introduce stronger measures on layoff notice, severance and other adjustment issues.

It is my belief that we must do more to train and retrain the work force to meet the economic challenges of the 1990s and into the 21st century. Therefore, I was very happy to see the commitment in the throne speech to upgrade skills training programs.

The progress that will be made by this government towards social justice will finally lead Ontario away from the corporate agenda of the 1980s towards a more compassionate society. A fairer tax system, pension reforms, improved rent review and tenant protection and increases in the supply of affordable housing and child care spaces are initiatives that will lead to a better quality of life for all of Ontario's people.

In closing, I believe this government was elected because we made a commitment to the people of Ontario to provide open and honest government and to consult with and listen to the people. We will keep that commitment. The people of Ontario have placed a trust in us and we must not, we will not, fail them.

1610

Mr Henderson: This throne speech proves that Harry Houdini is alive and well in the spirit of the New Democratic Party government of Ontario. This throne speech is the greatest disappearing act since Harry Houdini. This throne speech is a masterpiece of now you see it, now you don't. For that, this government can certainly claim credit. We knew a lot more about the positions of this NDP government last month than we do this month.

The NDP leader made promises about education. Last month we knew what the NDP would do about children attending school in cramped portable classrooms and washing their hands in communal buckets at the back of the class. Last week we knew that the NDP would boost the provincial government's contribution to education spending to 60% over a five-year period. What do we know this month? We heard that our future somehow depends on how we care for our children. These are hardly bold words, hardly the promises that will comfort worried parents or reassure exasperated educators or inspire pupils.

The NDP leader made promises about pensions. Last month, Ontario's senior citizens, who live on meagre company pensions of a couple of hundred dollars a month and who could not afford to see a Blue Jays game or watch a concert or maybe even enjoy a decent meal and have a decent home, knew that the Premier had promised a retroactive law to index pensions to the inflation rate -- not just a law, but a retroactive law. What did they hear in this throne speech? They heard that reports on advocacy for the frail elderly have been gathering dust for too long. Harry Houdini had done his thing.

The NDP leader made promises about housing. Last month we knew what the NDP was going to do about housing in Ontario. Rents would be controlled, with an annual fixed increase tied to inflation; 20,000 non-profit affordable units of housing would be created every year. Home ownership programs would be created for moderate-income families with a 10.5% ceiling on mortgage rates and access to registered retirement savings funds. The Ontario Mortgage Corp would become a direct lender of housing funds. The property tax system would be restructured and property tax credits would be increased. Tenants would have control over maintenance in their buildings and programs would help tenants buy their own buildings. Now, after the throne speech, we must be content to hope that the Premier will indeed help to expand the supply of affordable housing, particularly nonprofit housing. That kind of pillow talk gives little comfort to the thousands of Ontarians who live below the poverty line and who struggle on social assistance, little comfort to the working poor, little comfort to Ontario's construction sector and little comfort to Ontario's apartment dwellers who face eviction. What happened to those promises? Gone with the wind. Ask Harry Houdini where those promises went.

The NDP made promises about arts and culture. This throne speech was especially disappointing to Ontarians who love the arts and culture and hope for at least a few scant crumbs of comfort to be offered to the supporters of Metropolitan Toronto's ballet opera house. Karen Kain put it well in an open letter to the NDP a few days after the government reneged on Ontario's $55-million commitment to the ballet opera house. Building this ballet opera house, she said, would provide important jobs in the hard-pressed construction industry; 1,500 new housing units, half of them affordable; 1,000 jobs on stage and off for the artistic community, and would attract tourist dollars by the millions to Ontario.

Karen Kain pointed out something else. In times of stress, mankind derives great solace from the finest outpourings of human creativity, because we need food for our hearts and for our minds and for our souls. After the Second World War, when Vienna lay in ruins, the first priority of the Austrian people was to rebuild the opera house in Vienna, because they knew what culture meant to their spirits and to their hearts. Continued support for the ballet opera house in these recessionary times would be an act of enlightenment, vision and hope.

The NDP was the great hope for artists and performers and lovers of the arts and culture. Arts and culture strike to the very heart of health and vitality in our community. The government should never treat the arts as expendable.

