Journal des débats 1985-juil-02 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would ask all members of the assembly to join me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery Art Lee, Liberal leader for the province of British Columbia.

While I am looking in the gallery, I would like to draw to your attention a member many of you may know: Don Boudria, a former member here and now a member of Parliament.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AIR-INDIA DISASTER

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have two short statements; then with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will get into a longer statement.

At the outset, I would like to take this opportunity to express on behalf of the new government of Ontario, all parties represented in this House and all members of this Legislature, our deepest condolences to the families and friends of those, and in particular those Canadians, who lost their lives in the Air-India disaster.

The entire country's concern has been riveted on the grief and loss that have been felt by the surviving families and friends. It was with a feeling of helplessness that we looked on their anguish and their sadness. We want to assure them that their grief is our grief and their loss our loss. As members of the Canadian family, we extend our collective hands and hearts in an offer of support and caring in their time of shock, horror and sorrow. There can be no more difficult task in life than seeking to comfort those who have just been touched by death.

The Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munroe) will investigate ways in which her ministry can be of assistance to the province's Indian community and other Ontarians who lost loved ones in this tragedy in the air.

Mr. F. S. Miller: We join with the Premier's expressions on behalf of the province and the people of Ontario. We have all been very profoundly moved by the depth of the disaster and the way it struck so many of our friends and fellow citizens. Without question, the loss of so many children has made the circumstances all the more tragic.

I take this occasion to repeat some of the comments I made to the Consul General of India on June 24. The people who have come to Ontario from India and neighbouring countries have made outstanding contributions to this province and to Canada as a whole. We can only pray that their strength and their determination will help them cope with the tragedy and the grief they now suffer. That tragedy and that grief have touched us all. I hope our sincere expressions of condolences at this time will be of some help to the families and to the friends of those who have had their lives taken from them.

Mr. Rae: Our prayers and our thoughts are with the families of those who were affected so tragically by the disaster which took place some 10 days ago. It is one of the worst air disasters on record; it is one that touched a great many families in Toronto, a great many Canadian families in Ontario, and it is one that, in a sense, all of us share.

If I may add just one brief personal note, I think all of us have a tremendous concern about what has happened with respect to air safety and to the growth or the outbreak of terrorism as it affects innocent men, women and children. It seems to me it is always important for us, as people deeply committed to caring for human life and to the sanctity of the person, to continue to fight in whatever way we can against the terrible forces of darkness, the terrible forces of terrorism of those people who would engage in wanton, random, violent acts in the name of some ideology or some cause.

All of us have a tremendous stake in seeing that we take whatever steps we can to ensure the expression, in every way possible, of the importance of the sanctity of life and about fighting against these forces of darkness.

Our hearts are opened. All of us, any of us, could have been touched by this tragedy; all of us, any of us, are equally vulnerable to these forces that are at work in society today. We all have a stake in seeing that they are brought to bay.

On behalf of my party, I would like to express our very real condolences to the families who have contributed so much to the Canadian family and to say how much all of us have lost as a result of the terrible tragedies of these last 10 days.

RETIREMENT OF PREMIERS

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Last week, two of Canada's most unique leaders announced their plans to retire from public life. I would like to say just a few words in tribute to Premier Peter Lougheed and Premier René Lévesque.

2:10 p.m.

Although these men represent entirely different philosophies and interests, they have much in common. Neither would ever allow anything to deter him from giving voice to his convictions or to speaking up for what he thought was best for his province. These characteristics often brought them into conflict with each other and with Ontario, but no matter how often one may have disagreed with these leaders, there is no question about one thing: Two titans have departed the Canadian political scene. Our friends in Quebec and Alberta know the feeling Ontario experienced when William Davis stepped down.

Canada has been blessed by a rich heritage of federal and provincial leaders. In the last two decades their role has been vital to shaping the fundamental relations of this country. Both René Lévesque and Peter Lougheed gave us rare gifts. They forced us to think seriously about issues that required serious thought. Premier Lévesque did much to force us to confront our constitutional dilemmas and Peter Lougheed did much to force us to confront our economic dilemmas. Both men have broadened our horizons and deepened our perspectives.

Premier Lévesque's passion for Quebec and his eloquence have earned the respect of all Canadians. It is ironic that the legacy of his nine-year term will be a continued and vital search for the terms on which Quebec can play its full role in Canada and still maintain its particular sense of community.

During his 14 years at the helm of the Alberta government, Premier Lougheed won respect across Canada for the passion and drive he showed in standing up for his province. We can see represented in those two men the sort of challenge the intergovernmental political process must deal with, with Mr. Lougheed asserting Alberta's influence within Confederation and Mr. Lévesque asserting Quebec's position to be outside Confederation.

These challenges are not insurmountable, but they do represent conditions that place a premium on diplomacy. Ontario will be a key player in ensuring, undoubtedly through hard political discussions, that these points of diversity, as well as the larger cause of unity, remain vital features of our country.

Mr. F. S. Miller: I also take this opportunity to comment on some very significant changes in the political leadership of this country, outside of this province -- changes that no doubt will have an effect on national as well as provincial policies.

In both Premiers Lévesque and Lougheed we have had genuine champions of provincial goals and aspirations, goals with which we in Ontario have not always been in agreement. I suspect Premier Lévesque unwittingly brought us closer together as Canadians. History may indeed record the irony that, in advocating the separation of Quebec as a viable alternative, he and his party made the rest of Canada realize the fragility of this country. Out of that recognition came sincere efforts to keep it together and to make it stronger and more unified than ever.

I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to remind this House of the very important role my predecessor and the members of his government played in the referendum debate. It was a tragedy that Quebec did not join with the rest of Canada in the constitutional agreement. It is our profound hope that Premier Lévesque's successor will do so.

As someone who lived for eight years in Quebec and who still has strong ties with that province and its people, I have never shared Premier Lévesque's proposed solutions to the challenges facing Quebec. He was wrong and, fortunately, Quebeckers did not respond to his vision. I believe he was right, however, in fighting for a more equitable deal for Quebeckers. We have to commend him for his untiring devotion and commitment to preserving the French language and culture in this country. Without question, his presence will be missed.

With great justification, Premier Lougheed won the respect and the admiration of westerners for his defence of their outstanding contributions to our country. He also won the respect of other first ministers as a tough bargainer on behalf of the people he represented. His province and ours were often in disagreement on the question of energy pricing, on which he had his constituency and we had ours. It is the kind of debate that is tough on this country, but which in the long run makes us stronger as a nation for having survived such battles and gone on to questions that unite us in purpose and resolve.

I would like to take this opportunity to comment on changes right here at home in our province. Today, on behalf of our party, I congratulate the new Premier of Ontario and those he has chosen to form his first cabinet.

[Applause]

If our applause is warm, it is because we know very well the great responsibility the Premier has taken on and the difficult decisions he is going to have to make in the days and weeks ahead. I suspect members of our caucus spent a good deal more pleasant weekend than the members on that side did, getting ready for today.

I want the Premier to know we will be helpful and positive in the days ahead, when it is in the public's interest. We will only be that way when it is in the public's interest for us to be helpful.

I take this opportunity to warn the new Premier and his government that we intend, beginning today, to be a very loyal, strong and vigilant opposition. We recognize we are facing an inexperienced cabinet, but we believe Ontarians deserve and expect nothing less than first-rate government. They have always had it with us; we are going to accept nothing less than first-rate efforts on their behalf.

We look forward to this new session and to our new and very important role in the political life of this province.

Mr. Rae: I am happy to join in commenting on the retirement of Mr. Lévesque and Mr. Lougheed.

Si je peux dire quelques paroles sur la carrière extraordinaire de M. Lévesque comme politicien canadien. Naturellement j'ai lutté personnellement contre la position de M. Lévesque sur la question de l'avenir de la Confédération canadienne; je n'ai pas partagé sa vision, si vous le voulez, de l'avenir de notre pays mais j'ai toujours respecté les qualités personnelles extraordinaires de M. Lévesque, son engagement envers sa province, son engagement personnel vers l'avenir du Québec et j'espère qu'après tous les événements de cette décennie sur la question de la constitution nous pourrons enfin arriver à une situation où le Québec se sent chez lui dans la Confédération.

J'espère qu'en même temps nous pourrons reconnaître que, malgré les différends que nous avons eus avec le Parti québécois et le premier ministre québécois, nous partageons un engagement vers la nécessité de reconnaître la position spécifique, si vous voulez, de la province de Québec dans la Confédération.

I have not, nor have members of our party, shared the special vision of the future of Canada that was held by Mr. Lévesque, but I still think it is fair to say no one has had a more extraordinary and distinguished career in the defence of what he saw as his province's interest. Despite our differences of opinion in the past, which have been very profound, we, all of us, have to recognize the extraordinary contribution Mr. Lévesque has made to his own province and to the wellbeing of Quebec.

I certainly express the hope we may be able to move in the next while to some real achievements with respect to getting Quebec to be a partner in the new Constitution. I hope the government will be playing a constructive role in seeing we are able to reach a national agreement which will allow Quebec to play its specific role in Confederation and to ensure its part in the new Canadian Constitution.

It is a time, it has been said, of some extraordinary changes across the country. We embrace those changes. We think they are a good thing and we want to see them go further. Once the process of change has begun, as other provinces and countries have discovered at other times, the process of change tends to develop its own momentum, and that is a momentum we look forward to following.

2:20 p.m.

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Peterson: At the outset, let me thank my colleagues for their warm words. I am very mindful of the responsibilities they have in this great chamber and I appreciate their warm wishes for myself and for the new cabinet, recognizing as they do, and, indeed, as everyone does, that we are inexperienced in our role, having just been sworn into office some six days ago.

I appreciate the consideration demonstrated by the opposition parties and we intend to also demonstrate the same kind of sensitivity. We recognize we are dealing with an inexperienced opposition and I have instructed my ministers to be very gentle in the first couple of weeks, at least until they find their feet.

We are mindful of the very great responsibility we have assumed. It is obvious every opposition member aspires to govern. It is something I have personally worked towards for 10 years, and some of my colleagues have been working for it for even longer than that. Taking my place on this side of the House, in this chair, as Ontario's 20th Premier, is personally a very humbling experience indeed.

We have much work to do for the people of Ontario. That is why we decided to reconvene this House so quickly after being sworn into office. I know of no other transition accomplished in such a very short space of time. I wish to thank everyone who helped; the opposition parties, the staff and the public service. It took a great deal of effort and co-operation and worked extremely smoothly. Speed was necessary because we recognized the importance of moving quickly to tackle the pressing problems confronting this province.

Before I discuss our plans for this session, I would like to be the first in the House to express respect for the Conservative Party's long reign. We have had many honest differences over fundamental issues through the years, but we recognize that the hundreds of Conservative legislators who sat on this side of the House sought to guide the province as best they could. I congratulate them on their ability to so often win the confidence of the people of Ontario.

The last election brought changes most of us, including my wife, did not expect. The people of the province supported our commitment to openness, to compassion and to competence. We who sit on this side of the House will spare no effort to justify their confidence. We will open new avenues to public participation and close old ones to arbitrary decisions. We will guard against any erosion in health care, equality of opportunity or help for the needy. We will show respect for every cent of every taxpayer's dollar.

We will act to preserve a clean environment. We will be bold in creating new jobs and vigilant in protecting those that now exist. We will fight for Ontario's interests and never let them be ignored. We will begin to reshape education to meet the needs of our society in a changing world. We invite all in this House to join us in the pursuit of these goals.

Our differences pale when compared to those that divide people elsewhere. We should never forget the blessing of living in a country where the phrase "political battle" is a colourful metaphor rather than a grim reality.

Six days ago, when I was honoured to be sworn in as the Premier of this province, I spoke of the need for a government without walls or barriers. That is important inside this House as well as outside.

There is a proper place for partisanship. There is also a proper time for partisanship. It must not encompass every waking hour of every working day. We are committed to making minority government work and our aim is to make use of the talents of all legislators. In this House, everyone will count. We want to exchange ideas, not insults. We seek common ground with both opposition parties.

Many of our campaign proposals were included in the last government's throne speech. Obviously there are some basic points on which we can expect the support of all parties.

Nous occupons tous un nouveau poste. Nous devons tous faire preuve de patience. On ne peut tout faire en un seul jour, ni en une seine session. Il serait insensé d'essayer.

All of us in this House are new to our jobs. We all have to show patience. We cannot do everything in one day or one legislative session. It would be foolish to try. In the next few days, ministers of my government will announce a number of new policies. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) will soon provide an economic statement. That is why I will not announce today every policy we intend to pursue or every goal we hope to reach. I offer not an exhaustive list, but a broad agenda.

We face many pressing needs. One that touches upon all of us is the need to make Ontario's government open, compassionate and competent, like its people. People can only achieve the changes they want and need if they are allowed to put their hands on the levers of power and shift gears when necessary. We joined an accord to indicate the kind of policies we will pursue and the kind of support we can expect. We realized we owed it to the people to make it clear that our government will act from open plans. That is why we have placed a welcome mat at the front door of this House.

We have already gone beyond symbolic efforts in trying to involve people in the decisions that affect their lives. It is because of our belief in open government that we released long-withheld information on separate school funding less than 48 hours after we took office. We have reiterated our commitment to ensuring full debate on the manner of implementation. We want to hear what people have to say.

Notre approche ouverte s'appliquera à toutes les questions, y compris celles qui ont reçu peu d'attention par le passé.

Our open approach will extend to all issues, including those that have received little attention in the past.

D'ici quelques jours, le ministre des Affaires du Nord annoncera la tenue d'audiences publiques vers la fin du mois sur l'attribution à norOntair de lignes aériennes pour son second Dash-8. De telles décisions ne se prendront plus sans que ceux qui doivent en subir les conséquences puissent se faire entendre.

Within a few days, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Fontaine) will announce public hearings to take place later this month on the awarding of routes for use by norOntair's second Dash-8 aircraft. No longer will such decisions be made without giving a voice to those who have to live with the consequences.

We will move quickly to make this House the people's home. We will bring television into the Legislature so what we do and say can be seen and heard in every living room in the province. We will soon introduce freedom-of-information legislation. Six years after a bill was first promised by the government, we will open that window to the fresh air of public access. The same bill will protect personal privacy, and guarantee every citizen the means to protect his or her reputation.

We will move quickly to bolster the role of members and committees of the Legislature. We recognize their vital role as the direct link that allows the people to tell us their concerns. A legislative committee will be empowered to conduct a review of parliamentary procedures and appointments. It will be given two vital assignments. It will be asked to devise ways to make full use of the talents of elected members and determine what resources they need to effectively represent their constituents.

Mr. Martel: I can tell the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member for Sudbury East knows the answer already, I know.

The committee will also be asked to develop means to attract and select the most dedicated and capable citizens to serve in government. It is our goal to seek out the finest minds and firmest hands. We are open to talent from every corner of this province. It is our duty to dispel skepticism about public and political institutions. Appointments made to repay favours have bred contempt among the public. Cynicism has been justified in the past. We will see there will be no grounds for it in the future.

2:30 p.m.

Public service will regain the respect it deserves. We will replace the spoils system with the merit system. Public service must be viewed as its own reward.

