role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

November 27, 1990

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I am today laying upon the table the annual report of the Provincial Auditor of Ontario, covering audits completed through 31 August 1990.

CLOSED-CAPTIONING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Fawcett: As our critic for women's issues, I wish to comment as we close the month designated as Wife Assault Prevention Month.

Our party has always worked towards the goal of the social, legal and economic equality and wellbeing of women. It is our belief that a woman cannot function equally if she cannot function freely in a safe and secure environment.

The Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues gave a laudable statement at the beginning of this month, but the climate changed to a depressing cold yesterday when she answered her own colleague's question. What a perfect chance she missed to give some hope and courage to abused women.

But did she tell them that they do not have to stay in abusive situations? No. Did she tell them that they and their children can have safe shelter in a transition house? No. Did she say that there are training programs to help them to self-sufficiency? No. Or that there are counsellors to listen and advise? No. Or did she say that there are more shelters coming on stream? No.

What did she say? She told them that one half of the New Democratic Party cabinet equals 11 women. When women suffering from violence needed hope and encouragement to break the silence for themselves and for their children, all they got was a lesson in fractions. Frankly, I do not think they give a darn about fractions. They want and need help and it is our duty to ensure that everyone knows there is no place for violence against women in our society.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS PERIOD

Mr Eves: When the standing orders were amended in 1986 and again in 1989, we designated a period of each day during routine proceedings for private members' statements. Leaders of each party and cabinet ministers were explicitly excluded from this period to ensure that private members were given their opportunity to make statements.

The government has at its disposal a designated time during routine proceedings to make ministerial statements, announcing government initiatives, legislation, policies and other proclamations. This time is made available to the opposition parties immediately after ministerial statements for them to respond.

We feel that private members' statements should not be used to announce any government initiatives. When the standing orders were drafted, the intent of all parties and all members was clear. Private members' statements are for individual members. Ministerial statements are for government announcements and initiatives.

Therefore, to ensure that the original intentions of the standing orders are maintained, today I will be tabling a motion to amend the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly to prohibit the announcement of any government initiative, legislation, policy or proclamation during private members' statements. That is the spirit in which all members of the Legislature drafted the change in rules and we will see that those changes are put into practice.

FAMILY VIOLENCE

Mrs MacKinnon: Mr Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment as Speaker of the House.

In conjunction with Family Violence Month, I have the privilege of announcing that on 20 November 1990 the Walpole Island first nation band established a family violence community awareness program.

The residents of Walpole Island and the Wallaceburg community are to be commended for identifying this problem and for their hard work and dedication to making this vital service a reality.

This type of support will help to assist in reducing the incidence of family violence. Native women and children are just as vulnerable as are their urban counterparts.

This funding will provide information and referral services to individuals and families. It will be in contact with other agencies in Chatham and Sarnia to share information about family violence and services available to the people involved in situations of abuse.

The funding will also be used to cover costs associated with awareness and education through public forums led by professionals in the area of family violence.

I would be remiss if I did not applaud the Minister of Community and Social Services for ensuring that the funding in the amount of $41,800 for this vital work is in place to stop the hurting and break the silence.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Curling: In listening to the throne speech and statements by the ministers of the government, it is clear the NDP is neglecting the needs and aspirations of the disabled, native people and visible minorities.

The Attorney General says he wants to increase the number of women judges. That is an honourable goal, and I support his efforts, but he completely ignores the disabled, native people and visible minorities. He says he will go outside the province to hire qualified women. As well as seeking qualified women, he should seek qualified candidates right here in Ontario from among the disabled, native people and visible minorities. What is he waiting for?

The throne speech committed the government to expanded pay equity and employment equity programs. All we are getting is promises. What we need is action.

Last May, the Premier introduced a private member's bill on employment equity, saying, "This bill is the result of a long period of discussion and consultation." If the Premier was satisfied with the consultation he conducted last spring, he should reintroduce the legislation as a government bill and put it before a committee of this House. What is he waiting for?

The government is also dragging its heels on proclaiming the sections of the Police Act which cover employment equity. The legislation introduced by the Liberal government has been debated, passed by this House and given royal assent. The government should move ahead on this issue. What is the government waiting for?

When it comes to standing up for the rights of the disabled, native people and visible minorities, this government has been invisible.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr J. Wilson: My statement is directed to the Minister of the Environment. I would like the minister to rethink a decision she made recently regarding the Wasaga Beach dump. On 31 October of this year, the Minister of the Environment granted an emergency certificate on behalf of Simcoe county, which enables six north Simcoe municipalities to truck their garbage to the Wasaga Beach dump.

In her efforts to arrive at a politically expedient solution, the minister is playing brinkmanship with the environment.

This House should be aware that, first, the dump is situated on top of the Alliston aquifer and, second, recent studies indicate that the Wasaga dump is leaching. In addition, just hours before the minister granted an emergency certificate, the dump was enlarged by 30% on land that has never previously been used for landfill.

The minister obviously needs to be reminded that Wasaga's economic lifeblood flows from its tourist traffic. The creation and perception of a super dump within Wasaga Beach is tantamount to flirting with economic disaster.

Perhaps the minister would be wise to listen to officials at the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, who are aware that the Wasaga dump is nestled along the edge of the world's largest freshwater beach and who disagree with the minister's decision.

Studying the problem after the fact is unacceptable and environmentally unsound. In An Agenda for People, the minister's party promised to safeguard the environment. I am asking the minister today to live up to that promise and revoke the emergency certificate. The garbage will not disappear, so start dealing with it in a responsible fashion.

CLARENCE WILLIAMS

Mr Lessard: I rise today to pay tribute to a longstanding resident of the city of Windsor who celebrated his 79th birthday last Thursday. Clarence Williams, despite his age, has been described by the Windsor Star as a "wiry, bespectacled dynamo."

Clarence has spent his entire life fighting for the cause of democratic socialism. He was a founding member of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and has been described by some as "Tommy Douglas" because of his roots in Saskatchewan and his slight resemblance to the late legend.

He has been married to his wife, Esther, for 58 years, and has been a resident of the city of Windsor for almost 50 of those years. He has lived his life with the belief that everybody should be able to share the wealth a little bit better. He has been a union member, an unsuccessful political candidate and a persistent pest to former Liberal and Conservative governments.