Last month we thought we knew that the Premier would create an arts and government advisory committee and increase his support to the arts and culture from year to year by the rate of inflation. He had promised to ensure income security for artists, to exempt artists' materials and their work from provincial sales tax, to press the federal government for tax changes to help lower-income artists and to support funding for artists' co-operatives for the production and sale of their work.

Last month we thought we knew about the NDP's commitment to the arts and culture. We did not always agree with what the NDP stood for, but we respected its integrity. Ontario's artists and performers believed the NDP government would keep its word.

What happened to all those promises? What do we know this month? The Premier assures us that he recognizes the importance of the arts to the economy and to the quality of our lives. That is pillow talk. That is what the Premier used to call "weasel words" in this House. Those words are very small comfort to Ontario's artists and performers, very small comfort to the construction sector, very small comfort to the homeless, very small comfort to our beleaguered tourism industry and very small comfort to Ontarians who long for world-class culture.

It is not good enough just to know that this Premier recognizes the importance of the arts. What is he going to do to support the arts? Where did NDP integrity and NDP commitment to the arts get hidden? Ask Harry Houdini about that one too. It is part of the great new NDP disappearing act.

There is a story about the NDP leader that goes something like this: The member for York South had died and gone to meet his Maker and arrived at the pearly gates. St Peter looked at the member for York South and looked at his record and turned thumbs down. He sent him to that other place -- and I do not mean the Senate. A few days later he got a long-distance phone call from Satan, and Satan said: "St Peter, you have to help me with this guy from York South." St Peter said: "No way. He was up here three weeks ago. We canvassed opinion and the answer is definitely no." "But St Peter," said the Devil, "this York South guy has been here just three weeks and already he has shut down four burners."

There is a message in that story. This government has mastered the Harry Houdini shutdown act. This throne speech is a masterpiece of sleight of hand and disappearance. Look at all that has disappeared: commitment to pension reform and retroactive indexed pensions; a boost to the province's contribution to education to 60% over five years and an end to crowded portables; a promise to hold rent increases to an annual fixed rate; 20,000 new affordable housing units every year; home ownership programs; ceilings on mortgage rates; programs to put tenants in charge of maintenance and to help tenants buy their buildings, and the traditional NDP commitment to culture and the arts.

1620

Where have those commitments gone? They are all of them gone -- gone with the wind, gone and disappeared, the greatest disappearing act since Harry Houdini. The Premier's bag of tricks is even bigger than Houdini's.

I want to close by paraphrasing some very immortal words of the new minister responsible for francophone affairs. In the spirit of generosity he once extended to a Liberal cabinet minister, I want to give this government and this throne speech full marks. I give them 100%: 50% in English and 50% in French.

This throne speech is a giant step towards confusion and obfuscation. We knew a great deal more about what this government was going to do before it came to office and chose to speak. In government, we Liberals were not perfect and perhaps we even made a mistake or two, but rarely did we retreat behind platitudes and generalities. Rarely in politics does a speech offer as little substantive as this one does. They have a long way to go.

Mr Carr: I would like to take a quick moment to thank the veteran members of this Legislature for the help and support that they have given the new members as we begin this new session. I sincerely appreciate the help of my colleagues, as well as the members of the official opposition and on the government side in making the new members feel welcome.

Having said that, the reason I entered the political world from the business sector was because I was disappointed, discouraged and, in fact, angry with the direction that this province was taking. I had grown up in the greatest province and the greatest country on earth. We had the best health care system in the world; we now have waiting lists. We had the finest education system; we are now falling farther and farther behind the rest of the world. Our environment was clean and safe; now the garbage piles up and our lakes are polluted.

This throne speech fails to even recognize that, as the world changes, we too must change to prosper. This government, which so passionately cares for the poor, fails to recognize that the best way to help the poor is to ensure that those people have the skills and education to compete in the world.

I say to the Premier and the Minister of Colleges and Universities and the Minister of Education that the standard of living of our children in the future will be in direct proportion to the skill levels that we give them today. I say to the Minister of Education that her greatest challenge will not be beating David Peterson; her greatest challenge will be ensuring that our youth have the education and skills not only to compete with the kids from Newfoundland and British Columbia but to compete with the kids from the United States, France, now the united Germanys and Japan.