We will remember that our commitment to open government is important only as a means to an end. The end we seek is government with the competence to lead and the compassion to deliver. In the past few days we have seen an example of how people can get through to government if the mechanisms are there. We congratulate the senior citizens of this country for their successful effort to right a wrong.

Nous tenons également à exprimer notre gratitude. C'est avec grand plaisir que nous avons instamment demandé au gouvernement fédéral de revenir sur ses plans de réduire la protection des intéressés contre l'augmentation des prix. Les personnes âgées du Canada ont fait bien plus pour nous que nous n'avons fait pour elles. Elles ont non seulement prouvé la valeur de la participation publique mais elles ont également rappelé à bon nombre d'entre nous un point qu'à notre avis nous ne devrions jamais oublier.

In a little over two decades, more than 1.4 million citizens of Ontario will be over the age of 65. Many of us will be among them, those who have not expired. Many of us must now work to plan how we are going to provide the senior citizens with services they have earned. That is why I appointed a Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Van Horne) responsible for senior citizens' affairs. He has begun to work to develop an efficient, affordable and sensitive system of caring for the aged.

Those three goals come together naturally. By rationalizing services and improving seniors' access to local resources, we will make it possible for them to remain in their communities while keeping costs under control.

We will place a high priority on implementing homemaker and home-support programs. We recognize the importance of assessment and placement services and they will be reviewed. We will help senior citizens to remain as independent as they can for as long as they can.

If compassion means anything, it means support for guaranteed first-class health care for all. We will move to eliminate extra billing. Our Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) will meet soon with representatives of the medical community to work out the fairest way of implementing this basic principle.

Compassion means recognizing people's rights and insisting they be met. Unfair discrimination against women, minorities and the handicapped must go; full and equal opportunities must come.

We will introduce legislation to guarantee equal pay for work of equal value in the public sector. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) will direct an interministerial task force to begin immediately to prepare a green paper on the means of implementing this principle in the private sector.

We do not underestimate the difficulties in bringing in an equal value system but we are determined to make a meaningful start and see the process through. This government will ignite the engine that will drive us to the long-sought destination of equal rights for all.

To advance to that goal, we will set up a $1-million fund to support court cases based on the women's rights guarantees in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Justice is always a sound investment.

We will also proceed with bills aimed at bringing our own statutes into line with the Constitution, and a Family Law Reform Act, and give teeth to court orders for support and custody. An important element in compassion is fairness. We will also introduce child care programs.

We are determined to build an atmosphere of improved labour-management relations. Workers have a fundamental right to organize for collective bargaining. Certification procedures provide means for the majority to decide the issue of trade union representation, but certification is a meaningless event when a first collective agreement proves unattainable.

To address this problem, the government proposes to introduce legislation to provide for the arbitration of first collective agreements. The objective will be to protect the right to organize while maintaining an incentive to negotiate a first agreement rather than rely on arbitration.

Notre proposition se traduira par de meilleures relations entre le patronat et les travailleurs, une situation que nous recherchons tous. Pour cette question, la compassion et la compétence vont nettement de pair.

Our proposal will ultimately lead to improved labour-management relations, a goal we all seek. On this issue, compassion and competence most clearly meet.

This government will also introduce measures to reform the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act to ensure fair treatment for those injured in the work place and further limit the risk to workers.

We must all work towards ensuring basic shelter for all. Today we wish to announce that rent review will be extended to all private rental dwellings, effective August 1. At that time, the legal limit on rent hikes will be reduced to four per cent. Given the 90-day notice required for a rent increase, the new, lower limit will apply to all notices given on or after May 2.

Legislation on these measures will be introduced early in the fall, giving the new government time to prepare a fully comprehensive package. Meanwhile, I urge all landlords to act in good faith. There is little point in raising rents only to see them rolled back retroactively.

In extending controls, however, we will be fair to all. Any landlord who feels he can justify recent rent hikes on the basis of costs will be able to apply for rent review.

The Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) will give high priority to designing a rent registry so new tenants can find out the legal limit for prospective dwellings. Work on this will continue without delay to ensure the earliest possible date for implementation.

Our commitment to affordable housing is reflected by our decision to create a separate Ministry of Housing. A solution to this problem, which has reached huge proportions in our metropolitan areas, is going to require cooperation from all three levels of government. The Minister of Housing will be meeting with his counterparts at the housing ministers' conference in Calgary this week. He will urge there be a strong federal presence in the field.

We will seek the municipalities' ideas on how we can reverse the present trend and improve the atmosphere for residential construction. Compassion must always be accompanied by competence. Compassion without competence is like a talented orchestra without instruments: instead of harmony, it creates only silent frustration. Competence is not something you declare; it is something others must recognize.

The taxpayers trust us to put their money to the best possible use. We will not let them down. Any policy or program that is outside a framework of fiscal responsibility is nothing less than a boomerang that will turn around and smash social progress.

Reckless spending destroys our ability to meet our commitments in the future, erodes support for social programs in the present and sparks calls for a return to the simple notions of the past.

Nous devons aider ceux qui sont dans le besoin mais nous ne devons pas augmenter le coût que nos enfants auront à payer. C'est ici et maintenant que nous devons résoudre nos problèmes.

We must help those in need but we must not leave the cost to our children. We must deal with our own problems here and now.

There is no doubt that an early problem we have to deal with is our beleaguered credit rating. For months it has been a source of concern to all who are familiar with the issue. The Treasurer will discuss this matter more fully in his statement in the next few days.

As one measure of this government's firm commitment to sound financial management, I am announcing today a government-wide review of all existing and planned advertising expenditures. Effective immediately, I am declaring a freeze on the execution of all planned advertising campaigns yet to be signed and committed. During this review, we will enter into no new advertising contracts. Of course, we will exempt summer tourism campaigns and other promotional programs which have been already contracted for. Legal notices required by various acts will also be permitted. But even those campaigns will be subjected to the same cost-conscious scrutiny as all advertising plans in our comprehensive review.

We also will review all new financial commitments made by the previous government between May 2 and its departure from office on June 26. We will take a very close look at the $181 million that was committed in special payments during the six-week period after May 2.

Members of this House will take an especially active role in saving money on behalf of the taxpayers they represent. We will bolster the powers of the public accounts committee and the Provincial Auditor to scrutinize all government spending and spending plans.

We will establish a legislative committee on energy with a special responsibility for bringing greater accountability to Ontario Hydro.

In keeping with an earlier commitment, the government will ask a legislative committee to review details of plans to commit $30 million to a domed stadium.

Looking further ahead to the long-term task of managing this government, we will initiate an assessment of all crown corporations and assets, and the economic and social environment in which they are functioning.

2:40 p.m.

I am very pleased to announce today that the task will be taken on by John Kruger, who has agreed to serve as a special adviser to the Premier with the rank and status of a deputy minister. Mr. Kruger, who is known to many members of this House and the public for his distinguished service in municipal government in Metropolitan Toronto, is superbly qualified for this major assignment. I am delighted that someone with his record as a proven problem solver has agreed to bring his impressive abilities to bear on behalf of the people of Ontario.

To this government, competence begins with a long, hard look at the pivotal issues as they emerge, not after they have created problems. Free trade is one such emerging issue. There is no doubt that any new bilateral trade agreement with the United States would have a significant impact on our economic future. Its influence would extend to our social, cultural and political institutions. Most important, it would have direct impact on the lives of our citizens.

To many, the phrase "free trade" has become a synonym for work without a future and a future without work. We need to know all its implications. For that reason we will be establishing a legislative committee on Ontario's economy to study the free trade issue and its potential impact on all of us. In order that I have the benefit of day-to-day counsel on this vital matter, I will appoint an adviser on free trade.

These are just our first steps to ensure that Ontario is not left out in the cold.

Our top priority is protecting the interests of the people of this province. Every policy we pursue, every piece of legislation we introduce, will be based on that principle. We will oppose any policy that does not pass our most important test: is it fair to the people of Ontario?

That is a test that many recent federal policies have failed. When one in every five jobs in this province depends on a strong auto industry, we cannot sit by while Japanese import quotas appear to slip away. We call on the federal government to stand behind the quotas unless and until the Japanese auto firms boost their investment in Canada and Ontario receives economic concessions that will ensure jobs for our auto workers.

The same principle must apply to energy prices. Oil price hikes threaten the livelihoods of too many Ontario families to be ignored or wished away.

Let us keep in mind that Ontario has always supported measures to reduce economic disparities and boost the economies of our sister provinces. As far as this government is concerned, we always will.

However, in any new economic arrangements with foreign countries or other provinces, the federal government must bear one thing in mind. You have to keep stoking the engine that generates the nation's growth. That is good for all Canadians. We will constantly drive home that point.

We will also demonstrate that the provincial government has the ability to move the economy and create jobs. We will not sit by and accept the waste of half a million talents.

We will act on the basis of basic principles:

1. There is no single cure for unemployment. We need a wide variety of tools, including direct job creation.

2. Any assistance to business will be tied to actual job creation performance. Blind faith is no basis on which to give away taxpayers' money.

3. Unemployment knows not fairness. Young people, women, the handicapped, natives and visible minorities require unique programs to deal with unique needs.

We must rationalize all our job creation programs and ensure they are understandable and accessible to the public. This is especially true of programs for young people. In recent years, many youth employment programs have failed largely because young people and other affected parties were not consulted beforehand. We will not make that mistake.

While we will meet the needs of all young people, including high school graduates and summer students, the focus of our efforts will be on those with the fewest skills. Two years ago, I proposed a program that would guarantee hard-to-employ youth meaningful employment in return for individual efforts at educational upgrading. The aim was to break the cycle of recurring unemployment, help these young people earn a fair chance in the work force and reduce the social costs of unemployment.

I am pleased to announce that the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) is preparing to implement such a program before the summer is out.

A moment ago I listed three of the most important principles in employment programs. Of course, there is one more, and it is the most important: the principle of education as training for life.

For many years, I have been struck by the effectiveness of co-operative education programs in training our young people. Studies show that co-op students are far more likely to complete high school, go on to post-secondary education or successfully find employment than are other students. Moreover, co-operative programs are extremely cost-effective. Support for such programs will be a priority.

We will advance the vital long-term goal of restoring relevance to the education system. Young people entering the work force must be given the tools to do the job. We must reassert standards and make education relevant to the modern world. At the same time, we must give educators enough room to do their job based on the needs they see every day.

Unfortunately, not all students in this province enjoy equal educational opportunity. Young people from some cultural backgrounds often find themselves streamed into nonacademic programs before they have had time to make the necessary cultural adjustment. We will end that practice. We will leave no doubt about our commitment to equal educational opportunities for all.

We intend to honour the previous government's commitment to full funding for public separate schools. We will adhere, in so doing, to three guiding principles. First, there must be full, open hearings to allow for public consultation. Second, given the questions that have been raised, we intend to honour our commitment to seek a court reference to assure its constitutionality. Third, we intend to honour former Premier William Davis's commitment to proceed with funding this fall. The Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) will be making a statement in the next few days.

Par suite d'une décision du tribunal à propos de la question linguistique, le gouvernement présentera, comme il se doit, un projet de loi sur la gestion des écoles de langue française.

As a result of a court decision on the language reference question, this government will, as required, bring forward a French-language governance bill.

This government will ensure that environmental hazards do not eat away at the legacy we wish to leave our children. Part IX of the Environmental Protection Act, the long-awaited spills bill, will be proclaimed immediately. It will go into full force and effect this fall. We intend to meet next month with the interested parties to finalize regulations required for full implementation. Industry and insurers will have time to take all necessary steps.

No longer will there be any question of who is responsible for preventing spills or cleaning them up. No longer will innocent victims be left without a route to compensation.

This government will also address its concern regarding the source and impact of acid rain. One measure of a government's competence is its success in balancing growth across the province. I am pleased to announce today that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) will instruct the Ontario development corporations to direct a greater percentage of their investments to northern and eastern Ontario.

I am also pleased to announce that the long-awaited report of the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment will finally be released this summer. We look forward to any guidance in evaluating plans for resource development in our northland.

In a further move to equalize conditions in northern Ontario, we will launch a study into differences in the price of gasoline in northern and southern Ontario. As well, the Minister of Health will begin the process of allowing those in remote northern communities to charge the Ontario health insurance plan for the full cost of medically necessary travel.

We will assist family farmers to maintain their role as the backbone of rural Ontario. The government cannot stand by while farmers are squeezed by rising debts and falling markets. We will soon unveil a farm credit plan to rescue the farmers under most serious assault.

We recognize also the importance of Ontario's other primary industries. The priority we give to mining was signalled by the appointment of a specific minister with responsibility in that area. He will be meeting with many members of the mining industry to look at new measures that could be most helpful in that sector.

2:50 p.m.

The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) will soon announce the terms and conditions of an independent audit of our forest resources. We shall take our rich forests for granted no longer.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) will act on another matter we raised during the campaign: the distribution of beer and wine in independent grocery stores. He will consult with business organizations, such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Retail Merchants Association of Canada, and representatives of the brewing, wine and distilling industries, labour unions, consumer groups and other parties that have an interest in that issue. We on this side of the House are prepared to recognize that Ontario has come of age.

This government also wishes to state its belief in the importance of our arts and cultural groups, facilities and organizations. We commit ourselves to ensuring an arm's-length relationship with such funded groups.

This government will not shrink from its commitment to change and progress in every aspect of Ontario life. The principles we fought for in the election -- principles that won us more votes than other party -- will continue to guide us.

We are determined to provide the people of Ontario with a government in which they can take pride and a lifestyle in which they can take joy. The people are ready for change; they are willing to participate and able to contribute. We in this House must provide the competence, openness, compassion and leadership.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. F. S. Miller: Now that we have had "son of throne speech," we did a little count here. We found 43 initiatives. We think we had 90 in our throne speech. To the best of my knowledge, all 43 of the government's initiatives were in our throne speech. The government left out 47.

In spite of the apparent firmness of the language of the statement, and if the quotations I have are accurate, the answers the Premier gave reporters indicated some indecisiveness. He is like his Minister of Education (Mr. Conway), who said that perhaps this would have to be delayed a year. He used phrases such as, "It is our intention." "It is our hope." Does the Premier really intend to have that funding in place on September 1?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition certainly would know far more about indecisiveness than I would. Having said that, let me respond very specifically.

I said there were three guiding principles. It is interesting to note that it has taken the Minister of Education six days to do what the former government could not do in a year. On Thursday next, two days from now, he will tell members about this government's specific plan for full implementation, which will be guided by the three following principles: a full, open, fair and unfettered hearing; a constitutional reference, which was necessary but which the former government refused to bring in, further clouding the issue from its point of view; and implementation by this fall. That is where we stand on the issue. There is no indecisiveness whatsoever.

Mr. F. S. Miller: There is indecision even there. I would point out that reference to the Supreme Court and implementation is called without reference back. Why is the Premier still equivocating? He did not even answer my question. Is he going to let the full legislative debate we asked for and promised take place across this province without any arbitrary restriction on the time?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member has just learned the difficulty of writing his supplementary before he gets the answer. It takes a little time to learn these things, in fairness.

I do not know how we could be clearer. We have been clear throughout. The only difficulty we had in this whole issue was following the previous government's peregrinations over the past few months. I told the member our principles; I told him our minister will have a statement on his choice of options as of Thursday next. I am sure even the member will be completely satisfied, and I look forward to his full participation in this debate by putting forward his views.