Clarence is best known for his regular letters to the editor and his caustic and critical political protest banners. But it is at election time when this great-grandfather really gets his political activism into high gear.

Clarence is just one of the many unsung heroes whose dogged determination and belief that one person can make a difference led to the historic events on 6 September. It is a pleasure to pay him tribute today, and I hope, Clarence, that you can take it easy, at least for five years, on the provincial government.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr Mancini: Yesterday's announcement by the Minister of Transportation concerning the extension of commuter services represents nothing less than a sellout of the people of Brantford and Peterborough, and is another broken NDP promise.

The NDP commitment could not have been more clear. In response to a question about the extension of GO rail service in a Toronto Star survey published 25 August, the Premier put it in writing, penned by his own hand: "I am pleased to extend GO Transit services to Peterborough and Brantford."

This is what the NDP promised; it is not what the residents of Peterborough and Brantford got. Instead of full rail service, Peterborough citizens will have to make do with bus service to GO stations, not in Peterborough but out in Oshawa. Instead of full GO rail service, the people of Brantford must make do with once-a-day Via trains, costing taxpayers $200,000 and costing Brantford commuters a whopping $640 a month.

Furthermore, these decisions were imposed by the NDP government without any meaningful consultation with the affected communities.

This morning I spoke with the mayor of Brantford, who informed me that the council has passed a resolution which states that it is not happy with the NDP actions and wants to hear from this government.

ONTARIO SCIENCE CENTRE

Mr Harnick: Yesterday the member for Mississauga South asked the Minister of Culture and Communications to provide the members of this House with the details of the ongoing investigation at the Ontario Science Centre. The minister replied that yes, indeed, as the Premier had said, the matter was under investigation by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and that because of a pending lawsuit he was not able to answer any questions about the matter.

The member for Mississauga South merely asked the minister what was being investigated, as the individual who signed the original contract had already been fired, and requested that the minister table a copy of the original contract signed between the science centre and the government of Oman as well as the legal correspondence surrounding it. The minister hid behind a vague

interpretation of the law and avoided answering.

I would like to presume that the minister has better legal advice than the science centre apparently did, but this does not seem to be so. The documents requested by the member for Mississauga South all precede any eventual legal action which might be taken against this government. As such, release of these documents would not be prejudicial to any such legal action.

Would but this were a question rather than a statement, I would ask the minister again, as well as the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, what are they investigating? I would presume that before the director general of the science centre was fired the issue was properly investigated. If the government is just now investigating this matter, it begs the question of what it is trying to hide and whose agenda it is responding to.

Finally, the minister yesterday offered the Premier an opportunity to answer the question of what the government is investigating. With great surprise to me and the members of my caucus, the Premier declined to answer. Shame, I say to the Premier.

VISITOR

Mr Bisson: It is my pleasure today to introduce someone who is no stranger, who sat in this House from 1967 to 1977, the honourable Reverend Bill Ferrier. I would like to draw the attention of the House over to the side to give him a round of applause.

It is appropriate that on the first occasion in this House that I get up to speak I have the opportunity to mention not only the work that other past members have done but this chance we have the opportunity to have Bill in the House himself. For your good service for the 10 years from 1967 to 1977, thank you very much, Bill, and may I live up to the record you had while you were in the House.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

Hon Mrs Boyd: You may have noticed, Mr Speaker, that the interpreter is pointing towards the gallery. We have a number of interested observers this afternoon and the interpreter has agreed to interpret for them as well.

I would like to inform members today of four important measures concerning the education of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. These measures will help make the education offered to deaf and hard-of-hearing students a more open and supportive education, one that responds to their needs as individuals and as participants in the community.

As one step towards this goal, a wider choice of communications options will be made available.

I am pleased to announce that the Ontario government is committed to recognizing American sign language and la langue des signes québécois as languages of instruction.

Within the next four years, these rich and expressive languages will be established as optional languages for learning in Ontario schools and programs.

I want to thank my colleague the member for York East for his untiring efforts to increase the choice available to deaf and hard-of-hearing students.

The government also intends to broaden its criteria for funding "in lieu" programs. These are the programs offered by school boards for deaf students who are eligible to attend provincial schools but are enrolled in regular schools. Under the new criteria, grants will be available to assist boards with the cost of providing interpreters and specialist teachers to teach students for a portion of the school day.

The government believes that consultation on these and other issues is essential for the continuing improvement of deaf education. I am therefore announcing the establishment, in the new year, of two minister's advisory committees on deaf education, one anglophone and one francophone. The anglophone committee will be chaired by the member for Sault Ste Marie, my parliamentary assistant. The francophone committee will be chaired by the member for Cochrane South. These committees will include representatives from the deaf and hard-of-hearing communities. There will also be representatives of parents, school boards, the provincial schools and interpreters.

The committees will advise me on a range of issues dealing with deaf education that were identified in the ministry's reviews of programs and services for deaf and hard-of-hearing students which was conducted under the last government. One of these issues will be the implementation of ASL and LSQ as languages of instruction.

Finally, the Minister of Colleges and Universities and I are pleased to announce that responsibility for training teachers of deaf and hard-of-hearing students currently undertaken at the provincial school in Belleville will be transferred to the faculty of education at York University. This transfer will take place on I July 1991. York University was selected through a competitive process that involved extensive consultation with individuals and organizations interested in deaf education.

York's program will help to meet the continuing need for qualified specialist teachers of deaf and hard-of-hearing students throughout Ontario regardless of communication method used. Teachers in this special field of education will benefit from training at a major university with its diverse resources and expertise. I am especially pleased that York University's program will include a strong commitment to affirmative action to increase the number of teachers who are deaf and hard of hearing. In the 1991-92 fiscal year, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities will provide $497,000 in funding for this program.

All of these measures reflect the government's commitment to providing Ontario's deaf and hard-of-hearing students with opportunities to participate more fully in our learning society.

I want the House to know that the interpreter will continue to interpret everyone's statements in the House as long as our special guests are here with us today.

ABORTION

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I would like to make an announcement on abortion services on behalf of this government. As Minister of Health, I am acting as spokesperson because this is consistent with our belief in the principle that abortion is a health issue, not a criminal matter. Federal Bill C-43 threatens this principle. It leaves women seeking abortions, and physicians who perform them vulnerable to criminal prosecution. This is unacceptable. It is unacceptable because it violates the basic right of women to control their bodies.