It was not too long ago that we never thought there would be machines that would replace the tellers. As we sit here today, on almost every street corner there are now machines that count out money. Even more incredible now is a project in the United States where a fast-food outlet now has a highly advanced machine which will cook and dispense hamburgers and french fries faster than 30 people can do it. This machine had displaced 30 workers. One individual making $32 per hour, with a bonus of $30,000 to start, has replaced 30 North American workers.

The sad part about this situation is that the machine is so highly technically advanced that it is not produced in North America. That machine in fact is produced in Japan. The skills necessary to run this machine are such that they demand high wages. The sad part is, there is no worker in North America capable of running the machine. The worker making $32 an hour plus a $30,000-a-year bonus is Japanese; 30 North American workers are replaced by one machine and one worker, both of them imported from Japan.

As I review this throne speech, there is nothing in it that would lead me to believe that this government even recognizes that a problem exists, let alone knows how to fix it. As I review the throne speech and see pay equity, I see that it will not help workers who lose their jobs to high technology. If the women of this province are given the skills to be able to compete, they will be able to command the high wages necessary to run machines such as these. In the throne speech it talks about increasing the minimum wage, but if technology advances as fast as it has, the minimum wage jobs will be lost to modern technology. The best thing we can do for the minimum wage workers is ensure that they have the skills to be able to compete, because as I say, those with the minimum skills are going to be the ones who are going to be unemployed. In the future, we will not even be able to count on jobs at the fast-food restaurants as the technology changes. The recent action by this government on maternity leave for workers will mean nothing if there are no jobs from which to take leave.

As I review this government's outline, I become frightened. I am frightened because we have met the enemy and he is us. We in this province are heading in the wrong direction in our quest to help the less fortunate. This government, sadly, does not even recognize the problem. As I see the challenges I am concerned, because just like the Titanic, we face disaster. There is this big iceberg on the horizon and those in charge of the ship, the newly elected government, have decided to shuffle the deck chairs instead of doing what is right and changing the direction for this province. In fact, some are not only shuffling the deck chairs and deciding who is going to get the loungers; some are even calling to the Premier: "Full speed ahead. Darn the torpedoes; full speed ahead." They are doing the very things that will hurt the people of this province in the long run.

A plant in my riding, Tridon, is leaving this province to go to Tennessee. They are going to a state where there are 110 laws to force workers to join a union. In this throne speech it says, "We will ensure that workers can freely exercise their right to organize." In fact, Tridon is automotive related and it right now is operating in a free trade environment. I say to those people who are yelling about free trade that 80% of the goods coming into this country before free trade were coming in duty-free.

Tridon is leaving because of the high cost of doing business here, including taxes. So what does this government do? It creates a fund which helps the workers who lose their jobs, which is an admirable goal, but what it will do is force a lot of companies, at the time when they are being uncompetitive, to pay into another system. As I look at this, we are treating the symptoms instead of trying to find a cure. I say that if the Titanic goes down, the people who will get to the lifeboats will not be the poor and disadvantaged. The ones getting off the sinking ship will be the ones who have the skills required by the rest of the world. Again, in the long run, this government is hurting those it so passionately wants to help. I am reminded of an old saying about socialism: "If you're not a socialist by the time you're 18, you don't have a heart, and if you're still a socialist by the time you're 30, you don't have a brain."

In other countries they are not shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic; they are working with industry to make themselves more competitive, and I say "competitive" is not a dirty word. The people of Ontario, indeed all Canadians, need to know that without the skills and abilities and training essential in the new information age, good people will not be able to have gainful employment. The world is a global village with determined, well-educated and powerful competitors. We compete with them for international standing in markets, not only in products and services but in ideas and brainpower. The people of this province have the capability to compete. What we do not have is the leadership of this government to take long term solutions to many difficult questions. We in Ontario should respect other nations, but we should fear no one.

1630

In a few short years, current projections indicate that Bell-Northern Research alone will be able to hire all the electrical engineers that Canadian universities produce. In addition, the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers estimates that there will be a shortage of 30,000 engineers. Some 30% of the full-time employees in Canada believe that if they lost their jobs tomorrow, they would not have the proper education, training and experience to find an attractive alternative.

By the year 2000, 40% of the new jobs in Canada will require abilities such as computing and thinking. One of the job requirements will probably include having a college degree. It is estimated that in the 1990s almost two thirds of the new jobs acquired will require 12 years of education. Many of the new jobs will even, in fact, include 17 years of education.