Mr. Rae: One of the problems we were left with was what I would describe as some open-ended statements by the Minister of Education when he talked about the option of delay. I ask the Premier, has the government ruled out the option of delay for a year?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have ruled out the option of delay.

Mr. Timbrell: Just to clear up any concern that rests in the minds of parents and students across the province, can the Premier assure us that parents who intend to enrol their children in the separate school system on September 3 will have the opportunity to do so without any special or additional fees? In other words, will it be fully covered, as it is in the rest of the system?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member raises a very good point. At this time, at least 7,000 young people and their families across this province are making plans about their lives and their schooling on the basis of commitments given a year ago by William Grenville Davis. It would be a tragedy to let down those young people when we are so close to that date. The answer to the honourable member's question is that they can proceed with their planning.

Mr. Pope: So the Premier is overruling his own Minister of Education.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am overruling the members opposite. They did nothing for a year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr. F. S. Miller: I have another question for the Premier. I refer to the comments of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) about the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) being the wrong type of person for Ontario and that in the Anglo-Saxon parts of Ontario there is still a racist feeling. Given those comments and the remarks in the Premier's statement today about ending unfair discrimination, does the Premier not think his minister made a pretty fundamental attack on the decency of the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be familiar with my response on that matter, if he has done his research. I said at the time that, in my view, the remarks were inappropriate and did not accurately describe this province. I stand by those remarks.

Mr. F. S. Miller: With great respect, I think that answer is unacceptable. It is simply an oral criticism which is inadequate and inappropriate. I want to know if the Premier thinks there is room in his cabinet for somebody who thinks like that when he had to pass over people such as the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), who obviously do not share those views.

Mr. Martel: Where is Havrot when we need him?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am getting a sense now of the kind of opposition the members opposite are going to be running and will continue to run. But that is fine. I dealt with that matter in a very forthright way. My own feelings on that matter are very clear, and it has been dealt with. I do not think he will see it happen again.

3 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I think it would be fair to say that the Premier has made his feelings well known and that the Premier knows what the feelings of all of us in the House are. I am sure, on reflection and consideration of what he had to say, the Minister of Agriculture and Food would reflect on those remarks.

There have been some precedents in the House with respect to remarks made by other members. It has been traditional in that regard for the member himself to make a statement and to indicate to the House and to the people of the province precisely what his feelings, on reflection, are. I would like to ask the Premier whether he would consider insisting that the Minister of Agriculture and Food make that kind of statement and apology to the House.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: May I add I had a discussion with the minister in respect to those remarks. It is my understanding, from reading the press reports, that he did offer his apologies in a very public way as quickly as possible under the circumstances. I believe he feels as badly as I do about it. I do not think the members will see it happen again.

Mr. F. S. Miller: I find that unacceptable. I have sat in the Premier's chair. I know the kind of discipline one must have in cabinet. The Premier talks a lot about taking down the unacceptable barriers and walls in Ontario. Does he not think he should take more severe disciplinary action?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Unlike some of the Leader of the Opposition's colleagues, I am not looking for blood. An honest mistake was made. I am sorry about that. It was inappropriate and an apology was tendered. We are not looking for blood on the floor.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Rae: My question to the Premier is with regard to the statement he made today. I would like to focus on what he said about equal pay and to draw to his attention the statements he made on October 20, 1983, commenting in this House on the debate that was prompted by the resolution of the member at that time for Hamilton Centre.

He said: "This is a clarion call for action. There are people who have followed this debate at great length and who have given a great deal of their time and effort to try to persuade legislators that we have to move. There is sufficient proof in the marketplace, in other provinces, in some companies that have been more progressive than others, and in the federal government that none of the historic arguments against the equal pay for work of equal value concept is valid any more.

"I believe we have the proof that the old saws, the old objections, the old clichés..." etc., emphasizing it was time for action.

In another speech in the same year, he said: "I would recommend that you remember the battle cry of Nellie McClung, that parliamentarian and reformer, `Never retract, never explain, never apologize; get the thing done and let them howl.'"

Nellie did not say anything about a green paper. I would like to ask the Premier whether he could tell us precisely the meaning of the decision to have a green paper with no timetable attached to it, instead of bringing in legislation with respect to equal pay in the private sector.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, may I say how pleased I am that for the first time in my life people are reading my old speeches. That is a great compliment to me.

Mr. Grossman: We have them here.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I recommend them to the members. Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could bring these members to order.

I remember those very fine speeches. I am glad the member reminded me of them. They are some of my best. It is interesting, because I have talked about this principle since 1975. However, I said then and during the campaign that we believe in a staged approach to the implementation of equal pay.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: These people are trying to forget about the campaign, but I remember it very well.

What I said, and what we intend to do, is the following: we will proceed with equal pay for work of equal value in the public sector. Second, we will proceed on the base of contract compliance in the private sector. The third stage will be fully throughout the private sector. It must take time to be absorbed and have all these digested.

The members are going to ask me what my time frame is. Obviously, I am not in a position to tell them whether it will be two or four months, but I can say it will not be six years. We are going to move with great dispatch in this matter. I have instructed the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to set up an interministerial task force to proceed to work out the kinks. I expect to have this implemented in the not too distant future.

Mr. Rae: We all have memories of the campaign. The Premier's letter to Ms. Sam Ion, president of the Ontario Advisory Council on Women's Issues, dated April 11, 1985, with Campaign Ontario, the Liberal logo, on it, under "Equal Value," says:

"The Ontario Liberal Party is deeply committed to the concept and practice of equality in the work place. A Liberal government will enshrine the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. We will introduce mandatory equal value legislation which covers both the public and private sectors."

It says nothing about "staged progress," which are words I always recall from Bob Welch, who was Minister responsible for Women's Issues and is now a private citizen. It says nothing about "contract compliance."

I would like to know from the Premier precisely what the government's approach now is. Why is there a difference between the public sector and the private sector, when in previous statements that have been made there has always been an indication the government is going to move in both areas?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is a fair question. I do not want to go into all the details, but there is a difference between the private and public sectors. The New Democratic Party may not always see it that way. They want to make one out of them all, but there is a difference.

The disagreement is over the time frame within which we are going to commence it. I say to the honourable member that it is impossible to put it all in together. We will start with the public sector, quickly work out the kinks and proceed through the other stages, as I recommended. That in no way implies any backing off from any commitment. This is something I have believed in for a very long time.

Mr. Timbrell: Little did I think that on the first day of this new government we would see both a breach of faith with the voters and a breach of contract with the partners in the government. I think they have grounds for divorce and I would be pleased to recommend that.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your supplementary?

Mr. Timbrell: What could possibly have happened since the recent election campaign during which the leader of the government responded in such a very clear, frank way to the Ontario Advisory Council on Women's Issues and to countless other advocacy groups for women's rights so that, instead of what was in the contract of May 28, which reads, "Introduce legislation for equal pay for work of equal value in both the public and the private sectors," he is today backtracking and breaching that promise?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect to my aggressive friend, there is no backtracking on any commitment or anything else. I do not care how he wants to interpret it. We have carried the can. The members opposite know more about backtracking, equivocating and changing their minds on everything. What are they going to do with their contract to stay off their leader's back for a month? He is the one who is in trouble. Do not give me that.

Mr. Rae: We have dealt with waffle groups before in our party. We have some experience in these matters, so we have no problem with that. We will keep on dealing with it.

I want to ask the Premier about the statement made on May 30, 1985, by the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), now the Minister of Labour. He was quoted in the Toronto Star as saying: "`I am more worried about the non-unionized workers.' Wrye said a more activist approach may be necessary, sending employment standards officers out to help companies comply with the law."

This is the operative part I would like the Premier to comment on. "Wrye said he expects to see a law which would evaluate jobs on effort required, responsibility, working conditions and the required education and skills introduced next fall covering all Ontario workers."

3:10 p.m.

I wonder whether the Premier could tell us why the decision has apparently been made, according to his statement today, that no particular timetable is being attached to equal pay with respect to the private sector. I am sure he would not want it to be said that someone who works in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations should be regarded as more equal than someone who serves hamburgers at McDonald's. I am sure he would want those two people to be considered fairly and equally under the same legislation, as is the case in Quebec and at the federal level.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There are a number of approaches to the issue. One of the things we will be doing very quickly is sending out information to people in the private sector advising them that these laws are coming and asking them to get their own internal systems in shape in order to handle that.

There is a great deal of apprehension about the introduction of equal pay, particularly in the private sector. I believe the more information they have, the less concerned they will be. Sometimes they ask the same questions these people ask because they really do not understand it.

Our responsibility is to allay their fears. We will be doing that, working with the private sector, showing that it works very neatly in the public sector, taking those experiences out. With absolutely no backing off from our very strong commitment, I believe we are doing this in a sensitive, humane way.

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR PLANT

Mr. Rae: Obviously, these times are going to be even more interesting than I thought.

Let me ask the Premier another question about an area that was not discussed at all in the speech he made today. He mentioned that the government was going to freeze advertising contracts, but he did not say anything about the position of his government on the most important public expenditure that is currently under way and which his party has consistently said it wanted to stop. That is the expenditure at Darlington. What is the position of the government of Ontario today on the construction of a nuclear station that the Premier and many others in his party have said on many different occasions is not necessary and is a waste of money?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As does the leader of the third party, I believe Darlington will turn out to be one of the great mistakes that has been made. For many years we advised that it never should have been proceeded with. The question is how to cut our losses.

Two things will be used to look at the situation immediately. First, Mr. Kruger is coming in to work with me in my office. Second, it is my hope the select committee on Ontario Hydro, which this House will be striking in the next few days, will adopt that item as an immediate priority. With that combination of things, we will have a very clear fix on it in the very near future.

Mr. Rae: We are delighted that the committee is being re-established and that it is going to be sitting this summer. As far as we are concerned, Darlington has to be the top priority for the committee. We all recognize that the members of the committee are to some extent going to be reflecting the policy positions of their parties.

I am a little uncertain, because in the Toronto Star on April 20 the Premier is quoted as saying he would rein in the giant utility but he would not necessarily scrap Darlington, even though he feels its construction is an awful mistake. Prior to this time, in December 1984, November 1984, January 1984, in 1983 and in 1982, his position was very clear. He was quite unequivocal on the subject of stopping the process of what is now going to be an $11-billion expenditure, five times the original estimate. Most of us are convinced there are far better ways for us to save energy and to save electricity in Ontario.

What is the position of the government now? It is not a question only for the committee, but a question the Premier will have to address himself.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The information the member presents to this House is absolutely correct. For 10 years I have argued that it was a mistake and that it should have been lopped off in the very early stages.

The question to be collectively determined now is how much has been spent and/or committed. I do not know those figures today, but we are searching for them quickly and we will have to apply our collective minds to the question. If, for example -- and I pose a hypothetical case to the member -- $8 billion or $9 billion has been spent already and there is another $1 billion to go, what is in the best interests of this province? In other words, we are in a situation of cutting losses, as we are in so many other ill-acquired assets in this province, such as Suncor and other things.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is a reality. We have to look at it in pretty hard-nosed business terms. I regret we are going to have to make some of these decisions, but we will. That is the approach I would like to take. I do not know specific figures on exact committals and money in the ground as of this point today.

Mr. Cureatz: Then will the Premier come out to my riding of Durham East and the Darlington generating site and tell the 4,000 men and women there that as of next week they are unemployed because of the government's policies?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I would be delighted to visit the member any time. I have always found him one of the most reasonable and agreeable Conservatives I have ever run into. When I make an announcement of policy, I am prepared to accept the consequences. Depending on what has happened, I am prepared to take that same message anywhere in the province.

Mr. Rae: The action of moving on the advertising contracts is obviously something the government feels is important in terms of its symbolism. There is another reality out there. Major contracts are being let every day by Ontario Hydro for this $11-billion expenditure. Precisely what is the government's time frame with respect to making a decision with regard to Darlington?

Why did the government not pursue the option of freezing contracts or at least taking a pause in the letting of additional contracts with respect to Darlington, when we all know the clock is ticking and that Hydro has a tremendous institutional stake in pushing that project ahead regardless of the consequences? Why not move in an area which, admittedly, is very difficult but is of more than symbolic importance?

I do not have to tell the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) of the importance of the Hydro deficit with respect to the overall credit situation of the province. I am sure he saw the same remarks by Darcy McKeough that I have and I suspect he is about to resurrect them. However, they have an impact on the credit rating of the province. This is the biggest project going.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: It is a major expenditure. Why did the Premier not at least consider or present us with the option of freezing the contracts with respect to Darlington?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We considered that option, but because of time pressures in the last six days, it is not one of the things on which we have made a decision.

I ask the honourable member to consider this fact: supposing $6 billion is committed and blown if it is closed down, supposing it is $5 billion or $4 billion or $8 billion, what is the magic point at which it becomes uneconomic? That is the very hard decision we are into today. In a way it is like Minaki Lodge. It was easy to cut at $550,000. They went on to spend $45 million to justify that mistake.

It should have been cut at $1 billion, $2 billion and $3 billion, but should Darlington be cut at $5 billion, $6 billion or $7 billion? That is the difficulty of the judgement we have to make in hindsight today.

I will look forward to sharing that kind of decision with members of this House and members of the committee. I do not want to prejudice their discussion because it has huge ramifications, as the honourable member pointed out.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Premier. By now he has had the advice of the senior staff of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) on the matter of separate school funding and initiating a constitutional reference on this matter. Why is he proceeding with a constitutional reference, ignoring the advice of senior staff for the Ministry of the Attorney General? Specifically, what is he going to refer to the courts?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me tell the member something: we run this place, not the senior staff. That may be the difference between the member and myself. The Attorney General will take responsibility for the decisions we make. Maybe that is why the members opposite got into so much trouble.

Second, on Thursday next, two days from now -- and I am sure the member can wait -- he will have a full and comprehensive statement on the reference.

Mr. Pope: Now that we have established that this Premier intends to involve himself on a political level in the court processes of this province, I want to ask a supplementary. The Premier will also have received advice from senior officials of the Ministry of the Attorney General with respect to whether legislation can proceed during the time a constitutional reference is being heard. Why is he ignoring that advice and proceeding? Why is the government initiating the constitutional reference process when the Premier knows very well it will put funding in jeopardy, not only for grades 11, 12 and 13 but also for grades 9 and 10?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Perhaps it is for the reason that the former government could not make a decision. They worked on it for a year and walked out. They bailed out without having the guts; we are prepared to take that responsibility.

First, my friend asked me about the Attorney General involving himself in the courts. I remind him that his predecessor on two occasions went to the Supreme Court of Canada to lose in representing Ontario's situation with anti-inflation guidelines; so he should not tell me about political involvement in the system with the Attorney General taking an active role.