Even though this bill has not yet passed through the legislative process, we are already feeling its effects. Surveys indicate that up to 50% of physicians who currently perform abortions will stop if the bill becomes law. Already the communities of Sault Ste Marie and Brantford have lost their abortion services. Many communities in Ontario have never had them.

Let me assure the members of one thing: This government will continue to fight the passage of Bill C-43. My colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues and I will soon be appearing before a Senate committee to tell it why the bill must not be passed.

We are equally determined to make sure that women have access to safe, legal abortions in this province. As Minister of Health, I would like to announce the following preliminary measures.

Our first priority will be to speed up licensing of freestanding abortion clinics under the Independent Health Facilities Act. Although the Ministry of Health now covers a fixed amount for services at these clinics, women can pay from $200 to $1,000 in additional fees. Once they are licensed, these clinics will be funded entirely by the Ministry of Health. Women will no longer pay any fees. This will remove the financial barrier for women seeking abortions at these clinics.

Next, I would like to announce a change to the northern health travel grant program. This program currently covers travel expenses for people in northern communities who must travel to see specialists. The grants will be extended to cover women from these communities who seek abortions from general practitioners at freestanding clinics. Again, this will help remove financial barriers for women who live in northern communities where abortion services may not be available.

This government is also consulting with women's groups, provider groups and community groups to find new ways of improving access.

Our next priority will be to actively recruit and train physicians to provide abortion services. There are a number of options open to us, options that will, we hope, provide solutions to the problem of access.

I would like to make one final point: I speak on behalf of this government when I say that while we strongly respect the fundamental freedoms of the people of Ontario, illegal conduct which infringes or interferes with the decision to undergo an abortion is contrary to public policy.

In closing, I would like to re-emphasize that the measures I have announced are only the first steps towards our goal. That goal is to help overcome some of the economic and social barriers women face, a goal which will see more educational programs aimed at prevention of unwanted pregnancy and access to safe, legal abortions for all women who need them in this province.

RESPONSES

ABORTION

Mr Phillips: I would like to respond to the Minister of Health, first indicating the areas we are in support of in terms of her statement, and then raising a couple of areas we have some concerns about.

First, of course, we support access to safe and legal abortions. We are very much supportive of ensuring that it is sensitive and timely, that it is safe and secure for the women who are affected and that it offers support to those women.

I think our concern about the minister's statement would be with the focus she has put on the freestanding abortion clinics. Our party would have strongly preferred to have seen her take a more holistic approach to it. Certainly that was the approach we took, of looking at more than just abortion services: Looking at counselling, looking at family planning, looking at pregnancy testing, looking at fertility help, support for single expectant mothers and looking at counselling on alternatives. If there is a major area of concern we have with the minister's statement, it is the singleminded focus in this statement dealing with the freestanding abortion clinics.

A secondary concern, perhaps not as significant but none the less very important to us, is the matter I raised last week here in the House, that is, health services generally in the north. We are pleased to see that the grants for this program will be available, but we were very much looking forward to a more comprehensive statement on health care in the north.

So a portion of this statement we can support and a portion, as members can see, we have some concerns about. We would hope that as the minister goes forward she takes into consideration what we think is a more fundamental approach to this and takes a broader look at abortion rather than just looking at freestanding abortion clinics.

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED / ÉDUCATION DES ÉLÈVES SOURDS ET MALENTENDANTS

Mr Beer: It is a pleasure to rise and commend the minister on the statement which has been made today with respect to deaf education. I would like to share with her our congratulations to our colleague the member for York East and all the work he has done. I think it is only fair to mention as well the work which the former member for Scarborough West did on this whole issue.

Our party is pleased with this statement, because when I go back and look at the statement to the Legislature of approximately a year ago, it seems to me that the system we have followed has ensured that we have met all the various points that were raised at that time by the former Minister of Education and that the key element here is that we are seeking to ensure full access for those who are hearing-impaired.

In order to do that, we want to maintain the range of options, but I think we have to recognize the cultural aspects of this whole issue, and therefore the recognition of both American sign language and langue des signes québécois as languages of instruction is clearly very important. We believe that if this goes forward it is going to provide the kind of options to students, to parents, to all of those who are involved in this area, and not make anyone feel they must follow a particular route but that indeed there is choice.

In closing, I also think the decision to place the training of teachers at York University is an excellent one. Again, discussions have been under way for some time, but this will mean that those who will be teaching in our schools, those who will be working with those who are hearing impaired, will have access to one of the finest universities in the country, particularly in this area.

Again, I believe there were many things the former government was taking over the course of the last few years to improve access for many who in one way or another had a handicap or were disabled. I think this is a continuation of that and frankly is an area in which all the members of this House join. So, again, congratulations.

ABORTION

Mr Eves: I am pleased to rise and reply on behalf of our caucus with respect to the statement made this afternoon by the Minister of Health. I think we all agree on the principle of equal access province-wide, regardless of where you live in the province, to women's health centres.

While I appreciate the minister's position and her government's position with respect to Bill C-43, I would suggest to the minister on behalf of her government that it would be more prudent and make more sense to wait and see what the end result of Bill C-43 in fact is going to be.

As a matter of fact, she might want to confer with her colleague who is sitting almost directly behind her, the Attorney General, and see what his approach and response is going to be to Bill C-43, if and when it is passed and in what form it is passed and what the real consequences of that legislation are before she embarks upon spending taxpayers' dollars perhaps only a few months down the road to find out that she embarked down the wrong road and perhaps is going to have to change her position somewhat.

It is fine for the minister to sit there and shake her head "no," but if Bill C-43 is passed in its current form, and whether she agrees with it or not, the reality is that it will be the law in this country and will have to be adhered to not only by Ontario, but every individual in this country as well and every province as well.

Mr Harnick: To protect doctors from unwarranted prosecution and harassment, the government should require the consent of the Attorney General to the laying of any charges. In this way we could avoid the expense of setting up freestanding clinics and use our hospitals to the best extent possible.

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mrs Cunningham: It gives me pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus to compliment the Minister of Education on the statement made in support of deaf education and hard-of-hearing students in Ontario.

At the same time, I would like to take the opportunity to commend the former Liberal government for the work it did. In their announcement of 13 June, I think they made a good beginning to looking at a wider choice of communication objectives for the province.