Indeed, we have met the enemy and he is us. It is little wonder, as I look at this throne speech, that people are cynical about politicians when they see this government saying, "We will establish measures to ensure more fairness in appointments to government agencies, boards and commissions." Yet the first appointments go to long-time NDP supporters such as Bob White and Bruce Kidd.

It is little wonder, seeing this government backtrack on so many promises, that the people of this province say they do not trust politicians. In fact, they look at it and say, "Even Bob Rae, who we thought stood for principles above all else, is just like the rest of them."

In the throne speech it says: "It is our job to address that cynicism and to overcome it. When my government makes mistakes, it will admit them." I say to the Premier of this province that he has a duty to admit that this throne speech is a mistake, that the direction this province is taking is wrong, and then change the emphasis of this government to ensure the prosperity of all our residents.

I say to the government that it should do it quickly, because the iceberg is looming larger and larger every day. It should not steer Ontario into disaster. The people of this province are counting on this government.

Mr Sutherland: It is indeed a pleasure and an honour for me to be able to stand here to represent the riding of Oxford. As some members may know, Oxford has a strong mix of a very healthy agricultural community and a strong manufacturing base. Its agriculture is very diverse, made up of dairy, tobacco, beef, pork and vegetable growers, all kinds of different aspects of agriculture. It also likes to proclaim itself as the dairy capital of Canada.

Oxford heritage is lengthy and goes back a long way. It was primarily developed by British immigrants from England, Scotland and different areas. I am proud of the fact that my forefathers came to Oxford county in 1852 and that our family has seen fit to stay in this wonderful community. In the postwar era, there was much more immigration into the area, a lot of that being Dutch and European. Those people have added a great deal to the community and to the riding.

I want to talk today about the throne speech, what is in it, what is not in it and what a throne speech is supposed to be. I have listened intently to many members of the other parties and people at large commenting that this isn't in the throne speech and that isn't in the throne speech. Let's try to define what a throne speech is supposed to be about.

Is it supposed to announce every government policy and all the specifics related to that policy, or is it supposed to provide goals, direction, for everybody? I think a throne speech is supposed to provide the goals and direction. If we were to believe the members of the opposition as to what should be in this throne speech, then the Lieutenant Governor would still be reading the throne speech today because, simply put, the members of the opposition have constantly suggested that everything should have been there, every specific, every nuance of every policy. That is not what a throne speech is about.

We have also heard members of the opposition quote the Agenda for People from the election campaign and say that we have not kept the commitments in the Agenda for People. I have a copy of the Agenda for People here and I have looked at the different headings in the Agenda for People. There were 26 of them. In the throne speech, 23 of those 26 are made reference to. So I do not believe the opposition can claim that we are not keeping the commitment that we made to our agenda in the election. We have made reference to them. We have pointed out the direction we want to go.

I want to focus in on a few specific areas in the throne speech. We have heard a lot of comments from members of the opposition, how it does not focus in on skills development, how it does not talk about training, and we just heard a fellow colleague talk at some length about that. I would like to quote a paragraph from the throne speech: "Our human resources will be key to our economic future. To face the challenge of the 1990s effectively, we must become a learning society where education and training are seen as fundamental to individual growth, where investment in people is understood to be as important as investment in capital or in research and development. My government will work with labour, business, community organizations and the educational sector to create new education and training partnerships. Strong, publicly funded institutions are crucial to lifelong education."

Is that a strong commitment to training and development? Clearly, some members of the opposition were not listening to the Lieutenant Governor or have not read the throne speech carefully enough to indicate that.

Other members of the opposition have talked about what makes a country competitive, and they have gone on and they have said that we are leading this province down the road of doom because we want to do things such as pay equity, because we want to increase the minimum wage to a workable living wage.

I would like to quote some of the things that a noted economist, Michael Porter, who is at Harvard, has recently announced in a book of his about what makes nations competitive. Here are some of the things he highlights. Mr Porter has been hired by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business to study Canada's economy, to see how competitive it is. The things included "a strong science and research base, a good educational system, good health care and housing, modern telecommunications." He also highlights demand conditions: "This means customers who set high standards and force industries to meet these standards. It includes governments setting high standards for product quality and safety. Companies that satisfy demanding customers at home are better able to compete in the rest of the world."