Second, my colleague is prepared to take the responsibility for this matter. Like anyone else, we receive a great deal of advice from staff, outsiders and others, but we have an advantage the former government never had. We have one of the finest counsels in this province as the Attorney General of this government and he will make a decision with which even the honourable member will agree.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The Minister of Labour is quoted in our local paper as talking about reviewing the Valenite-Modco issue. Is the minister prepared to indicate to the people of his home-town community and the people of this province that he is prepared to lay charges against Valenite-Modco? For more than 10 years, the company violated health and safety legislation on 29 occasions, had 29 orders and the Minister of Labour under the old government did not lay charges. Is the minister prepared to give a message to companies in this province that his government is going to be tough on health and safety matters? That message can be given on the Valenite-Modco issue today.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am well aware of the question raised with my predecessor by the honourable member. My officials have been reviewing the matter and I hope to have a fuller answer on Thursday.

Mr. Martel: Are you sure they are yours?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a supplementary or do you want to wait until there is a further reply?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I am in the habit of asking supplementaries, but I am trying to figure out what I am going to ask him.

Will the minister be making his reply in the House? Will he make a statement on this matter so the House can be apprised on an issue the minister knows is serious, not just in the city of Windsor but also to workers right across this province?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: If memory serves me correctly, some 29 orders were laid against Valenite-Modco over a period of 10 years. There appears to have been a gross failure to comply with those orders. I agree with the honourable member that this government wants to assure the workers of Ontario this government takes its responsibilities in the occupational health field very seriously.

I can only ask the indulgence of the member. We were reviewing the matter over the weekend and I will have a much fuller statement as an answer to a previously asked question on Thursday. I give him that assurance.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Timbrell: I note that in several portions of the Premier's statement today he refers to open government and to working from an open plan. I wish to return to the question regarding the implementation of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.

On page 12 of the Premier's statement, he refers to an interministerial task force being established under the chairmanship of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). I would like to ask the Premier if he will reconsider that decision when he meets with his cabinet tomorrow and make it truly an open process. Instead of going with an interministerial task force, presumably made up of ministers and/or public servants, will he appoint a commissioner to develop a plan to implement equal pay for work of equal value across the board in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Does the member want a royal commission to delay it another six years? What is his point on this whole thing? The Tory government's throne speech included an implementation commissioner; they were going to discuss it that way. If we give it to someone with the prestige, competence and dedication of this Attorney General, who is going to make it a very high priority, and with the considerable resources of his ministry and others, the member will see much quicker action. As with any other policy we will bring into this House, we will consult widely and get the views of members of the opposition party. I know they will want to accelerate this process and bring it into the private sector. We want the benefit of their wise counsel on this issue because it is so basic. It involves every person in this House and province; I know members will want to participate and we will allow them to do that.

Mr. Timbrell: Given the Premier's concern, in addition to what he has already said would he indicate today in this House and to the women of Ontario the specific date by which the principle of equal pay for work of equal value will be implemented in this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I was asked that before. I am sorry, I am not in a position to give the member a specific date, but we will move as quickly as we possibly can.

Mr. Grossman: Did you hear that?

Mr. Eakins: In the fullness of time.

Mr. Grossman: How do you like it so far?

Mr. Rae: Where is he? I am waiting for the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) to get up and ask a question, but --

Mr. Timbrell: How about plan B, Bob?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I do not know what problem the government is having with this issue, given the commitment it has had as a party for so many years, going back to 1978. The Premier said that on March 14 when Margaret Campbell, the member for St. George, tabled a private member's bill to provide for the economic equality of the sexes. The party supported the bill that was put forward by Mr. Bounsall, who at that time moved a motion.

I can go through speech after speech the members have given saying there is no problem with the principle and that it should be enshrined. "We have discussed the principle," the member said in 1983, "we hope we can agree on it today. There is no need for a delay." As for staged progress, that is a concept of which the Liberals were very critical when they were in opposition. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) was very critical when it was mentioned by the former Minister responsible for Women's Issues.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Rae: We do not want a royal commission, unlike the Tories, who are obviously looking for more jobs for defeated Tory candidates and who still have not gotten used to the fact those jobs are no longer available. What is the problem with bringing in legislation, referring it to committee; or if the Premier is not prepared to do that, putting the subject matter before a committee so there can be a full public discussion? Let us at least get a clear indication that is the direction we all want to go. The Tories are on side as being in favour; the Liberals are too. There is no problem; let us do it --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a good supplementary.

Mr. Rae: Let us get it into committee right away, so we can have legislation in 1985.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With respect to my honourable friend, our goals are similar in this matter. We may be arguing a little with respect to the difference in the timetable. We are charged with the responsibility of governing and we want to do it right so as not to set back the cause. Every problem that is created will cause more difficulties in implementation in other areas. We have determined this is the best route to accomplish exactly what the member and I, and I am assuming now the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), all want to do together.

TRANSFER OF JOBS

Mr. Ramsay: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Will he investigate the continuing transfer of jobs from the Kirkland Lake office to the Timmins office of his ministry, especially when this is always a case of transferring from small towns to large centres? Seeing the latest proposal of two jobs being transferred and the third becoming redundant at Kirkland Lake is causing much turmoil in both of these offices and has resulted in a resignation in Timmins, will the minister postpone the job interviews that are scheduled for tomorrow until he has time to examine this process?

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I want to thank the member for advising me earlier today that he would be raising this question.

Mr. Bennett: It is all in the party.

Mr. Hennessey: It is all the party, in the agreement.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I sense in that action a certain graciousness which I hope will be the prevailing mood in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now on with the answer.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The intent of this ministry is to locate services as close as possible to the people who require them. I fully appreciate the concern of the member over moving employees and moving what would appear to be the service itself from a smaller community to a larger one.

I have asked my officials to examine this and to report back to me why this is being done and whether it can be done in a different way. The impression I have at this time is a reorganization is taking place. I understand that 15 of the 16 positions in Kirkland Lake will remain and over the next couple of months two additional positions will be made available in that area.

I am sorry I cannot give the member the assurance that the interviews scheduled for tomorrow will not take place. I can assure him that no final decision will be made until after a review, but the interviews have already been set up. People have been invited in and I think it would be unfair not to proceed at least with that stage.

Mr. Ramsay: When the minister is investigating this process, will he look at the whole rationale of taking government jobs out of smaller areas and putting them into centres where the private sector is doing very nicely and where those centres are growing? I think government jobs should remain in some of the smaller, less developed areas. In one case, as the minister will see, the person who was transferred to Timmins actually works four out of five days in Kirkland Lake. I would ask if the minister would look into that.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I accept that observation. I would point out to the member that this ministry is one of the most decentralized in all government. We have four regional offices, 13 area offices and 42 local offices. We are very cognizant of the fact that the services of this ministry, which deal very much with the needs of people, should be as close as possible to the people. I will keep the member's observation and recommendation in mind.

Mr. Eves: We accept the kind comments the minister has made about the dencentralization of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. It was done over many years of hard work by my predecessors.

With respect to decentralization, perhaps the minister could tell us if it is the current government's intention to proceed with the policy of integration in the ministry? Will the ministry be proceeding in the seven pilot communities that have already seen integration over the last year to year and a half?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I presume the member is referring to the integration of family benefits and general welfare, which is taking place, as he said, in seven trial areas. I can assure the member those trial areas will be examined very carefully. It is my understanding Thunder Bay and Waterloo have already signed agreements with the ministry. I have asked my officials to fill me in on the details of those agreements.

In general, it would appear to me the intent is to help people who should move from general welfare to family benefits to do so more quickly than is possible at the present time. It is also the intent to assist those people, particularly single mothers who wish to move into the work force -- I underline that and I am sure the member knows what I am referring to -- to get as much assistance and as much support as they possibly can.

FORMER GOVERNMENT'S COMMITMENTS

Miss Stephenson: I have a question for the Premier regarding his commitment to review the expenditure of $181 million which was made by the previous government since May 2.

Might he exclude from that review such items as the integration and expanded homemakers' program to which he referred in his mini-speech from the throne; the expansion of the rental housing, one-year commitment of $400 million by the previous government; the commitment to acid rain abatement; the commitment to increased and improved transportation in the city of Toronto and other urban areas; the commitment to hospital construction funding in a significant number of areas throughout the province; the commitment to French-language services expansion; and the automobile parts investment program, which is so significant a part of employment opportunities in this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate advice on those matters. I am certainly prepared to consider the member's views because she has always been very thoughtful. Does she include a new golf course for Deerhurst and things such as that in her list as well? If she does, I would like her advice on those matters.

Miss Stephenson: I asked whether the Premier would exempt the items I raised in the brief list I mentioned. Is it "yes" or "no," or is he going to cut them?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am going to look at them with great sensitivity, as the member has done in the past. I said I was going to review the list. I am just wondering: there is a Drawbridge Inn in Sarnia as well as Deerhurst; we have to look at that. I will be asking the member's advice on all those matters.

TELEPHONE RATES

Mr. Swart: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications, although perhaps it would be more appropriately put to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter). However, I will put it to this minister.

I hope the minister will be aware, despite his short time in office and in the House, of the pending decision of the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission on the application by CNCP Telecommunications to compete in long-distance telephone service. If so, he will recall the probable outcome, based on experience in the United States and the study done by Peat Marwick for the provincial governments including Ontario, that showed local telephone rates could escalate by 115 per cent in Ontario if the application were granted in full.

Has the government notified the CRTC yet that it is repudiating the previous government's support of the CNCP application? If not, does it intend to do so very soon?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: We are reviewing it. I questioned my staff on Saturday regarding this issue. I am aware the projected increase in the rates for local telephone users could escalate by two or three times. I have asked for a complete review of the proposal by CNCP and accordingly I hope to report to this House in due course.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister realize that the leader of his party, who is now the Premier (Mr. Peterson), took a very strong stand on this matter last fall? He asked the then Premier to "take a four-square stand against that position." That was the position of deregulation.

Is it true the Honourable Marcel Masse, federal Minister of Communications, is planning a meeting in October with the provincial ministers to discuss the whole communications policy? If that is so, would the minister ask that no changes be permitted in the telephone system or policy until after that meeting, regardless of the ruling of the CRTC?

3:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: As I stated, we will be reviewing the entire request by CN-CP relative to the question asked by the honourable member. We will certainly take into account what the Premier said last fall.

I am aware of a meeting of my colleagues, the federal Minister of Transport and, I believe, Mr. Masse in Vancouver in October. We will be in communication with him. Indeed, I have asked my staff to initiate meetings with both federal ministers to deal with this and other issues.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr. Davis: I have a question for the Premier. Is he able to indicate the timetable for the relocation and compensation of the McClure Crescent residents?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not in a position to outline that today. We are working on it. It has been a matter of great concern to me for a long time. I cannot give the honourable member a timetable today, but we will work on it.

Does the member have any ideas? What was the former government's timetable on it?

Mr. Speaker: I will ask for a supplementary and not a reply to a question.

Mr. Davis: If it is the government's intention to buy the homes on McClure Crescent, how will the Premier guarantee those residents fair prices for their homes? What does he intend to do with the area after all the residents have left?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am very familiar with that situation; I have been there on a number of occasions. There is no sadder example of the former government's lack of leadership than its failure to act on this matter.

How would the member like to be raising his children on top of radioactive soils? That is what is happening. The member can barrack and complain all he wants. The honourable member who represents that area and others are very concerned about that, as am I. We already have started the discussions and we expect some early action.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What has happened to the earlier idea that was once agreed upon by the Liberal Party and ours about the idea of moving the soil to Ontario Hydro sites for safekeeping rather than going through this whole business of buying the homes, etc.? Is that still an option the Premier is looking at?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As the honourable member knows, a number of solutions were explored. At one point it was to go to Borden, another time to a dump in Scarborough; or to buy the homes and move the people and all that kind of thing. There was no clear resolution on that.

We are looking afresh at all those alternatives. My colleague has some very strong views, but we are determined to have very early action on it.

VISITOR

Mr. F. S. Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: You mentioned two or three previous members. In the gallery we have Jim Snow, the former member for Oakville.

DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I apologize for not letting him know about this earlier, but I will be genteel.

I want to ask him a question that I had the opportunity to ask the last Minister of Community and Social Services but did not get the opportunity of a reply in the House. It has to do with his policy towards the developmentally handicapped and their deinstitutionalization in this province.

As the minister knows, he opposed the deinstitutionalization process of the five major institutions. Two of those remain open at the moment: Whitby Durham Regional Centre and D'Arcy Place. What is the minister's position on those closings? What kind of methods will there be in their deinstitutionalization?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As the honourable member points out, four of the six are already closed and we have no intention of going back and changing that. The member's question refers to the two that remain open. The decision has been made that D'Arcy Place will remain open; it will not be closed.

As the member knows, the Durham centre is in a psychiatric hospital building, which I suggest is not the most appropriate place for children with these kinds of needs. Therefore, l am examining that one very carefully.

It is my understanding that a significant number of the parents who have children at Durham have indicated a willingness to have them located in another facility, if it can be closer to their own homes and is more appropriate than where they are now. I assure the member that only if a more appropriate location can be found will they be moved from their existing location.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The past objections of the minister, as well as those of his leader and mine, had a lot to do with how this deinstitutionalization process was taking place. Therefore, he must be aware of the deinstitutionalization plans for the homes for special care and the nursing homes, about which I am very worried.

Will he please guarantee us, as members of this House, that deinstitutionalization will not take place until we have had full public hearings before a committee of this Legislature to talk about how it should be done, so we do not have the same kind of disruptions we had with the last four closings?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I give the member the assurance that the associations for the mentally retarded involved in those two areas, and the parents of the children concerned, will be consulted fully before decisions are made. To the extent it is appropriate or desirable that this come before the Legislature or a committee of this Legislature, it will be done.

I point out to the member that some associations for the mentally retarded in that region already have raised funds and are in the process of acquiring land and buildings to house the children, when and if they are removed from Durham.

Mr. Ashe: I wonder whether the minister has been informed that the decision regarding the retention of D'Arcy Place was made some time ago. In other words, that is not a new revelation.

Second, is the minister not supportive of the position of the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded that deinstitutionalization is the correct way to go with mentally retarded and developmentally handicapped people in this province? Is he opposed to the position of that association?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I do not recall anything in my previous answer that indicated I was taking credit for the D' Arcy Place decision. I was not. I simply indicated a decision had been made, and for very good reasons, that for approximately 75 residents, D'Arcy Place would remain. That is a fact.

With respect to deinstitutionalization, I concur completely that is the route we want to go. However, we also want to recognize two things. One, there must be an appropriate alternative for any resident who is moved out of an existing institution. We are not going to simply take them out and throw them out on the streets. We are not going to operate in that way.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am not suggesting the member did.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you should just address your remarks to the Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Two, some residents in those institutions need very highly specialized care of a kind that simply cannot be provided in the local communities at present. Until we have a more viable opportunity -- and I cannot say when that will be -- those residents will remain where they are, or in another institution where their needs will be best met.

SPILLS BILL

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the Premier, who has had an opportunity to rest through the past few questions.

Given the real concerns and apprehensions of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and several industries with respect to the implementation of the spills bill in its proposed form, can the Premier give this House his assurance that the implementation and introduction of that bill will receive the widest possible discussion with industry, environment groups and all others who are concerned and interested in that question?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The short answer to the honourable member's question is a very clear yes. I am mindful of some of the difficulties that prevented that bill from being proclaimed. Someone in his judgement chose not to proclaim that bill for the past several years. We all agree the objectives of that bill are necessary and we need them now. It is our intention -- and I expect the House will hear from the minister later this week about our specific plans -- to proclaim that bill immediately for implementation in the fall.