Also, we would like to underline that we welcome the recognition of LSQ as well as ASL as a language of opportunity for hard-of-hearing students. I would also like to say that we are happy to see a four-year time frame so that programs can be implemented carefully and with consultation with school boards and parents across the province.

We commend, and we think we have said this before, the speech and the example set by the member for York East in this Legislative Assembly and we would like to complement him with his ongoing challenges and support him whenever possible.

We will take this opportunity to underline that one of the great criticisms of the former Liberal government was that when it did think up new programs we think were appropriate and necessary, it did not match the funding and the grants to go along with them. Although everyone is interested in improved programs for all of our special students, we will underline that this time we see grants available to assist boards to go along with the programs, and we compliment the minister for that.

Also, regarding the grants to go along with assisting York University as it does its training, as mentioned in this release, it is extremely important that the public know where the money is coming from when programs are defined here in this Legislative Assembly and in the ministers' offices.

We would advise the minister, as she continues with her work, that with her advisory committees on deaf education, the francophone and the anglophone, whenever she needs our assistance on this side of the House we would be most happy to be helpful. We wish her luck in this four-year plan and commend her for her initiatives.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the leader of the government on agriculture policy.

As the program put forward by the New Democratic Party before the election indicated specific action by way of long-term financing and interest rate relief for farmers and the speech from the throne does not follow up on that but in fact establishes a special fact-finding group of NDP members only to approach the farm community, would the Premier explain why the speech was devoid of any response to the election promises made and why he would select only a group of NDP supporters for this review in the farm community rather than engaging the standing committee on resources development, which would involve representation of all parties in this important process.

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, if the resources committee decides it wants to look at that question as well, that is perfectly fine. We have nothing against that. I think that would be a good suggestion. We have, as many others have in the past, asked a group of caucus members to help inform the government on the question of farm finance. I think that is a good idea. If there are suggestions coming from other parties that want to go through the resources committee, that is fine as well.

I think the Leader of the Opposition will also appreciate that for the most part we are waiting until the budget before making detailed financial statements. There are some things we are able to do right away; there are other things that are going to take a little more time. I think people understand that.

When I spoke to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture yesterday morning, my sense was of reaching out to it for a partnership, of saying that the government is very sensitive to the problems facing farmers today. It is an issue that is going to be informing the Minister of Agriculture and Food when he goes to Brussels at the end of the week with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, because we think that the fate of supply management and of other issues is very critical and that it is important for Ontario to be strong in that regard.

All I can say is that the question of farm finance, interest rates and farm incomes is very close to this government. However, in terms of detailed proposals, we want to wait until the budget, because we think that is appropriate.

Mr Nixon: I think the honourable Premier would be aware that by the time the Treasurer is dealing with his budget statement in the House, the farmers will be cultivating the soil and making their crop plans, if not actually undertaking the seeding.

I want to make it clear, Mr Speaker -- it is something that you would understand -- that in fact the process is not going to wait for the special group of NDP to consult with the farmers, particularly when so many of them voted NDP, to my regret. But their judgement was clear and it was on the basis of a promise for subsidized interest rates.

Now the honourable Premier indicates that this cannot be done until the time of the budget. Is he not aware that it can be done simply by the Treasurer or the Minister of Agriculture and Food making an appropriate announcement in this regard so that the farmers will have this assistance which the Premier promised in time for the next crop year?

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, my sense from talking to farmers and my sense from the meeting that I had yesterday with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture was that, quite opposed to their being opposed to our consultation, they were very enthusiastic about it because the design of programs and how they work is something that we want to discuss with people before they are done. I think that is a reasonable approach.

I certainly think it has wide support within the farm community, and in fact our sense from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture was that it very much saw the setting up of the committee on farm finance as being a very important step in consultation and in living up to the commitments which we made to the people of the province in the last election campaign.

Mr Cleary: My question is to the Premier too. The previous government increased funding to agriculture by 65% between the years 1984 and 1990 and introduced over 100 new programs to address the need of Ontario farmers. Most recently, in the spring, the previous government introduced the farm income assistance program providing interest relief and protecting farmers from weak commodity prices. The program was introduced only after extensive consultations with the farm community.

Could the Premier explain to the House why he is making Ontario farmers wait for his government to formulate a new plan, when extensive consultation has already been conducted? I would like to stress that Ontario farmers cannot wait until spring.

Hon Mr Rae: Again, I appreciate the question from the member for Cornwall and I appreciate his expertise and look forward to his advice, as do many other members who have far more expertise in this area than I do. I look forward to hearing from them.

Let me say to the member that unless I am very wrong -- and I could be; Lord knows it has happened before -- my sense from the members of the farm community is that they appreciate the fact that the government, through its caucus, is consulting widely, is talking with people before we simply announce a program. I think that is the best way for us to proceed. I think it is wise, I think it is prudent and I think it is a way of dealing with problems that is appreciated by the people of the province. At least, I certainly hope so.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mrs Sullivan: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. In the Oshawa Times of 8 August 1990, there was a report quoting the Premier as saying in Pickering and then in Newcastle: "All expansions of existing dumps and new sites must go through full hearings under the Environmental Assessment Act." The paper noted that this statement brought applause from people in Whitevale.

The paper also reported that the Premier said the best way to reduce the province's dependency on landfill was to reduce the number of Liberals in the Legislature. I do not know why I raise that, but earlier, in this House, the Minister of the Environment, when she was Environment critic, asked a question of the then minister in this Legislature, on 4 December 1989, saying: "Can the minister explain why now, 15 years later, as we enter the last decade of the century, he is leading us backwards, away from the Environmental Assessment Act, and putting landfill approvals under the Environmental Protection Act? Is that the kind of government we are to expect in the future from this minister?"

My question is, will the Minister of the Environment answer her own question and will she place all of the new interim landfills or expansions under a full environmental assessment?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me make it very clear to the member that it is not our intention to have an interim landfill site for the greater Toronto area. The announcement that I made in the House last week indicated that

whereas the previous government had fast-tracked the approval process to reach an interim site, it is our intention to fast-track the reduction side of the equation. We are going to drive very hard to make sure, in partnership with the municipalities, that we reduce, reuse and recycle and do not need an interim site for the greater Toronto area.