He also mentions government regulation, and I quote from the article again: "Government regulation -- from environmental controls and workplace safety to product standards and energy efficiency -- can force industry to develop products ahead of companies in other countries. Sweden has done this through tough rules on workplace safety and the environment, and Japan has done the same thing with its emphasis on energy efficiency in autos and other industries."

Our government has made a commitment to energy efficiency. Our government has made a commitment to strong regulations because we believe that new industries and new technology can come out of that. Clearly, the directions outlined in the throne speech seem to be in line with what this noted professor of economics at Harvard is saying. So, for opposition members to sit there and say that this government does not know anything about competitiveness, maybe they should have a talk with Mr Porter and maybe they should have a talk with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which has hired this gentlemen to help study the Canadian economy.

1640

I want to compliment our government for also addressing the issue of a common pause day. As one who has worked in the retail sector and worked through high school and university to put myself through university --

Mrs Cunningham: Kimble, that's unusual. That's dangerous, Kimble. That's even tough for our party to come to grips with. What are you going to do?

Mr Sutherland: -- I want to say that I think it is extremely important that we have a common pause day.

Studies -- and I am sure my colleague the member for London North, who is very involved with education, will concur with this -- have shown that when high school students or university students are working more than 12 or 13 hours a week, it affects their education.

Clearly, if we do not have a common pause day, it is going to be many high school students who are going to have to work on Sundays, and that is going to take them over that 12 hours a week. We have heard many people say how they are concerned about the quality of education. If we want our young people to do well, we need to have a common pause day.

We need a common pause day to preserve our family life and to help enhance it. We all know there are certainly many distractions on family life now, and I think it is important that we have a common pause day for everybody.

I believe the leader of the third party has been quoted as being in favour of Sunday shopping, as trying to say that it helps make us more competitive or it means more profits. It simply does not. All you are doing is changing profits from those companies that do not want to open up on Sunday to those that do.

As for those who believe it may create more employment, it simply does not, because if people are shopping on Sunday, then they are not shopping on Monday and Tuesday and hours are going to be cut. Hours may be shifted, but there is not going to be any more employment created by having Sunday shopping.

I want to talk about another issue. The leader of the third party mentioned earlier about how the young people should be in the streets complaining about deficits and debts. During the election campaign the young people I ran into were telling me that they are very concerned about the environment, and with good reason. They are concerned about what the environment is going to be when they grow up and have families and children of their own.

I am very pleased that our government has made a strong commitment in the throne speech to deal with environmental issues -- not just a haphazard measure such as having soft drink refillable companies help sponsor a blue box program, but a true commitment to reduction, recycling and reusing as well as the environmental bill of rights and the Safe Drinking Water Act. All of those things are strong commitments to environmental protection. That is what many of our young people are very concerned about in this day and age.

Finally, I also want to say that I am very pleased that we have made reference to the problems that affect this country and the constitutional malaise that we seem to be in. This country is drifting apart, and I think all of us agree that we need to try and bring this country back, to unite it once again as a strong country, though we recognize many people's interests and concerns.

During the month of May I happened to be unemployed and I had the fortune or misfortune, depending upon how you want to look at it, of watching the daily reports coming off Newsworld of what was going on with our country. It was an extremely frustrating experience to sit there and watch the TV and see our leaders letting our country go apart, extremely frustrating for me as an individual, and I am sure many other people in this province also found it extremely frustrating as those 11 people tried to decide the whole country's future and did not let people participate and join in.

Let me say this as well about the throne speech: It does not have everything in there for everybody. It does not have everything I would like to see. I am sure it does not have everything in it that other members of my party would like to see, that ministers would like to see, or even that the Premier would like to see.

But clearly, given the realities of the time, the fact that we are in a recession caused by high interest rates and free trade, the throne speech has still committed this government to a strong reform agenda, to making things better for the people of this province in the long run and balancing that out with the economic realities of the time.

I am very proud of the throne speech and I am very proud to be part of the government that has put forward this agenda.