In the meantime, we will have discussions with all the people concerned: insurers, transporters, manufacturers and others. They must know clearly that we will be as sensitive as we can be in the regulations and in building insurance apparatus to cover their particular situations. However, a signal must go out and they must know now that we are going to change the environmental protection laws in this province. There will be no equivocation.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Brandt: Given the very real concerns indicated by the insurance industry with respect to coverage for unknown amounts, is it the intention of the government to proceed if there are difficulties for industry in acquiring the necessary insurance coverage? In other words, is the Premier going to proceed at all costs even though the package cannot be put together in a way that makes sense and in a way in which industry can co-operate with the government in an attempt to provide adequate coverage for all parties concerned?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I assume it is inherent in the remark of the former minister, who has some knowledge of these matters, that he is saying it cannot be done. Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Brandt: No, I did not say that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Then he agrees with me that it can be done. We will work together to devise those systems and to have appropriate insurance to solve the problems he talked about. The member and I agree it is a solvable problem. I invite him to help us in open hearings to draft those regulations so we can satisfy the problems he addresses and still have first-class environmental protection in this province.

Mr. Hayes: My question is directed to the Minister of Transportation and Communications and deals with the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act. The act has been discussed several times in the past 10 years and is finally being brought to light.

What type of specific training is going to take place for the drivers, the local fire departments and the local police forces regarding the transportation of dangerous goods?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Given the time before us and the information I do not have in front of me, I respectfully suggest that I can bring that answer back to the honourable member at an appropriate time.

Mr. Hayes: I would like to know when.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I hope on Thursday.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Hon. Mr. Riddell: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The leader of the New Democratic Party suggested a statement might be forthcoming from me regarding comments I made last week. I want to say that it was and is my intention to make a statement reiterating what I said last week. That is, on reflection I realize the inappropriateness of my comments and I regret very much any concern I have caused. I stand in my place at this time and apologize to the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) and to all those who have been offended in any way by the comments I made last week.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. McKessock: I have a petition signed by 33 people from the Owen Sound Collegiate and Vocational Institute and addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a further petition signed by 30 members of West Hill Secondary School; and a similar petition signed by 25 members of Georgian Bay Secondary School.

Mr. Hennessy: I have a petition from St. Peter's Church.

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

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

I have another petition from 426 people at St. Dominic's Church, one from 430 people at St. Agnes Church and one signed by a group of 126 people.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the House not sit in the chamber on Wednesday, July 3, 1985.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the Clerk conduct a new ballot to establish the precedence for private members' public business and that notwithstanding standing order 64(a) such business not be considered until the first Thursday in the fall session.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

HOMES FOR THE AGED AND REST HOMES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Warner moved, seconded by Mr. Wildman, first reading of Bill 31, An Act to amend the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Warner: The purpose of this bill is to prevent the discharge of a resident from a rest home or a home for the aged without the approval of a physician independent of the home and without ensuring there are suitable alternative accommodations for the resident. The amendment is similar to the requirements for discharge from a nursing home under the regulations to the Nursing Homes Act.

4 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Eakins, resolution 1:

That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing July 1, 1985, and ending October 31, 1985, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The passage of this motion would make available, I am told, $8.2 billion to pay the expenses of the province between now and October 31. At the present time, the bills of the province are being paid on the basis of special warrants issued by the Lieutenant Governor. These have covered our business expenses for the last three months and have amounted to approximately $6.4 billion.

The rules of the House do not permit interim supply to extend for a period longer than six months. Some members of the House will recall that there was a time when we did not have such a rule and the government of the day, by motion and often without debate, used to extend interim supply, or received interim supply from the House, for the whole of the fiscal year. This seemed to make fairly redundant the debates on estimates and even the passage of the supply bill at the end of the year. Therefore, I still very strongly support the concept that interim supply should not extend for the whole of the year.

If approved by the House, this supply would extend to the end of October. It is certainly expected that whatever our business between now and then there will be a period of recess, but we should be returning some time after Thanksgiving, as is our usual custom, so that there will be ample opportunity for the House to consider further supply between the end of October and when the supply bills are before the House, usually in December.

With the long time the House was in recess following our adjournment last December -- the time for the Conservative leadership convention, the election and then the rather long, drawn-out drama that led to the establishment of the new government just a few days ago -- we as members of the Legislature have not had an opportunity to hear a budget or to consider estimates. That is really why our finances in this respect are somewhat irregular.

However, the House is in session and, based on our experience in previous budgetary periods, we know the standard bills require just a bit over $2 billion a month and the experts in Treasury, who are never wrong, as far as I know, have indicated that between now and October 31 we will require just over $8 billion to meet our regular commitments, most of which already have been entered into.

I ask the House to grant this interim supply with the understanding that I, as the new Treasurer, will have an opportunity to put forward a financial statement, really on the same terms as those of my immediate predecessor less than three weeks ago, but also with the understanding that a full budget, indicating the position of the new government as far as its financial responsibilities are concerned, will be placed before the House in October of this year.

Miss Stephenson: I am pleased to rise at this time to participate in the debate on the motion placed by the Minister of Treasury and Economics, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. I would be remiss if I did not remind the member that the motion for supply was ready in the period of time when the former government was in that part of the House and that supply motion was one which would have obviated the need for today's supply. I gather there was disagreement on the part of the then members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition and the opportunity to present the supply motion, which would have been precisely the same as that being presented today by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, was not provided to us.

There is no doubt that this supply motion is absolutely necessary because, in the words of the current Premier (Mr. Peterson), the excellent civil service of this province requires that money, first, for its remuneration and, second, to pay the bills for the services provided for the citizens of Ontario.

As a tangential remark to that, I would simply say that the minister is absolutely correct. The senior staff members of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics have expertise which is superb, as I am sure the minister has learned in the last few days. It is expertise that will serve him very well.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If they can accommodate the member and me, they must be good.

Miss Stephenson: They are better than good, much better than good and much better than the kind of remark I hear the Liberal leader suggested was factual in his repartee with the press during the lockup today.

None the less, it is absolutely essential that the superior civil service be provided with the appropriate levels of remuneration and the funds to continue to deliver their programs. It is possible for this province to do this at this time because of the very good economic record of the previous government.

The previous government has provided an example which I am sure the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk will do well to emulate in many areas. It is an example of thrift, which I was delighted to hear he felt was a word with which he was comfortable. It is a six-letter Anglo-Saxon word which is not of dubious birth. It is a very normal and reasonable exercise for those who are responsible for provincial Treasuries to attempt to pursue with all vigour and intent.

The revenues of this province have improved in spite of certain disturbances that took place at the federal-provincial level in the past year and they have improved because of the very good economic programs of the former government of Ontario.

I hope the economic programs of the new government will be equally productive and that the kinds of things the first minister was suggesting he would review, which are specifically related in many instances to the stimulus of employment and job opportunity for a significant number of people in Ontario, will increase the revenues significantly and allow us to continue with the program of increased revenues in the province.

Without question, we could have ensured there would not have been a hiatus as a result of the change of government in the delivery of funds, which I gather must have necessitated special action last Thursday morning in order to overcome the period of two days for which there was no financial support available to the government of the province. That could have been avoided completely had there been some generosity on the part of current government members in terms of the process, which could have been instituted last week or the week before.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has suggested that the normal state of affairs has not been in place in this House, and he is quite right. The former government was attempting to operate in spite of a very peculiar arrangement, which is quite unique in parliamentary history. In spite of that, it was attempting to do its very best on behalf of the civil service and on behalf of the people whom the government serves.

We did have an economic statement and were prepared to bring in a budget that would have ensured there would be continuing economic growth in the province and continuing capacity, not only to meet the requirements of the people of Ontario in terms of financial commitment but also to ensure that this province maintains its excellent record as an area for investment for those who are interested, both within this country and outside of it.

There is little the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk can add to the kind of program that was proposed by the former government of Ontario that gets very difficult to say, forgive me -- in terms of the kinds of developments which were necessary for that improved --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is even harder to say they were perfect, which is what the member is trying to say.

4:10 p.m.

Miss Stephenson: No; I would never suggest anyone was perfect. As a practising physician for more than 30 years, I have yet to meet the perfect human being. I do not believe there is one. The members on that side of the House are no exception to that rule, if I may say so. The members on this side of the House understand we are not perfect. We understand that people make mistakes from time to time. However, we also understand that when they do so it is right to recognize and correct them. That is probably one of the things that marks a significant difference between the members of the party which now form Her Majesty's loyal opposition and the members of the party which now forms the government of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: You mean that is why you are over there.

Miss Stephenson: Oh, no. That is why it is so important to recognize that the federal government understands it made a mistake; unlike the Liberals' federal leader, who goes around telling everybody that people will have lost trust and credibility is destroyed completely simply because the government recognized it made a mistake and corrected it. That is what we on this side of the House understand and that is the kind of position we will continue to pursue in all of our activities, whether they are related to opposition or to government. We certainly did that when we were the government of the province and we will continue to do so.

The economy of this province is the engine of development or economic performance in Canada, but it is not, as the honourable minister's leader suggested, a steam engine. That is entirely out of date. We do not stoke our engine in this province. We provide it with appropriate stimulus and guidance and a prod from time to time, but we do not have to stoke it with wood or coal in order to make it function. I believe the people of Ontario will understand that its first minister really does not know how this province functions in terms of its economic activity and its leadership of that activity within this great country, Canada.

There is no doubt in my mind that we will without question support the introduction of the supply motion. We understand the capacity, the quality, the superiority of the public service in this province as related to all others throughout Canada and, indeed, the world. We understand it is their right to receive appropriate remuneration and on time.

We know it is necessary to provide funds to ensure the continuance of the excellent programs in the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Stimulation of the economy and the services provided in the area of natural resources must continue to be supported financially if they are to play their part in the services provided to the people of Ontario and with respect to the economic performance of this province and country.

Therefore, we shall support the supply motion with enthusiasm, but also with just a little bit of sadness that the honourable members of now Her Majesty's government would not have seen fit to develop an agreement that would have allowed this supply motion to have been introduced two weeks or 10 days ago, whenever it was necessary, to ensure there would not be any concern on the part of the civil service, the recipients of funds or the people of Ontario that there might be a period of time in which there was no government money to provide those services.

We shall support the supply motion. Her Majesty's loyal opposition is mindful of its responsibilities in this area. In all activities, including this one, we shall discharge those responsibilities with sensitivity, compassion and the sure knowledge that we are serving the people of this province effectively.

Mr. Foulds: We will be supporting the motion for interim supply, but I will take a bit longer about this matter than the previous speaker.

I want to try to put my remarks in a context because, frankly, there are two ways of approaching interim supply. We can approach it, as is often the case, as if it were a mere accounting matter, as if we were only passing the amount of money the government wishes to spend for the next three months or so. The other way we can approach it, as we can a provincial budget, is that it is not merely an accounting matter but a matter of economics, of the development of the provincial economy.

I would like to talk about this for a few minutes because this is the first time I have had an opportunity to speak to the new Treasurer. I would like to treat this as a matter of the economic development of the province and not treat it as merely an accounting procedure or as merely deciding where the dollars we have already garnered in the provincial coffers are going to be spent. I would like to discuss a bit about the economy of the province and about where the Treasurer and the government should be going in the next few weeks, months and years. I plan to be fully wrapped up before the normal adjournment time at the supper hour.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: What? You have to be kidding.

Mr. Foulds: The member should relax. He has a new role and he has to learn to live with it. He has to learn to live with opposition speeches. The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) was given to very long ones when the spirit moved him. I do not plan to go on that long, but there are five or six major points I would like to make.

The Treasurer is well known as a man for frugality. He is a man who likes to make sure the taxpayer's dollar is well spent. He has had that reputation in this House for as long as I have been here and probably for longer than that. It is a reputation that is justly deserved and an objective with which I agree. I believe the taxpayer's dollar should be well spent.

However, I would remind the Treasurer that, unlike my Conservative friends, spending the taxpayer's dollar well is not merely a matter of business or accounting, because the business of government is to provide social services that are much needed by the population; and that cannot be accounted for or justified merely on the normal cost-benefit analysis method used in business.

The government certainly needs to be constantly aware of where it gets its money and whose money it is spending. The Premier in his statement today talked constantly about the people. One of the things we have to remember is that there is an unfair tax system both in the province and in the country. That has been documented from the time of the Carter commission and, in Ontario, from the time of the Smith committee.

The irony of our present governmental budgetary process is that the so-called safety net, which both Conservatives and Liberals like to talk about, is largely financed by those in need of a social safety net. In other words, there is an unduly harsh and heavy burden of taxation on the ordinary Canadian, on the ordinary Ontarian, on the person who is in need of a social safety net.

4:20 p.m.

My first word of advice to the Treasurer in his new role is that he must begin now in his thinking, in his economic statements and in the budgetary process, to reform the taxation system. I want to point something out to the Treasurer, if he has not already been made aware of it by his officials. How that phrase must roll off his tongue these days -- "his officials." I noticed the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) earlier in question period talked about "his officials." The proprietary air that has already taken hold in the new government is encouraging to watch.

In Ontario more than 2,000 people earned in excess of $50,000 a year and paid no income tax in 1982.

Mr. McLean: Farmers.

Mr. Foulds: No, indeed they were not all farmers. I am not sure if either the member or myself has met a farmer who paid no income tax in 1982. If the member is now making that claim, I say to the Treasurer that person is exactly the one who should be paying some income tax.

There were 55 people who earned more than $851,000 in 1982 and paid no income tax. If the member who interjected is in that category, then I say he should be paying even more taxes.

Mr. McLean: I pay more than he does.

Mr. Foulds: The Treasurer should bring in, at his earliest opportunity, a reform of the taxation system in Ontario in so far as it is possible. The system should be reformed so those people who are freeloaders pay their fair share.

Second, I would point out to the Treasurer that the corporate sector in this province is not paying its fair share of taxation. There are $1.5 billion in deferred or uncollected corporation taxes in this province. For every dollar large corporations pay in tax in this province, they get a tax break of $1.07. In other words, they gain seven cents.

I would suggest to the Treasurer that he should adopt an idea that was put forward by Eric Kierans on the Peter Gzowski show -- whatever it is called these days. Mr. Kierans suggested to the Minister of Finance of Canada, and I am suggesting to the Treasurer of Ontario, that he assess a prime rate plus one per cent interest on all those uncollected corporate taxes. If he did that, as Mr. Kierans pointed out so vividly that morning, he would see those taxes rolling in so fast he would not know what revenue had hit the provincial Treasury.

In fact, it is only by tackling that problem of tax giveaways that he is going to meet the tax revenue problem facing the provincial government. The provincial government does have a tax revenue problem. It cannot begin new housing programs that are necessary. It cannot begin to meet the social and economic injustice that faces many in our population unless it implements genuine reforms in the taxation system.

I am suggesting to the Treasurer that be his first priority.

I personally found the last speech of the Treasurer in this House most dignified, proper and moving. I thought it was one of the finest speeches he has given. I would like to quote to the Treasurer a few sentences from his own speech.