Mr McClelland: The Minister of the Environment said a week ago that she was going to eliminate the need for an environmental assessment, or the exemption was being pulled for site 6 in Brampton. Site 6B happens to be in my riding. She said she was going to do that in favour of a full environmental assessment and set up her waste management program.

Next day, she stated that she expects that waste management and recycling and reduction, as she indicated today, will solve all that problem, but if she has to, she will eliminate any environmental protection type of process, either environmental assessment or an Environmental Protection Act hearing, and use her emergency power and authority to use site 6B in Brampton and other interim sites.

Peel region garbage goes to Britannia. It will be full by the end of December 1991. When are we going to see the promised benefits from the minister's proposed plan in the form of a substantive reduction in waste volume? And this wonderful plan that she is talking about here today, we want to hear more about it.

We understand from her ministry that a draft regulation on the work plan will arrive within a month or two. Then we go into public consultation well into the spring; then maybe, who knows when, a final regulation. It is my understanding that once that stage is reached, some time well into the spring or beyond the summer, it goes to the private sector for six to nine months -- based on information from her ministry in terms of her plan -- on top of that, after next spring or next summer. Then we begin to deal with it.

Would the minister not agree that in the best-case scenario, we are going to be well beyond one year? If we are not, when can she tell us we are going to see the first benefit from her waste management authority?

Hon Mrs Grier: I hope that we will begin to see the benefit of this government's commitment to waste reduction immediately, because many of the programs that would allow municipalities to reduce their garbage are in place. For example, under the procedures implemented by the previous government, the regional municipality of Halton is currently diverting 23% of its waste from landfill,

whereas the regional municipality of Peel, in 1990, is diverting merely 12%. I hope that I will have the full co-operation of the member for Brampton North within his own municipality in pushing it very hard to get to reduction starting today, if not last Wednesday when I made my announcement.

Mr Curling: The people in my riding, Scarborough North, are extremely confused. They are up in arms about the minister's promise to use emergency powers to open interim landfills without full environmental assessment, as she said. if the plan does not work or reduce. One of those interim sites, of course, is the proposal for the Rouge Valley, M2. Can the minister assure this House today that the Rouge Valley will not be site for one of her EA-exempted emergency sites? Will she release specific details of her waste reduction scheme to the people of Ontario? This is a cornerstone of her statements of the last week.

We can only presume that a complete and detailed action plan exists. Where is it?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me say to the member that a complete and detailed action plan for waste reduction will be available and will be announced much more quickly than the previous speaker indicated with his time line of a year.

I would hope that in addition to the programs which are currently in place, and which I hope all municipalities across the province will begin to take advantage of immediately, there will be additional indications in consultation with the municipalities with which I have been discussing the kind of regulations and assistance they will require. I hope within the next couple of months to be able to lay out the kind of action plan that the member is seeking and I hope his municipality will be fully co-operating in the partnership that will be established to implement that plan.

PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier. On page 96 of the auditor's report released today, we learn that 15 residents at one of the agencies for the developmentally handicapped had died between January 1988 and December 1989. The report indicates that the mortality rate in this facility was three times higher than in other agencies and that it represented 15% of the agency's residents. Because the Provincial Auditor has refrained from naming this institution -- that is a role, he pointed out today, that belongs to the Legislature, the minister, the Premier and the government -- will the Premier now inform this House and the people of the province of the name of this facility?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to make sure I have got the name correct and I am frankly trying to find the exact note. I am familiar, obviously, with the auditor's report and I will get the answer directly to the leader of the third party as soon as I have it, but the information that is contained in the auditor's report is of great concern to me and to this government. As soon as I was informed with respect to what I would regard as the breakdown in appropriate enforcement with respect to nursing homes, I was very concerned about it. I can assure the member that steps were already taken under the previous administration to deal directly with problems of nutrition and appropriate care in this facility.

I think that all members of the House would share a profound concern on my part, which I certainly have, and I have been up on my feet long enough to be able to tell the member, and I have no hesitation in revealing the information to the leader, as I am sure he would appreciate, it is the Brantwood Residential Development Centre in Brantford.

Mr Harris: I wonder if the Premier can tell us, since he is familiar with this situation, why it took the Provincial Auditor to uncover this situation; why there is no inspection of adult facilities or facilities where some 550 adults across this province live in some 10 agency-operated institutions; why there is no inspection by the ministry and it took the auditor to uncover this, fortunately or unfortunately, so that it came to light.

I wonder if the Premier can tell me this: Why was the facility not named for the benefit of those members of families of the residents of this facility, both existing and future, at the time in January when it was reported to the ministry, and not made public but indeed covered up, and why did the Premier and his government not release this information as soon as he had it?

Hon Mr Rae: With respect to the last point, let me say to the leader that I am sharing all the information that I have. I thought it was appropriate to wait for the Provincial Auditor's report. There has certainly been no effort or instruction or anything of that kind on my part not to share information. Any information that I have, I will share.

Further information that I will share with the member is that the coroner's office was informed of the deaths that did occur over a two-year period within the population of 110 people at the centre, that a team review was struck and began its work in April 1990 and that as soon as the auditor's advice or review was with the government, to be fair -- and I want to be fair to everybody -- a review was undertaken to find out what was happening and to make sure that quality of care was improved. The board and staff of the centre have been fully co-operative in dealing with what I am sure the member will appreciate is a very difficult situation.

He says, "How is it allowed this way?" I will give him one answer, and that is that all the recommendations that have been made, not just for the last five years but, if I may say so, for the last 10 or 15 years with respect to advocacy, with respect to the need for independent review and inspection and advocacy on behalf of the most vulnerable citizens in this province, have been shelved by previous governments, which is why we said in our throne speech just a few short days ago that we were going to take those reports off the shelf and deal with the issue of advocacy on behalf of the most vulnerable citizens of the province, which is precisely what we are going to do.

Mr Harris: What the Premier is telling me is that it is bogged down in bureaucracy, has been and still will be. I would suggest to the Premier that yes, there have been investigations ongoing, as we now find out thanks to the auditor. Why is it this House did not know that? Why did the public not know that? Perhaps if all this had not been covered up, we would have been moving a lot more quickly on it.

Yes, I appreciate that the Premier has been forthright in answering the questions once he is asked. I would ask him this: Why do we have to wait for the auditor's report for a question to be asked before this information is shared with this House and with the public of this province?