Mr Chiarelli: I want to congratulate the member for Oxford on his maiden speech, but I have to take great exception to some of his comments, particularly the so-called commitments that the NDP have and any claims he has that there are specifics in the throne speech. I want to refer particularly to the Minister of Financial Institutions who, through his filibuster and lengthy diatribes in committee, consistently said that he and his party would support, for example, the right of innocent victims to sue as a result of motor vehicle accidents.

The reality is that this person accepted a responsibility in cabinet. Even after being appointed to cabinet, this particular minister stated, and I am quoting from a prepared speech, that "a public, driver-owned, non-profit insurance system with access to courtrooms for injured victims" is basically what he was supporting.

He stated after he was a minister that he wanted access to courtrooms for injured victims; now he is now totally backtracking on that. He is saying he will look at all kinds of systems; he will look at no-fault systems. He accepted his responsibility as minister on the basis of a right to sue for innocent victims and he has totally backtracked. The actual commitments of this minister and this government, in point of fact, are not worth a pinch of possum poop.

Mr Sutherland: Let me just address the issue this member has brought up and say that if you look at the throne speech and listen to the comments that have been made both by the Premier and the minister responsible, they are saying that we still have the commitment to that policy. All we want to do is make sure that we consult with people, that we listen to people to ensure that it is implemented in the most effective way possible. To me that is just good government.

Mr Curling: First I would like to congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your appointment as Deputy Speaker and the great respect we have for you in this House. We know that you will of course carry out your duties in a way that we will all appreciate.

I am not one to be excited about throne speeches, not at all. I find them boring, full of platitudes, vague and, most of the time, saying nothing. This throne speech did not surprise me at all, although there were two statements in the throne speech that caught my ear. First is the one which states, "This speech is about principles." The second one says, "But it is also about the realities that must guide our decisions."

These realities are not new realities. They were here all along when the NDP members were coming up with their plans and proposals. All of the realities that they are now speaking about were here all along, and I am pleased that they are now mature enough to acknowledge reality.

Actually, to be fair, the NDP did acknowledge that Ontario was in a recession as far back as mid-August when it announced strategies for coping with the recession in its Agenda for People. So imagine my surprise to hear them speak about the recession as an excuse for inaction, as if it caught them completely unawares.

1650

The New Democratic government in its throne speech says, and it is important that I quote from this: "My government's integrity will be measured by the way this government is run and our relations with the people we serve. Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power wherever they exist."

As recently as two days ago, I read in the paper that the Minister of Government Services had a TV show, and using her prerogative as the minister -- there is a by-election going on now in ward 8 in this city -- brought her NDP colleague on the show to promote that "abuse," it says, "of power wherever they exist." Yet, integrity being measured by the way they run themselves, I think that is blatant arrogance in its form.

In the resolution of the New Democratic Party at its 1988 convention, it is stated: "Be it resolved that the Ontario New Democratic Party sees environmental assessment as an absolute necessity. All new projects, processes and products must be assessed for their environmental impact and approved before they are allowed to proceed or to be used.

"Be it further resolved" -- this is the part that grabs me; and I know, Mr Speaker, as you sit in that chair and listen to this, how appalled you are -- "that there will be no further exemption by politicians."

My colleagues in the New Democratic government recall that the Minister of the Environment sat there and said, "I'm going to exercise my power as a minister when the exemption time comes, should we have to open another dump site should there be an excess." Abuse, again. Remember, no politician should use that power in order to make any exemptions. Yet, in a short time, here is what they are saying.

So it is what is not in the throne speech, as my honourable friend the member for Oxford stated; there are many things not in the throne speech. As I said, I am not at all surprised that they are not there.

I want to concentrate on two errors of the throne speech that should be there. One error is that it said, "our human resources will be key to our economic future." About our most important resource is our people. Some very lovely statements were made here. But the reality of Ontario, the reality of Canada, is that 25% of our adults are functionally illiterate; it depends on whose statistics you are reading. That is more than five million adults in this country who are functionally illiterate. I would hope the throne speech would address that provincial disgrace, that we have so many people who are functionally illiterate.

I read that the Premier made a statement to the library association as recently as last night. He asked them to be leaders in the cause of eradicating illiteracy. I would say the volunteers have done a tremendous amount of work in bringing to the attention of governments -- my government, the Liberal government at the time, and also the Conservative government when it was in power -- to recognize that national disgrace of functional illiteracy in this country and in this province.