He said: "It is our unbelievably good fortune to be in a part of the world where this assembly concerns itself with a triple-A credit rating rather than with 1,000 per cent inflation; that we concern ourselves with extra billing by doctors rather than a mortality rate, as in some countries, of positively medieval proportions; that we are concerned with the overproduction of food rather than with starvation camps full of children; that we are concerned with the pollution of our bathing beaches, not with how the government is going to bury the bodies left by a tidal wave; that we are concerned with policing speed limits, not with daily terrorism and mayhem."

In so far as the Treasurer's statement goes, I agree and support it wholeheartedly. We live in an unbelievably rich province with enormous potential. But I point out to the Treasurer in the strongest possible terms that there is still great social and economic injustice in our province.

I just want to give a few examples. We have before us today the tragedy of the Grassy Narrows Indian reserve, devastated by mercury pollution over a decade and a half ago when the government put up the "Fish for Fun" signs; devastated by the federal government's decision to arbitrarily move the reserve. In that corner of the world, we have a tragedy that is every bit as profound, as devastating and inhumane as any condition in the Third World. That is here in Ontario.

In a decade, that wrong has not been righted. We have not taken the opportunity or the initiative, or worked -- even knowing that failure would be the result of several of our initiatives -- but we have not worked long and hard enough to eradicate the poverty, not only in economic terms but in social and spiritual terms, that our conflict with our native people has visited on the Whitedog and Grassy Narrows Indian reserves. We must take the initiative and we must take it soon to have any credibility as a humane and decent society.

We do not have to talk only about the native reserves in this province, few though they are, to understand that poverty in Ontario is real, devastating and shameful. There are the people my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) has talked about movingly over the last three to four years. There are people in our urban centres and small rural towns who are living below the poverty line on incomes assured them by the government.

One of the things we have to realize and that I want to bring home to the Treasurer is that in many ways our so-called social safety net is only a guarantee of ensured poverty. The statistics are startling and the human tragedy behind those statistics is even more startling. The latest statistics for which we have figures indicate that in Ontario, by region, over the period 1982 to 1983, we had a 24 per cent increase in the number of families living below the poverty line set by the National Council of Welfare. In 1982 to 1983, we had a 25.9 per cent increase in the number of unattached individuals living below the poverty line.

When we talk in those percentage terms, we are not talking about small numbers. With regard to families, we are talking about 281,800 in 1983. That is one heck of a lot of families to be living below the poverty line in a province as rich and diverse as Ontario. With regard to unattached individuals, we are talking about 373,100. That is a heck of a lot of unattached individuals to be living below the poverty line in a province as rich as Ontario.

4:30 p.m.

One of the things that worries me, when we debate in this House and when we debate on the hustings, is what we talk about or what we think of as average Ontarians and average Canadians. Those are the people who are lucky enough to be part of the middle class and to have incomes around our incomes or better. Those are the people with whom we socialize and who have the most influence on our thoughts.

It is not enough for a government of reform and progress merely to meet the needs of the middle class. It is important for a government of progress and reform to meet the needs of the genuinely disadvantaged in our society and of those disadvantaged whose needs it is not politically popular to meet.

I have had no more moving experience in the last two months than listening for half an hour to interviews conducted by Stuart McLean on the Morningside show. We heard of grown individuals in large cities, in this community of Toronto and our community of Ontario, who had not eaten for two and three days.

They would find some way of getting a meal. They were people who were obviously willing and able to look for work. I remember the phrase of one young man, who I think was from Newfoundland. It struck me so much that it has haunted me. He said to the interviewer that as he talked about not being able to face other people about his state of poverty, "I cannot speak to you when tears come into my eyes."

It reminded me so much of Shaw's aphorism that the only real crime in our society is poverty. It is about time, and the member has a glorious opportunity as Treasurer, to tackle the problem of poverty in our society. Poverty in our society is real, although we do not like to admit it exists. It is genuine and we have to root it out. I want to put the Treasurer on notice that it is not merely putting a human face on the social service system; it is reforming the social service system so it meets real human needs with dignity.

I want to talk a bit along that line. It is shameful that in this province we accept as a daily occurrence in the large communities of our province that there are such things as soup kitchens or bread lines. It is almost impossible to get the statistics, but every major centre from Thunder Bay to Toronto has something called a bread line or a soup kitchen where people literally line up, usually before a social service agency or a church, at one part of the day and wait for the doors to open so they can go and get food because they have no food. If they do not get either a meal to sit down to or the groceries they line up for, they will go without food.

I would like to remind the Treasurer that there are many of these people referred to in clippings just in the last few months. There is controversy in my community, for example, over whether there should be emergency shelter for people who are termed derelicts, but who are really people without means. There is controversy over how to fund that. Surely in a caring and decent society we have to accept the responsibility to be our brother's keeper. Those people are our brothers.

I would like to talk for a few minutes about one problem that has not been addressed in any of the statements made by the present Premier or Treasurer, and was not spoken to in the accord which was so fleetingly referred to in the Premier's statement this afternoon. I bring my concern to the Treasurer because, as the former leader of his party, I know he travelled widely in northern Ontario, often without political success, but that did not daunt him. I know his interest in the area is genuine.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We almost won in Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Your party won it in 1967, but lost it very quickly. It was, as he will recall all too ruefully, a Pyrrhic victory indeed. However, I must admit -- the Treasurer has diverted me -- the candidate they had this time, although new and inexperienced, was a very fine one and really representative of the party. I was delighted he took more votes away from the Tories than he took from me.

I want to get back to the main argument before me, and that is there has been no mention of tackling the very real problem of diversification of single industry towns. Before we go off examining helter-skelter the question of free trade, I believe it is absolutely urgent that we look first at the kind of economy we want to build in our province, and the kind of linkages we want to make between the resource sector, whether that is agriculture or the resources of northern Ontario, and the manufacturing and processing sectors in southern Ontario. It is only if we start making genuine attempts, not mere money handouts, to diversify the single industry towns of northern Ontario, that we will begin to have what economists call a "mature economy" in this province.

I was disappointed, to put it mildly, that we were unable to get from the present Liberal government a commitment to establish a single industry diversification fund for northern Ontario. If we are genuinely going to create an economy in northern Ontario that is not colonial, I believe it is absolutely essential to establish a northern Ontario heritage fund.

In reading the press clippings of Peter Lougheed's resignation of last week, which almost eclipsed the swearing in of this government on the national stage, it was interesting to note that some of the commentators thought his biggest failure was that the establishment of the Alberta Heritage Fund had not led to a diversification beyond the resource base of the Albertan economy. However, I put to the Treasurer that unless he has such a fund there will be no maturing of the northern Ontario economy.

4:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wonder if the honourable member would permit a question. Did he hear the Premier direct, through the ministry, the Ontario Development Corp. to move more development funds into the north and east?

Mr. Foulds: Yes, indeed; I not only heard but also read the Treasurer's speech. I had a copy of it, so there was visual reinforcement.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member is talking like a teacher.

Mr. Foulds: I do not consider that an insult, considering the source. I have always thought politicians should be readers and teachers as well as parliamentarians.

The trouble with the Northern Ontario Development Corp. , and its whole idea, is that it looks at proposals put to it on a one-to-one basis. It does not take a look at what is needed in the area of new initiatives or new economic developments. It does not ensure, for example, that a mining town has manufacturing and forest-based industries to make its economy more diverse.

In other words, the NODC, the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. and the Ontario Development Corp. are largely reactive. Those bodies react to initiatives; they do not take initiatives, and there is no overall economic planning, either for a region or for a community. I give the example of Atikokan. It was only after the mine closed that the former Minister of Northern Affairs, the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier), started throwing money at the problem. I am afraid that throwing money at the problem, even through an NODC grant or loan, often does not solve the problem; it does not create a full fledged economy in that region.

Along with addressing tax reform and meeting the needs of poverty in this province, I ask the minister to begin to tackle the very real problem of creating diversified economies in northern Ontario.

As sure as I am standing here today, unless we do something in the next eight years to reverse the trend in the pulp and paper industry and in the forestry industry, we will not have a pulp and paper base to the northwestern Ontario economy in 30 years; and 75 per cent of the jobs in my region are dependent on the pulp and paper industry.

One sees a company such as Great Lakes Forest Products taking the capital that is generated in this province and investing it in the state of Washington. When one sees that and the lack of reforestation under the former government, it is apparent our pulp and paper industry is in a very tight corner indeed.

There are startling developments in the pulp and paper industry in Japan, of all places. Pulp and paper manufacturing is the fifth-largest industry in this country and the largest earner of foreign dollars. Maybe it is the fifth-largest industry in Ontario, but I am not sure of that. However, when one sees the new developments in Japan, one realizes this industry in our province is threatened more than the auto industry. Yet governments have paid very little attention to ensuring its competitiveness and longevity.

When talking about the diversification of one-industry towns, one must consider that the corporation that took all the ore out of the mines at Atikokan did not pay a cent in royalties. The only income accruing to the province from the extraction of that ore was the income tax paid by employees of that company.

When one considers all that, one realizes what has happened to the economy of northern Ontario and the steps needed to be taken to remedy it. I would very much like the Treasurer to pay attention to the development of industry in the underdeveloped regions of our province.

I want to say a few things about public ownership. I know that during the past couple of years when the Liberal Party was in opposition, it pledged to sell off the shares in Suncor Inc. I noticed there was no mention of that in the Premier's speech today. The Treasurer has mouthed to me, quite rightly, "Nobody wants it." He cannot sell it even if the government wants to.

I use that as an illustration of this point to the Treasurer. We in this party are committed to public ownership, but not in a holus-bolus way. As our federal party reaffirmed on the weekend, we have a commitment to public ownership. We do not think public ownership is a bad idea. We think some adventures in public ownership by Liberal governments at the federal level and Conservative governments at the provincial level have been ill advised.

The Treasurer should not let Kirk Foley, Malcolm Rowan or his former federal colleagues -- some of whom are his present federal colleagues, although they are playing the opposition role these days -- give public ownership a bad name. If he is truly to have his hands on the levers of economic power, it is going to be necessary to have public ownership: some public ownership in the resource sector and, believe it or not, as the former Conservative government found out, some public ownership in the manufacturing sector.

I suggest to the Treasurer that public ownership is a valuable tool that could be well used and well considered by this government. He should not let Mr. Kruger, in his examination of crown corporations, persuade him to an ideological straitjacket, which became the ideological straitjacket of the former government.

Finally, I want to say that I admire the career of the present Treasurer. I admire his commitment in this House to the parliamentary democracy of this House. I admire his commitment to the values of frugality and making wise use of the taxpayers' dollars. However, I want to leave him with this note: the politics of hard-headedness can be combined with the politics of warm-heartedness.

It is important in our society to ensure that we rectify and change the very real, grinding poverty that exists in our rich province, which makes it even more shameful and more tragic than that of the Third World, and the very real social and economic injustices that are still existent in our province. We need to bring in steps to ensure there is at least an attempt made to eradicate poverty in this rich and wonderful province.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. McCague: I want to start by congratulating the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk on assuming the duty he was asked to do by the Premier. I hope he can live with all the statements he has made so eloquently over the past 10 years while I have been here and, no doubt, previous to that time.

I have already had the opportunity to return to the honourable member a comment he made to me. I remember the first time I spoke in this House he sent me a note saying, "Do you really believe that?" I have already returned the same note to him, and I presume I will have the opportunity to do that the odd time in the next couple of weeks during the short spell he will be in that position.

No doubt the Treasurer is frugal. Shortly after he introduced his motion, I saw him turn to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) behind him to borrow a buck or two so he could make a purchase through our able pages from the store downstairs.

I also want to congratulate the Treasurer who I recall, just after I got a car and driver, complained to me bitterly about a speeding ticket he got driving in from the great riding of Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. I trust he will be relieved of any chance of that happening now and will enjoy being chauffeured with a lack of the tickets I know he was so accustomed to getting.

I find interesting the conflicts that seem to exist between the Treasurer and his Premier. The Treasurer was quick today to compliment what I know to be a very efficient and dedicated staff. It was interesting to hear the Premier say that when it came to advice that might come from the Ministry of the Attorney General, it really was not of great importance; the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) would make up his mind as to how matters were to proceed. I see a definite conflict in that.

In the speech we have heard today and in other musings our new Premier has had for the press, the Treasurer has been asked to consider a great many programs and expansions of programs at the same time as he has been asked to maintain the fiscal integrity of the province which the government I represented looked after so well over a period of years.

I think the Treasurer is a frugal enough person to work diligently at that. What makes me wonder are a couple of things the Treasurer is fully aware of. One cannot introduce new programs without having the revenues to do it. There are a couple of planned things that we as legislators need to be concerned about as they affect revenues. There is the introduction of the spills bill without due consideration for its effects on manufacturing, on trucking and on the people who are responsible. I endorse the ultimate aim, but I think the Treasurer has to be careful not to discourage industry, manufacturing and, in the long run, employment in this province.

The government has to be careful in what I call tampering with rent controls. I see no merit in extending the apartments to which rent controls apply when the other side of the coin is more assisted housing. If we were to leave the rent situation alone, everyone would be adequately served and we would see new construction.

The government has to be careful in its endeavours in the area of equal pay for work of equal value. I see the government is already backtracking on its original commitment and saying it will be in the public sector only and not in the private sector. I suggest that on the other two items I mentioned the government might be well advised to retract a little and protect the revenue it is going to need so badly to introduce the programs outlined in the set of promises in the Premier's statement today.

I am pleased the Premier wants to call on the federal government to stand behind the quotas unless and until the Japanese auto firms boost their investment in Canada and Ontario receives economic concessions that will ensure jobs for our auto workers. As all members will know, we are very pleased in my home town of Alliston to have the Honda plant well under construction, with 350 jobs. I understand the first car will be off the line considerably earlier than was originally forecast, which was early in 1987.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Is the member going to trade in his Seville?

Mr. McCague: I do not have a Seville. I know the Treasurer likes the tax on Sevilles, but I do not have one.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Did the member trade it up then?

Mr. McCague: I have a Tempo -- I would like to buy the first Honda that comes off the line -- and an Oldsmobile. What is the Treasurer driving these days?

The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) cautioned the Treasurer -- I forget how he put it, but he was not being entirely complimentary to Mr. Foley, who operates the Urban Transportation Development Corp. I cannot understand the honourable member's sentiments. After all, UTDC came to the rescue of Can Car, or Hawker Siddeley, and the member's riding has enjoyed a high level of employment since that happened. The member did raise with me some time ago the difficulty with the Via Rail car contracts and whether some of that work would go to Kingston and Thunder Bay. I understand the plant there is loaded with work.

Mr. Foulds: It was Kirk Foley who said they were not going to get any Via Rail contracts.

Mr. McCague: I understand, as I said, that the plant there is loaded with work.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, with about 600 people working. You call 600 jobs being loaded with work? That is why you guys are sitting where you are now.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the member please address his comments to the chair.

Mr. McCague: I thought the member would say nothing but kind things about the revitalization of that plant and the constant labour force there at this time.

In closing, I congratulate the Treasurer again. I wish him well. We will make it as difficult as possible and yet be constructive.

5 p.m.

Mr. Davis: I would like to offer my congratulations to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk on his appointment as Treasurer of this province.

I would like to say how concerned I am that we convey to the civil servants of our province our appreciation of their loyalty and commitment to this province and its people. The zeal they bring to their task certainly makes our task easier. We should support them and give them the recognition that is due.