Second, the auditor points out that adult-only residences are not included in the ministry's inspection process. This presumably has been known since January. Can the Premier tell us if this has been the case as of last January, when it was made known to the former government, or is it now the case since it has become known to him?

Finally, the auditor suggests that a final report was to be completed by September of this year. Will the Premier tell us the status of that report? Was it completed on time? If so, where is it?

Hon Mr Rae: First, let me say to the leader of the third party that I am sharing the information I have. As soon as I am assured it is reliable information, I am making it as public as I possibly can, because I think the public has a right to know. I also think the public and parents and everyone have a right to the finest level of care that is possible within this province, whether it is in a home setting, whether it is in an institutional setting, whatever the setting may be. That is the standard this government requires. I can say to the leader that I am profoundly troubled by what has happened. I am sure I speak for all members of the House when I say that.

I believe that the notion of advocacy which we are presenting to the House is precisely a way of breaking through the kind of bureaucracy which he has talked about.

It seems to me that we have to have a system of independent advocacy and of independent inspection which ensures that there is constantly another way of breaking through where care is not being appropriately provided. I can also assure him that as soon as I have the detailed answers to his questions with respect to further reports and further information, I will provide them to him.

Mr Harris: If the Premier knows where it is, I would like to see it. If that report exists -- I accept the word of the Premier that if it does, he will table it, and if it does not, he will give us an update on when it is going to be available.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Harris: My second question is for the Premier as well. During the election the Premier made a promise to small business to introduce a program of reduced interest loans for startup costs and to refinance existing high interest loans at no cost to the taxpayer. That was his agenda.

Last week I asked the Premier, in view of the fact that he had backtracked on a number of commitments of his people's agenda and indicated that they were no longer possible as he had found out since assuming the reins of power, if he would share with this House what other election commitments he is now unwilling or unable to keep, and he asked me for specifics. He said he would prefer to respond to them one at a time individually.

Will the Premier specifically tell this House today if the promise that he made to small business during the election is a commitment that he is going to keep, and if so, when?

Hon Mr Rae: I think I also indicated in an answer to the Leader of the Opposition earlier on -- and I know this will disappoint the leader of the third party, but I have to be very blunt with him -- that we have made one major announcement with respect to the $700-million investment that we are making in the future of the province, which we think will help small business, small contractors, a whole range of people.

With respect to the interest rate proposal, that is something which is still being studied and it is something which frankly we are not in a position to announce at this time.

Mr Harris: A spokesman for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is quoted as saying, "A major tax epidemic in Ontario is literally helping American businesses put their neighbours out of business." Ontario really does have no equal when it comes to imposing taxes on business. They are leaving this province in great numbers to the east and the west and the south. They are taking with them thousands of jobs and, quite frankly, who can blame them?

During the election the Premier said he had a plan. He said the plan would be at no cost to the taxpayers, so I do not know what the big problem is -- consulting with the Treasurer. We like the ones that are no cost to the taxpayer.

The Premier said specifically that he was going to introduce a program to reduce interest loans for startup costs and to refinance all the loans that they had at no cost to the taxpayer. Now he tells us he is studying it.

Could the Premier tell us if this was a goal that he had, not really a promise, and now he has found out it is not achievable or, if in fact in the campaign when he made this promise or he made this commitment, what has changed? What has changed between when he made this promise and today?

I can tell him that small business needs help more today than it did even back in August.

Hon Mr Rae: The leader of the third party asks -- and he is not asking in a rhetorical way; I am sure he is asking in a very direct way -- what has changed. I can only say to him that what has changed is that we have to set priorities with respect to what we can do in the first days and weeks of this government. That, it seems to me, is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

I want to say to the leader of the third party that if we were to have introduced An Agenda for People on I October and said "regardless of the consequences, regardless of the economy, regardless of anything else," he would have been the first person, I believe. to stand up and say what an irresponsible thing that was to do.

I think that what we are doing is perfectly sound. We are saying to the people of the province that we are here to govern, not for two weeks or for two days, but for a term.

I have met with the small business community and the main thing the small business community has said to me is that it wants to consult. They do not want to go back to the days when there was an edict coming out of Queen's Park or an edict coming out of Ottawa with respect to the GST, where they were not consulted and not involved. They want to be involved.

That is what the Fair Tax Commission is designed to do and that is what our process of consultation is designed to do. That is what our budget consultation process is designed to do and that is exactly what we are going to do before we take action.

Mr Harris: I would suggest to the Premier that if he just carries on and waits until next spring, the consultation process will be a lot easier because there will not be very many of them left.

More than 300 businesses in Ontario declared bankruptcy last month alone. The small business people I have been talking to tell me they are concerned about the costs of raising the minimum wage; they are concerned about having to bear the total costs themselves of government-mandated programs such as employment and pay equity; they are concerned about what the employer health tax has done to their operating costs. They know that Ontario's present tax burden unquestionably contributes to this province's unacceptably high bankruptcy rate.

I do not know what there is to consult about or what the delay is on this one. The Premier said there is no cost to the taxpayer to bring in this program. If there is no cost to the taxpayer, why does he have to wait to put it on a priority list? Surely small businesses going bankrupt in record numbers. leaving the province in record numbers need help now. If it is at no cost, why does he not do it now?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, the leader of the third party knows full well that there is no free lunch, and that statement has to be made. I think the people of Ontario understand that. I think the small business community understands that.

All I can say to the leader of the third party is that the economic situation is difficult right now; there is no question about it. There is no need, however, to be quite so gloomy and quite so pessimistic about what is going on in the province today.

We are going to work with all the elements of the community, in the face of very difficult circumstances -- part of which are, if I may say so, the product of policies which come from another place, people he is far more familiar with than I am -- in trying to deal with the situation. It is in precisely that spirit that we intend to act.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr Offer: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister will be aware that An Agenda for People promised that the minimum wage would be 60% of the average industrial wage over four years, and the recent throne speech somewhat reiterated that position by stating that the government will increase the minimum wage to 60% of the average industrial wage over five years.

The average industrial wage in this province in March of this year was $12.54, 60% of which is approximately $7.20 per hour. However, if one assumes a modest 5% rate of inflation per year over the next five years, the AIW will be approximately $15.23 per hour, 60% of which is $9.14 per hour.