A bit of movement happened when the Liberal government was in place, and I could hope the NDP government had made some better statements and made some other moves than asking the volunteer sector to take on more. They will take on more as we fight, as I said, this national disgrace.

The other topic I would like to raise is the topic of employment equity and pay equity. I will just make a comment about the statement by the Attorney General I read in the papers the other day. He was making the comment with regard to appointing more women as justices of the peace that his main objective is to bring in more women as justices of the peace. I must commend him, of course; that is a good direction to go.

It is his next statement that surprised me. He stated: "If I am not able to find women in this province, I will go outside the province to find women to fill those roles." I will say this -- and I am prepared to debate this any time in here or outside -- about affirmative action, pay equity and employment equity: Every time we bring in these new legislation or policy discussions about it, it becomes a women's issue. We say we want to bring in more people to partake in this province who have been shut out, women, of course, but also visible minorities and the disabled. Now the Attorney General is stating that as soon as he cannot find enough women here he will not look beyond to see if the disabled or visible minorities could participate as justices of the peace but will go outside the province to find more women.

It is a shame and narrow thinking by the Attorney General. There is a lot of time to recover, after all the mistakes he has made in such a short time: I ask him to look beyond his narrow perspective.

In the throne speech, with regard to employment equity, the Premier through the lips of the Lieutenant Governor stated that more consultation will be done. You were here, Mr Speaker. You heard him. Not only that; when the leader was in opposition -- I want the member from Oxford, if he has not, to look back in those files -- Bill 172 was introduced by the now Premier of this province. He was saying that the Liberal government was too slow in bringing about employment equity. And what did he do? He said: "I will put the private member's bill before you right now." In his very eloquent way, the statement he put forward was, "This bill is a result of a long period of discussion and consultation with a number of groups as well as individuals across the province, members active in the visible minority community, the disabled community, women's groups, native groups, as well as people from the labour movement." What did he state then in the House afterwards, in the throne speech? Further consultation.

There are two ways he can do this. He could scratch the private member's stuff out and reintroduce Bill 172 as a new bill, because he said he had done all his consultation. But now he wants to have further consultation, dragging his feet. As he said, it is a matter of principles and reality. I presume the reality has come home, that he has now seen he will not do that, or that his expectations of what he could do he will not be able to do.

I will give notice, then, because I do not think I have to do much work on all this, that Bill 172 could be reintroduced. If the honourable member would not like to do that, I think it is a good guiding force that maybe, as the critic for that area of human rights, I could look at whether that could be used again. I challenge him. Bring that bill forward now and do the employment equity right now on all this. Do not postpone it for another time in the future, because we want it now, people who are locked out and do not have access to it, even before pay equity becomes the great effect that it should do, because the government knows what pay equity is all about. I believe in pay equity, as the members all sit there. Pay equity is about dealing with people who are now in the system, who have had jobs, to share that money up.

But I would warn the business community and I warn all the union representatives who are now sitting in the House, if they do believe in employment equity, those who are knocking at the door to come in, who are qualified -- those women, those disabled individuals, those native people who are qualified -- to open the door and then they can make an assessment of people who are qualified. They ask for no further thing. They ask for no special privilege. They ask to be treated fairly before the government shares that money up, because employment equity itself is about access. That is what it is about.

Of course, I believe very, very strongly in pay equity, that people should be paid for the work they do. So I will challenge the new government not to postpone it. It does remind me very much of the dog who chases the car. As soon as the car stops, the dog is confused. "How the dickens do I drive this thing? What do I do with it, now that it is stopped?" The government members have chased this thing for years. They wanted to be the government. They saw the ideas and they said: "Listen, if we were the government, this is what we would do. We would set all this out. We would lay out our agenda."

As a matter of fact, we were the only people who had a proper agenda in the election. The NDP bragged about it; then they should implement it. They said, "Oh, we can't." This is reality itself. I am not at all happy with what this government is doing so far.

They stated, "We cherish multiculturalism, a multiracial diversity, and we will work to preserve it and to benefit from it." Who will benefit? The fact is, when we decide to cherish and preserve it, most of the people who are locked out of this are very much the minorities. We must make sure that we preserve the multicultural community that has developed, that we consult with it and that in that way the benefits do not go to those who already have great benefits.

On motion by Mr Curling, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 1703.