I would like to point out to the honourable member that there are a number of concerns we would have with his position. One concern is the cost of educational funding. There is a suggestion that we should move the funding to 60 per cent of the total cost. He needs to take a hard look at how we will generate those funds. It is easy to indicate to the public that we can afford that kind of luxury. However, the member and I both know that luxury still comes out of the pocketbooks of the taxpayers of this province.

To compound the difficulty of the direction the new government would like to take, there is the additional cost of extending funding of the separate schools. The members of the new government have yet to indicate what those costs are. I suggest they take a hard look at those costs and indicate to this House and to the people of the province how they are going to augment those costs, which I think are quite substantial.

I was glad to see they had something in their address about care for the aged. That is one of my areas of concern, the right of people to stay in their homes as long as they can. Again, it seems we are looking for more money. In some not-too-distant future, the honourable member must indicate to us how he is going to find those funds.

Not only is it difficult to get a homemaker to come into the home, but the cost is prohibitive for most people. The costs of programs we are now locked into are going to place us in a very difficult position as we attempt to deliver the services we have all covenanted to give to the seniors of our province.

With rent controls, I have some concern that what is going to happen is a massive selloff of the various apartment buildings by the owner landlords. We are going to find it difficult to live within a four per cent limit on rent increases. The new government needs to take a hard look at that in order to create the entrepreneurial spirit of this province, rather than to kill it.

The Treasurer has a difficult job. I believe he is going to have great difficulty funding all the initiatives proposed by his leader this afternoon. I would point out to him and to my colleagues in this House that no matter how we split the hair, it is still the residents of this province who have to pick up the costs. I suggest that, as was the hallmark of an organization I belonged to, if we are going to expend money in area Y, we should reduce money in area Z.

Although I am not a businessman, I was responsible for raising funds as a free-will offering from people. That depended on my ability to encourage them and to ask them to dig deeply into their pockets.

Not being a businessman, I would be very hesitant to go ahead and sell something of the dimensions of Suncor as a loss leader. My colleague would be well advised to take a hard look at allowing that sale to go ahead, considering the amount of money we could possibly lose. If we look at the oil cartel around the world, it seems to me it goes in a real cycle. Ultimately, that is going to be worth more money than it is now. I would hate to have to stand in this House at some point down the road in the short term and point out to my colleagues on the other side that that crown property was now worth double what it was worth when they proposed to sell it.

I also think there is a sense of ownership in Suncor, that it belongs to the people of Ontario. I do not have any great problems with our owning it and for the time being perceiving it as a loss leader. It is imperative that the people of Ontario believe they have some input and control over the prices of gas, oil and heating.

While I am on that subject, one of the concerns the new government must look at is that on Thursday afternoon, I believe, one could buy gas in this city, especially in Scarborough, for 41 cents a litre, but on Friday morning it went up to 53 cents. One needs to examine that particular consequence. It is almost as if it is a predetermined decision-making process that when the long weekends come, everybody, including the members on the far side, likes to take a short vacation, and we pay for it.

I am pleased to be able to stand this afternoon to add a few words of wisdom to my colleagues on the other side. Somewhere in a great book it was once written that wisdom is the beginning of knowledge. That would be an important aspect for my colleagues. I wish them well in their new endeavours.

Mr. Gillies: I take some very genuine pleasure in joining in the debate on the first motion put forward in the House by my colleague and friend the new Treasurer. I would like to congratulate him on his appointment to this very high office. I and my friend and neighbouring member of long standing have shared many battles together, not always on the same side, but considering the partisan constraints of this place and the forum within which we operate, one might be surprised at the number of times we have been on the same side on many fights and issues of interest to the people in our part of Ontario and those farther afield. I wish him well in his new duties.

In speaking to this motion, I would like to touch on a couple of points that arise primarily out of the statement of our new Premier earlier this afternoon -- a couple of issues that will come before the House and relate to the motion before us inasmuch as just about everything we debate within this chamber involves the expenditure of public funds and will thereby be affected by this motion.

I was not in the chamber then, but I gather one of the questions raised earlier was about the need for the House to sit again so quickly after the adjournment of last week because of the necessity of passing this motion. It might be well to remind the House that the previous government could have put this motion, but my understanding is that the new government, at that time the official opposition, did not wish that to occur.

If I am wrong in that, I apologize, but I understand that is the case. While I do not think it is any big deal or of any particular interest, I think it well to remember that we could have dealt with this motion several weeks ago.

With regard to substantive matters, I would like to focus the House's attention on one very key point in the new Premier's speech earlier this afternoon, that is, his intention to review some expenditures of the government and commitments of expenditure of the government that occurred in the last several months prior to our finding ourselves in this brave new world that constitutes the new makeup of the chamber. I can understand the desire of a new government to review any commitments for which it may find itself feeling some sense of responsibility.

5:10 p.m.

I do not want to go over all of the ground that was already very well covered by my colleague the former Treasurer of the province, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), in her question this afternoon. I think it well for all members to remember that there were some commitments made in the last several months which I am sure any objective member of the House would agree were very positive and progressive and of great benefit to the people of this province, some of which may have had nothing to do with the legislative timetable with which we now find ourselves dealing, but were in fact the business of government being carried on as it normally would be.

Because it seems so appropriate that the motion before us comes forward from my neighbouring member, I would like to focus for a moment on several commitments made by the previous government to the people of Brant county and area, which I hope are not going to suffer on the chopping block because of any statement made by the Premier earlier today.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Or the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies).

Mr. Gillies: I am going to talk about White Farm Equipment Canada Ltd. for a moment. I know the Treasurer would agree with me that he probably has almost as many employees of White Farm Equipment in his riding as I have in mine. All of us in southwestern Ontario share a tremendous concern about the future of that company and the 600-plus direct jobs that are affected by its future.

I know the Deputy Speaker is very familiar with this and it has some bearing on his great riding of Oxford. I would like to refresh the House's memory on several points I think are of great import. This company, the second-largest manufacturing concern in the city of Brantford, directly employs more than 600 members of United Auto Workers Local 548. Suppliers and others involved with White Farm Equipment in one way or another would number several hundreds more.

At the time this company recently went into receivership -- unfortunately not for the first time it left many other suppliers in southwestern Ontario. I received letters and cables from companies as far away as Hamilton, Oakville, Cambridge, the riding of Oxford, the city of Woodstock and so on, all of which have a tremendous concern and a great financial stake in the future of White Farm.

The reason I bring it up in the context of the Premier's earlier statement is that the last administration, through a statement issued by the former Minister of Industry and Trade, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), and myself, made a commitment of some $7 million towards the continuation of the White Farm company, contingent on a federal commitment.

This matter is now with the receivers and, as we speak in this chamber, there has not been a final decision from the government of Canada. I am hoping, and I am sure my friend the Treasurer has been lobbying as hard as I and many others have, to see some sort of favourable resolution of this matter on Parliament Hill. However, I am left with an unease that, even if it was a contingency commitment of the former government to help in the refinancing of the White Farm company, it not fall by the wayside because of any review of expenditures and commitments by the new government.

I hope my friend the Treasurer will take this back to the Premier. The Premier is familiar with this issue. During the campaign, he went into the riding of Brantford and he made some commitment at that time, I believe, for a training fund. I will also be looking to see whether that particular campaign promise of our new Premier bears any fruit, that a small fund could be set up for counselling and retraining White Farm workers if required.

I feel it very important to have on the record that my first and primary commitment is to the continuation of the company. However, should that not be possible, then we must move heaven and earth to retrain and reintegrate these workers back into the work force. I will be looking, as I am sure many members from southwestern Ontario will be, for a strong commitment from our new government in this regard.

Another commitment, which I suppose could be put in the context of the review the Premier intends, is the stated intention of the previous government to help fund an international telecommunications discovery centre in the city of Brantford.

My riding was hit as hard as any in the province during the recession. We have had in Brant county a cyclical economy, primarily because of the very large farm-equipment industries that dominate the area and the pressing need for us to diversify our local economy.

For some years, a committee of people in Brant county has been working very hard towards the realization of a dream that would lead to a very significant change in the economy of Brant county. Some years ago, Bell Canada pledged to the city of Brantford all its archives, its collection of artefacts and working models -- a tremendous historical collection valued at millions of dollars -- if a suitable facility could be erected for their display. At first the committee envisioned a museum and nothing more, but as the committee, made up of industrialists, community leaders and politicians in the Brantford area, worked on this, it developed into a multifaceted and very exciting concept.

The total costs of the project are estimated to be more than $15 million. It would create a tremendous amount of new employment in our area and, very significantly, nonindustrial employment. We want to bring in researchers, scientists, technicians, futuristic-looking companies, people who rely heavily on computer linkups, satellite technology and so on. We want that kind of futuristic employment in our community.

We believe this international telecommunications discovery centre would become the focus of that type of employment. Indeed, at the risk of overstating it, this project has the support of virtually every telecommunications company across Canada, including the government-owned telephone networks in the western Canadian provinces; Telecom Canada; Bell Canada, as I have already stated, as well as computer companies and the previous government of Ontario.

We feel it is vital for the future economy of that part of Ontario that the project go ahead. The previous government committed $5.5 million through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development fund. We are awaiting a federal commitment of a similar order. The balance of the funding is to come from the private sector.

I would again ask the Treasurer, not only as the man who now controls the purse-strings of the province but as a resident and a committed leader in Brant county, whether it would be the intention of the new government to see that project through or whether it will fall prey to the axe of the Premier's review of projects.

Those are a couple of regional concerns I wanted to bring up. In that context, the Premier said in his statement this afternoon he intends that a larger percentage of Ontario Development Corp. funds will go to northern and eastern Ontario. From a regional perspective I fully appreciate the economic needs and some of the hardships being endured in some communities in northern and eastern Ontario.

As the minister who was most recently responsible for manpower policy in this province, I am fully aware that some areas in the north and east bear an unconscionably high proportion of the province's unemployment and I support any measure to funnel needed resources into those areas. As Minister of Skills Development, I was keenly aware of the highest level of youth unemployment in Ontario being in northeastern Ontario.

Far be it from me to try to steer any resources away from the communities that need them most. However, I would suggest to my friend the Treasurer that there are individual communities in the rest of the province which, because of their industrial or economic situation, still bear unemployment rates that are unacceptably high.

I would consider my own riding of Brantford to be in that category. I would ask the new government, in implementing this policy, not to let areas of need in western and southern Ontario suffer in their proportion of ODC funding because of our genuine and shared desire to improve the situation of our citizens in the north and east.

5:20 p.m.

Another matter that came up in the Premier's statement that I feel is going to be a policy to cause some modest degree of disagreement in this chamber in the months to come is the question of the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores. The Treasurer knows I am not above the odd beer or glass of wine. I am not being prudish or trying in any way to raise the flag of temperance over this great chamber; this has never been my policy.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: However.

Mr. Gillies: However.

Despite that, I am keenly aware, as are many members of the chamber, of the legitimate concerns of people who are engaged in one way or another in the wholesale or retail sale of alcoholic beverages in this province.

I have some concerns that go far beyond the question of jobs and delivery. I have lingering concerns about the effect on the rate of alcoholism and alcohol consumption, especially abuse of alcohol by our young people, that may come about as a result of this policy. I do not want to get into all that now because there will be many opportunities for us to debate it.

I do want to touch on a couple of commonsense economic concerns. I just received a letter, as I suspect every member of the House did, from J. R. Davidson, the president of the Brewers' Warehousing Co. Ltd. I would like to quote from that letter, which is dated June 25.

The president of Brewers' Retail notes that: "Approximately 2,000 full-time and 4,500 part-time union jobs, jobs which we feel would be in jeopardy under any other beer distribution system, are held by Brewers' Retail employees."

The letter is somewhat personalized. It goes on to say, "In your constituency of Brantford alone, 21 full-time and 31 part-time jobs, representing an annual payroll of about $948,000, are at stake if the system is to change."

He continues, "We also pay municipal and local business taxes on real estate valued at approximately $968,000 which we own in Brantford." He also talks about the impact that Brewers' Retail has in our communities as landlords, as owners of property, as employers and as taxpayers.

In implementing this policy, as the Premier stated his intention today and has stated before, I trust the legitimate concerns of people working in this area will be given a full and thorough hearing. I feel it incumbent on the government to listen to what members of both sides of the House have to say on this issue. I feel it is incumbent on the government to listen to what the union involved has to say about it. It should listen to what Brewers' Retail, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and others who share this concern have to say about it. I trust it will afford them a fair and open-minded hearing and not commit --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member does not even have to say that. He knows it is going to happen.

Mr. Gillies: I have some concerns. Lord knows, I want to be convinced. I know if this matter were in the hands of the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), I would have no worries at all, because surely the chamber knows no more open-minded, sensible and fair individual. I know I am going to read this one again. Surely the government must listen to the very serious concerns of many members of the chamber on this issue before proceeding.

I will join with my colleagues in supporting the motion that is before us. Obviously we want to see the bills and our civil servants paid; we want to see the work of government continue. But I raise these issues in the larger context of the debates that are going to take place in this chamber in the coming months.

We will want to hear -- item by item, project by project, initiative by initiative -- the government's intentions regarding the review announced this afternoon. We are going to want to know the specifics of many of the platforms that have been laid before us.

I and my colleagues will be talking in future weeks about some of the rhetoric and the high-sounding words that have been flying across the floor of the House about youth employment, training and any number of other things about which we have concerns. But I will say as fairly and openly as I can, the one thing the government will find now is that rhetoric is not enough. One thing they will find now is that we have our debates and we play our games in this chamber, but now is the time to produce.

I tell them sincerely that nobody wishes them more success in bringing in some of these things than I do, but I want them to know my colleagues and I will be watching with a critical eye and we will be judging them not on their campaign rhetoric but on their performance.

Mr. Speaker: Do you wish to move the adjournment of the debate?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No. Let us finish it. If nobody else wants to speak, I would like to have a word.

Mr. Speaker: The question I was going to put was: Is there any other honourable member wishing to participate in the discussion of the resolution? The member for Eglinton.

Mr. McFadden: I know the government House leader wanted to give an address. I am sorry to pre-empt him for a few minutes.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The member walks in big shoes already.

Mr. McFadden: Yes. I am still trying them out.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak very briefly here this afternoon. I gave my maiden speech to this House a couple of weeks ago and I spent a lot of time preparing that speech. While I was doing it, I remembered the days when I worked as a researcher here back in 1968-69.

In those days, members would agonize over their speeches and researchers would do all their work, and the members would stand up in this place and speak to you, Mr. Speaker, and probably to five or six other members. Most of the other members were reading newspapers or conversing. I used to think what a tremendous ego deflater it must be to stand up to speak to nobody for 15 or 20 minutes, because the Speaker was half dozing anyway.

As it turned out with this speech, I was moved to speak on this subject this afternoon and I really have not spent much time on it, and I find there are a lot of members in the House. I guess the lesson from that is to take things as they come and to try to speak as --

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It is called being prepared.

Mr. McFadden: That is right.

There were a couple of matters I wanted to speak on in relation to supply. One matter relates to trade issues. I note the proposal made this afternoon, mentioned in the address by the Premier, to set up a select committee on the economy with special reference to the discussion of free trade with the United States.