I believe this question to be important not only to the workers of this province but indeed to all employers and in fact potential investors. Is it the position of the minister's government for the minimum wage after five years to be 60% of the current AIW, $7.20, or 60% of the projected AIW, $9.14 per hour?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am sure the member knows that we do not know for sure what inflation will be or what the value will be. But let me tell him very clearly that the position and policy of our government is that we will raise the minimum wage to 60% of the average industrial average over five years.

Mr Offer: I am somewhat surprised by the answer, because there were very specific promises made in An Agenda for People, which stated, "Over four years we would increase the minimum wage to 60% of the average industrial wage." And again in the throne speech it was stated, "Over its five-year mandate, my government will increase the minimum wage to 60% of the average industrial wage."

I had some other questions in supplementary, based on a much more specific response by the Minister of Labour. The question to the minister is simply this: at the end of the five years, at the end of this particular promise which his government made, is the minimum wage for the workers of this province going to be 60% of the average industrial wage today, $7.20, or 60% of the projected average industrial wage, $9.14? What is the minister's position?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: To begin with, we do not know what the figures will be, as I said before. But is the member suggesting that we should only raise the minimum wage to what the current average is, which means we would be giving smaller increases than both his government and the Conservative governments gave over the last 10 years?

Mr Offer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It would be very much appreciated if the minister is aware that I on this side will ask the questions and I would very much appreciate if the minister would respond to the questions as opposed to posing questions.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Villeneuve: I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Could the minister tell this House why his government refuses to accept the Ontario Federation of Agriculture as the general farm organization in this province which is badly needed?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I am glad to answer that question. As the member well knows, there have been studies under way for several years by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, working towards bringing the farmers together. Farmers have been trying over the years to get their act together and get a common voice for farmers across this province.

To that end, committees had been working on proposals and trying to pull things together, but in recent months the different groups that were working on that, the National Farmers Union and the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, have withdrawn at least partially or fully their support for the program being put forward by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

One of the principal elements that the OFA proposal suggests is stable funding for farmers, that farmers contribute to a farmers' organization. That is a very basic principle, and it is a principle that we endorsed last night and yesterday at the OFA banquet. We intend to pursue the concept of giving farmers a voice. We intend to listen to farmers and farm organizations in the future and consult with them, unlike some governments in the past.

Mr Villeneuve: Farmers do have their act together. An excellent presentation was put forth and it had input from the Christian Farmers and of course from the federation. The minister missed the boat yesterday because he told them that he was not ready to provide them with approval for stable funding. With the Christian Farmers and the NFU having less than one tenth the membership of the OFA, how in the world can the minister avoid naming the OFA as the general farm organization?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I have consulted across the province with various farmers and groups other than the federation of agriculture. I have talked to different commodity groups and I have talked to farmers individually, and the sense I was getting from my consultations is that we were not yet prepared to name just one organization for the province. There are still some groups out there that are not in agreement with the proposal that is there.

I am willing to look towards one farmer organization, and we intend to consult with the Christian Farmers and the NFU to see if we can pull it together. I am interested in having a strong voice for farmers and farm groups in this province. If we can pull it together, we will.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr White: My question is for the Solicitor General. At present, hundreds of thousands of Ontarians work on

Sunday or are faced with the threat of Sunday work and have no common pause day for their families. When can the retailers and workers of Ontario expect to have new legislation in place to implement a common pause day?

Hon Mr Farnan: I have some good news and some bad news for the member. The good news is that we have a Premier who has very clearly publicly stated that he is committed to a common pause day. In addition to that, we have a government that is also committed to a common pause day, and indeed this concept was enshrined in the throne speech.

The bad news, of course, is that this issue is presently before the Ontario Court of Appeal. We have to wait for a decision from that court. We do not know when the decision will be handed down, but certainly we will look to that decision to help us to define the legislation that we will put into place and we will act swiftly to put that legislation into place at the appropriate time.

Mr White: Can we expect the government to put any actions in place pending either new legislation or the determination of the Supreme Court ruling?

Hon Mr Farnan: The reality of the matter is this: There is at the moment a situation where this issue is before the courts. As long as it is before the courts, we cannot take any action. When the decision is handed down, there will be language in that decision which will help us to define the kinds of legislation that we will bring forward. It is very clear that we will bring forward strong legislation, provincial legislation, that will enshrine a common pause day.

One thing I can say to the member and to all the members of this House is, I am going to try something novel. In the past, there has been a tendency on the part of the government to draw up the legislation and then consult. I shall be consulting and then drawing up the legislation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Why do we not all try something novel, like listening to the member for Ottawa West, quietly?

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Chiarelli: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. Yesterday the minister refused to provide the people of Ontario with any details as to the nature of the NDP's proposed auto insurance legislation. Will the minister alleviate at least some of the uncertainty which his government has created by giving us a direct answer to the question I am asking today?

Affordability of auto insurance premiums has always been a major goal of auto insurance reform. The previous government's Bill 68 provided average 0% increases outside the greater Toronto area and 8% within the greater Toronto area. The Premier now refuses to confirm his party's promise that state-run auto insurance will provide lower rates for the Ontario consumer. He is on record; the quotes are there. Why will the minister not confirm that auto insurance rates will be decreased under his plan?

Hon Mr Kormos: Let me tell members what is going to happen. The throne speech last week made it quite clear that legislation creating a public, driver-owned, nonprofit auto insurance system is going to be presented to this assembly come spring of 1991.

In the interim, we are talking to people who have an interest in that legislation. This includes the victims who are not being compensated -- the victims who are not being compensated because the last Liberal government took away from those innocent people the right to be compensated for pain and suffering. We are talking to the insurance companies that were quite pleased with the Liberal legislation, the same insurance companies which now want to have some stake in the public system that is going to be presented by way of legislation in the spring.

If the critic for the Liberal Party wants to talk to me about his proposals for public auto insurance, I would be pleased to have him engaged in that process as well.

Mr Chiarelli: If I could see under the desk of the minister, I am sure I would see that he has affixed a pair of skate blades to his cowboy boots, because he is doing a good job of skating around the issue. In opposition he was a great defender. Now that he is in government he is the great pretender. The people in Ontario want to know that his plan is going to lower automobile premiums, and he will not tell them.