I have a real concern about the narrow focus of that committee. It is my submission that committee should expand its terms of reference to include not only a review of the potential free trade discussions with the United States, but also more particularly trade in a broad sense and freer trade worldwide.

Over the past couple of years, while we can be very encouraged by the trade figures that Canada has had with the United States and the surplus we have had in commodity trading, I think we have faced a very significant problem in our overall dependence on the United States for our export markets. Traditionally, the United States has represented something in the order of 70 per cent of our exports. Today, that figure has shot above 80 per cent and there is no indication right now, because of the strength of the Canadian dollar against other world currencies, that dependency on the United States is going to decrease.

It is my submission that the terms of the select committee should be expanded past the discussion of free trade with the United States to include the overall situation of Ontario trade worldwide. In recent years, the Ontario government has actively been pushing trade opportunities in Europe, in the Third World and in Japan, with some success. Over the past year or so, many of those efforts have come to naught because of the strength of the Canadian dollar, which has tended to close off various markets that traditionally we could have had some hope of breaking into in other countries.

5:30 p.m.

In focusing only on free trade with the United States, the select committee is only going to aid and abet, and potentially further, that concentration on our bilateral relations with the United States.

Today it is incumbent on this government and on this assembly to think more broadly and to concern itself with the whole future of trade with the United States and the world generally, and with whether we want to have more than 80 per cent of our exports go to the United States. I believe that is a significant economic problem. Some significant political issues are associated with it.

I would like to urge the government to consider the trade issues more broadly. I can see looking at free trade initially, but I hope some consideration will be given to broadening the terms of reference of that committee to take in broader trade issues.

There is another matter of concern that I have noticed has not had a lot of attention during the last couple of weeks; that is the question of job creation. The agenda for reform agreed to by the Liberal and New Democratic parties did not focus to any extent on job creation and economic development. There was no mention of programs for small business or of trade development. There was no mention of any significant programs in the area of job creation by big, small or medium-sized business. I believe that is a significant deficiency in view of the fact unemployment still remains a significant problem for this country and our province.

The agenda for reform was essentially a shopping list of items that basically involve expenditure. It is a concern of mine that an agenda for reform would be established, apparently providing for a two-year program of sorts between the two other parties that did not have, as a major focus, job creation, economic development and trade issues.

Mr. Foulds: Do you remember Frank Miller's last speech? We have full employment in Ontario if you believe him.

Interjections.

Mr. McFadden: We had a lot to cover over the last three years because of repeated failures of the federal government, but since November 1982, 455,000 new jobs were created in this province.

Mr. Martel: Tell that to the marines.

Mr. Foulds: Tell that to the unemployed.

Mr. McFadden: It is easy to sit and shout. I tell you they would have been an awful lot worse off if it were not for the growth and the kind of economic policies created by the Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member would address the chair in that regard.

Mr. McFadden: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will. It is very hard when there is such a lot of disorder to my left.

Mr. Rowe: The far left.

Mrs. Grier: You will get used to it.

Mr. McFadden: That is true; I will get used to it. It seems to me that a major focus has to be, as it has been over the past number of years for the Progressive Conservative Party, that we move ahead in the whole area of job creation and focus strongly on that. I heard the proposals being made for more development in the north.

Mr. Foulds: At the breakfast club on Tuesday mornings what did you used to tell the Premier about northern development?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the members this is not question period.

Mr. McFadden: The fact is that the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, and all the other programs such as the technology centres that were brought in over the past four years, speak for themselves in terms of the jobs that were created. The members to the left can sit and shout all they want.

An hon. member: Those guys have never created a job in their lives; not one. They would not know a real job if they tripped over it.

Mr. McFadden: Absolutely.

The members for the third party like to parade around the House and in the province as friends of the workers. The fact is that it is the business community, small business, big business and medium-sized business that creates the jobs. They can talk about being friends of the working man, as the NDP likes to parade itself, but the facts are the Conservative Party has been far more the friend of the working man because it has been the party that has been committed to job creation. The record speaks for itself. All I would ask the new government to do --

Mr. Martel: You sold the bloody country out lock, stock and barrel.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McFadden: Let me just say in conclusion --

Interjection.

Mr. McFadden: Does he want me to keep going? I will.

In conclusion, all I can say is that I would hope --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member for Eglinton continue.

Mr. McFadden: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to finish my last sentence, but the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) will not let me.

All I wanted to say was I hope the new Liberal government follows the lead of the previous one in making job creation and economic growth a cornerstone of government policy here in Ontario. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I want to thank the members who participated in this debate. I can assure them I found it very helpful and useful. I say that very seriously indeed.

I particularly like the compliments that were directed toward the civil service and specifically to the Treasury staff. I think they are well merited and I am glad they came from all sides.

I thought perhaps I might refer to the comments made by the honourable members in reverse order.

The member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden) and I have participated in a number of public panels from time to time. At one time we were on the same side of one, when he was assisting the late Honourable Joe Greene in his attempts to be Liberal leader in Ontario. I was participating on the same side in a way, but I was running against the late Mr. Greene on that occasion. At that particular time the member for Eglinton was perhaps more successful than he was in the most recent election.

However, I accept his advice that our policy direction ought to be substantially in support of job creation and, in that regard, trade development. As a party, we did not adopt the slogan "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" in the recent election, since that has been so substantially discredited by the Conservative Party at the federal level. While they indicated that upon their election jobs would be created almost miraculously, simply by an effort of will, we realize there are still many disappointments in the employment force of the country and even in this province, although unemployment is at least declining. We are very pleased and delighted with that.

The member for Brantford, carving out a place in the opposition on the first day, very appropriately so, mentioned a number of things I thought were particularly important and interesting. I should tell him, however, the House was not called back into early session the day after July 1 simply to vote supply. I am sure he would know, as would the former Treasurer, the member for York Mills, that Management Board orders could have handled this if it were necessary or even if the House decided they did not want to grant supply this afternoon or even later today. The House came back essentially to organize itself under a new government so that we can proceed with dispatch with the funding bill for education.

5:40 p.m.

I might as well acknowledge the fact that the previous government was prepared to bring forward an interim supply bill before its defeat. At the time, however, the honourable members might remember the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. F. S. Miller) was rattling all the sabres he could find in his office and among his friends, indicating that the then government was going to be maintained miraculously -- a word he used repeatedly -- and that one of the miracles might even be a reference to the courts, since it was obviously illegal that the Conservative Party should be beaten in this House by any kind of combination, patent or otherwise.

It was the thought of some of the constitutional experts we consulted -- and, believe me, we did from time to time -- that if we were to allow interim supply to come forward and be supported, the then Premier might have considered this as an indication of support and confidence by the newly elected Legislature and bring that to the attention of His Honour.

I see that the former Treasurer, my immediate predecessor, is putting on her mask of amazement, which she wears so beautifully from time to time. However, I thought she might know we acknowledge the fact that the former government was prepared to bring forward interim supply. We considered it and felt, when the transition took place as orderly as it did, that we could probably bring a motion for interim supply before the House with the expectation that it would be accepted.

The member for Brantford also raised the matter of the funding of White Farm Manufacturing Canada Ltd. Not every member of the House is as knowledgeable about it as he or, I say modestly, as I, since the two of us, as local members, have been involved in the issue now for a number of years. On the guarantee already put forward to White Farm by the government of Ontario, I believe we lost $4 million over a previous financial difficulty that was experienced. Now they are facing even more difficult financial realities.

The former government of the province offered $7 million to assist them in maintaining their economic viability, and my friend and colleague, the present Premier, when he was campaigning in Brantford just a few weeks ago, indicated this government would support that offer. However, there is some thought, at least at White Farm Manufacturing, that the offer might be enlarged to $10 million and there is some understanding that there was an oral commitment from the previous government in that connection. I have asked the officials who attended the meetings, and they indicate they are aware of the $7 million commitment but not of anything beyond that.

It is also my understanding that a refinancing package of about $42 million would be required to keep White Farm as a manufacturing unit and not to be dismembered by sale of its various parts. The federal government has the situation before it, and has had for many weeks, and it is not known whether it intends to take any action, even though we are coming very close to the deadline when the receivers will have to make some sort of decision.

The member for Brantford also indicated the former government had made a commitment of $5.5 million to a telecommunications museum. As the local member, I am very keen that should go forward; however, as a member of a cabinet that is committed to reviewing decisions and assessing their viability in the light of the economic situation that we as a new government are examining, I cannot make any guarantees, other than, as I say, a personal one that I feel it is a very worthy program and project and would fit in very well with the Ontario Science Centre, Science North and other very important facilities that have been developed in this province and elsewhere.

I will spend just a minute talking about the last thing the member spoke about, which is the beer and wine policy. I am not sure what that has to do with interim supply, but presumably following the sterling example of their predecessors in opposition, the members feel they can talk about anything on interim supply and I guess I would be the last person to argue that they should not.

Members are aware that both the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party have indicated something less than enthusiastic support for the policy put forward by the Liberal Party in the election campaign for adjusting our regulations to allow the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores. If this were to come forward after the negotiations the Premier announced today or, let us say, the discussions with people involved in it, I would hope it would be with the understanding that we had a package -- if I may call it that -- of such an attractive nature that we would count on the support of all members of the House.

I do not make any apologies whatsoever for the policy of the party being put forward in the campaign. I would not say we won on the basis of that alone. I would even say there are some townships in Brant county that were a little reluctant to vote for me on that basis. Still, it is a policy we are going to be discussing in the House from time to time.

The member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) is concerned about raising funds. I know in his previous capacity -- I know he would never give it up since it is a calling -- he had remarkable achievements in fund-raising. However, he could offer treasure in heaven, and here all we can offer is some kind of cockamamy bond or piece of paper. Perhaps our usefulness in raising money is somewhat reduced since we do not have quite the same quid pro quo the honourable member was using in his previous responsibilities. But I did appreciate his comments about the Treasury and our responsibilities as members of this House.

The member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague) referred to a couple of personal items. I assure him that even though I have been driving back and forth from my home in South Dumfries township to Toronto four times a week, I do not have any points against me at this stage. I have to drive home tonight, however, and I hope I do not lose all 12 of them before the former Treasurer's friend calls for me in the morning. I do not have any problems in that connection, but I do appreciate the concern of the honourable member.

He mentioned something that did bother me. He felt the statements made in question period indicated the ministry would have some conflicts with the public service. I do not believe the Premier's statement should be construed in that way. It should be construed only that when it comes to the point of having received advice it surely still lies with the ministers to consult with each other and then to make a ministerial statement.

I reiterate, we are proud of the quality of the civil service and have a great deal of confidence in their advice. But they understand that the decisions, political and otherwise, must be taken by the ministers who are elected members of this House and by no one else. I believe that was the content and intent of the Premier's statement, and I support him in that.

The member expressed a concern about the proclamation of the spills bill. There were a couple of questions from the Conservative opposition that indicated they are very reluctant to have it proclaimed, even though their members supported it at the time it went through the Legislature originally. Members should be aware, and I believe the statement has already been made by the appropriate ministry officials, that there will be consultation about the establishment of the regulations. We hope it can be made into a workable program.

I am just about finished my remarks. I see the Conservative whip is getting uneasy. He must have another party planned for six o'clock.

As usual, the member for Port Arthur gave an excellent speech. I used to listen to him when I was in opposition. I must say he even had some new ideas this time and a rather impassioned approach. He says: "Tax the freeloaders."

When I was driving in along the Gardiner Expressway, I used to notice a slogan painted on several concrete abutments there. Members of some party -- he may be associated with it, I do not know -- used to put their slogan on those walls with big paint cans. It said: "Make the rich pay." I thought: "What a great slogan that would be."

Mr. Foulds: Make the rich pay their fair share.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I think that was the Communist Party of Canada, not the New Democratic Party. But the concept of taxing the freeloaders is something I cannot reject because my --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Khrushchev lives.

But as the member is aware, the policy put forward by our party was to put a special tax of 20 per cent on incomes of more than $50,000. The member's advice to me as Treasurer was to find some way to apply that or a similar tax -- even the 10 per cent promised by the New Democratic Party. I hope we can do that.

I have even asked the officials -- and we have already talked about how capable they are -- how Ontario might be able to put such a tax on. So far they have told me it cannot be done, but maybe I will ask another official and see if he or she can think of something, because I am quite interested in it.

5:50 p.m.

He also mentioned something I want to refer to, and that is the situation involving the Grassy Narrows and Whitedog Indian reserves, the Grassy Narrows situation in particular. It is quite ironic that Great Lakes Forest Products, the successor to Reed, was granted substantial new timber limits by order in council just a few days before the government changed.

Mr. Harris: No, they were not.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: They were not? A forest management agreement?

Mr. Harris: They already had the timber limits.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: How come they were mentioned by name? Perhaps the former minister could tell me what they did get by order in council. What did he give them?

Mr. Pope: They got a forest management agreement, not timber limits.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: They got an FMA, and we know what that is.

Mr. Martel: That is a subject nobody knows about.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: All right, my point is this. It is quite within the powers of the ministry to grant an FMA or anything else of that nature by order in council, but members may recall that Reed was responsible for the problems in that area.

We must admit that at the time it happened no one thought mercury was a serious pollutant. It was not until the terrible situations in Japan that it came to worldwide attention. So we cannot all sit back and say, "Yes, we knew this was a terrible thing," when in fact we did not. We should also remember that the royal commission that is going to be reporting this summer, according to the Premier's statement earlier today, was set up because of timber limits being granted to Reed by order in council.

I remember the former leader of the New Democratic Party, His Excellency our ambassador to the United Nations, standing in his place over there raising the devil about the granting of these timber limits and although we came in very strongly on the tail of that issue, still the royal commission was established. Frankly, that royal commission has been a terrible disappointment to everybody and a heavy load on the Treasury. It will be interesting to wade through the truckloads of material it delivers to us when the time comes. Surely there will be some useful material there.

The member referred to the situation in the Indian reserve. It is my hope we can reach a settlement so the moneys can be transferred to the Indian reserve on the basis of the original agreement, in conjunction with any change in the status of Great Lakes. I hope that will happen.

Mr. Harris: In the meantime, the minister is opposed to the FMA.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No, I am not opposed to it. We are going to have a look at it. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. The Premier's statement is that the orders in council, particularly those involving special rights and privileges and the expenditure of money, are all going to be reviewed. I do not see anything wrong with that. They were entered into after the election, and I think that is our responsibility.

Finally, the member for York Mills led off this debate in her own inimitable style, well informed and incisive. I appreciate her comments. I simply draw to her attention the fact that Ontario did not run out of dollars for two days, as she said. The governor's warrants were for a specific amount of money and we actually had $800 million left over, which unfortunately was not enough to see us through Wednesday.

Miss Stephenson: Is that not marvellous? The member knows why.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: My honourable friend wants to complete my speech in the minute remaining to me, but the fact is that tomorrow there are substantial transfer payments of which she is aware. Unless we get interim supply tonight, it will be necessary for us to back up the payments in a way that is more inconvenient and, in my view, substantially undemocratic when this House is in session.

I appreciate the comments made by all honourable members and I now ask them to do something they have already promised to do, that is, unanimously support the motion.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

2 juillet 1985