In opposition the NDP was extremely clear about its position on auto insurance. Even in April 1987 his leader, now Premier, and his adviser, Mel Swart, said, and I quote, "We believe that accident victims should retain their right to sue where they think losses exceed benefit levels...nor do we consider it necessary to impose any kind of threshold requirement." The Premier now refuses to confirm that the NDP's auto insurance legislation will allow all accident victims access to the courts. He is on record, the quotes are there.

Will the minister today confirm his government's commitment to eliminate any threshold and to extend the right to sue to accident victims?

Hon Mr Kormos: People are watching this now, banging their foreheads and saying: "I don't believe this guy. How can he do this?" After he and his party spent so much time stripping away from innocent victims the right to be compensated, after the Liberals took away from victims the right to use the courts, after they poked their heads out of the back pockets of the insurance industry just long enough to ram their legislation through the Legislature, how dare he?

Interjections.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the speeches on both sides of the House, but perhaps members would like to recognize a former long-standing member of this assembly, Fred Young, who is seated in the members' gallery.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Runciman: My question is to my old friend -- perhaps soon to be a former friend -- the Minister of Financial Institutions. I want to take a different tack in respect to automobile insurance. We have now had the Liberal plan in effect for something like five months. We all know that the minister in his former role was very vocal indeed, as I was. His party took as strong a position in opposition to the no-fault plan as we did. He expressed great concern about innocent accident victims. He has reiterated that today here.

I would like to know why this minister has not acted. He has been in office for two months now and he has not done one single, solitary thing for innocent accident victims. When is he going to act?

Hon Mr Kormos: Give me a break. We have been talking to insurance companies, we have been talking to victims, we have been talking to friends of the member for Leeds-Grenville, because we appreciate the urgency with which this matter has to be responded to. The last government created a crisis here in the province of Ontario when it comes to availability of insurance and the types of benefits that were being denied innocent victims. We are working as promptly as we can to address that. That is why there is a timetable.

That is why the throne speech indicated that legislation is going to be presented here in this assembly, legislation to create a public nonprofit auto insurance system, one that is going to provide fair coverage, one that is going to ensure that victims are adequately compensated.

Once again, if the member for Leeds-Grenville has got opinions that he wants to express to me about public auto insurance, we are ready to listen.

Mr Runciman: This minister knows my views and my party's views on public auto insurance. I want to say that we are not talking about public auto insurance; we are talking about innocent accident victims. This member stood in this House for 17 hours and conducted a filibuster expressing concerns about innocent accident victims over and over, hour after hour.

I do not think it is too much to be standing in this House today and asking him why the devil does he not get off his duff and do something if he cares about them? Why does he not introduce some interim measures to address the concerns of those people? There are accident victims out there today; they were there yesterday; they are going to be there tomorrow, and he is not doing anything about it. He should get off his duff and do something.

Hon Mr Kormos: That is exactly why we are proceeding with such urgency to consult, to listen to people in communities across Ontario, to hear what their opinions are and to ensure that the legislation that we present here come spring is going to be the best possible solution to the insurance crisis that the last government created and about which the Conservative Party has had no real solutions. That is why we are proceeding with such urgency. It is for those very reasons, and I appreciate the member raising that. We are going to respond; we are going to respond promptly.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr Martin: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Those of us who have worked in the trenches with people who are suffering for the last few years and now find ourselves in the halls of power are constantly miffed by the process of good New Democratic Party policy taken by the government of the day and misconstrued in its application.

We discovered through the recent difficult strike in our city that many folks, many women and children, who wanted to access help because they were in difficulty could not because of the social services legislation supported by the Liberal government. We were all excited by the fact that the strike was settled, only to find that now many of the workers who will not be called back to work cannot collect unemployment insurance because the federal Conservative government has legislation that speaks to their not being able to access that money.

What is the Ontario government able to do, if anything, in light of this injustice?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The member raises a very serious question. The federal legislation requires that 85% of the workers be back at work before the rest can qualify for their UI benefits. That, unfortunately, is federal legislation. How much influence we will have with the federal Minister of Labour I am not sure, but we will be talking to him on this matter.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

Mr Bradley: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. As the minister may be aware, employment levels at Port Weller Dry Docks in St Catharines, which is the largest shipbuilding facility in the province of Ontario, have fallen from some 800 down to approximately 60 at the present time. He will be aware as well that Port Weller Dry Docks has assembled a large number of individuals who are very capable of doing the job, who are skilled employees and who are willing to work.

In light of this and in light of the economic situation that faces the province at the present time, would the minister assure the House that he will proceed with the decision of the previous government to enter into an agreement with Canadian Shipbuilding and Engineering of St Catharines to have the much-needed Pelee Island ferry boat constructed at the Port Weller Dry Docks facility and thereby get willing and able employees back to work?

Hon Mr Philip: I know of the former minister's concern for the unemployment rate in his area. I can tell him that no final decision had been made by the previous government, that in fact there were three companies in the running for that particular contract, that I am reviewing these various contracts and the recommendations of my staff, that I have assured another member of his party that I would look at some other aspects of the problem, and that a decision will very soon be made and a recommendation will be going to Management Board in the next two to three weeks maximum. I would be pleased to share that decision with him as soon as that decision has been made.

Mr Bradley: I will not use the same supplementary I was going to. I appreciate the minister's evaluation of the project. The minister may be aware that the Port Weller facility operated by Canadian Shipbuilding and Engineering of St Catharines has a union there and that it is unionized establishment that has very capable workers. He will recognize as well that the Canadian shipbuilding industry, at least in the province of Ontario, is probably what one might consider to be in dire straits and that in previous years governments at both the federal and provincial levels have consolidated operations at just a couple of places.

Is the minister prepared to report at the very earliest opportunity, because it is my understanding that it was simply a matter of crossing the t's and dotting the i's? I hope that is the case anyway. Would he give an assurance that in fact the Port Weller Dry Docks facility, which needs the work so badly, will be able to construct the much-needed Pelee Island ferry and get those people back to work? I know they would appreciate hearing from him at the very earliest opportunity before more of the extremely skilled people leave to go to other parts of the country or other parts of the world.

Hon Mr Philip: I can inform the former minister that our concern is twofold. One is to get value for money and get the best possible ferry for the people of Pelee Island at the best possible cost. In this regard, since some of the residents and particularly some of the farmers on that location have expressed some concerns, we have taken the initiative of having my parliamentary assistant, the member for Windsor-Sandwich, meet with these people this week to ensure that the product we are going to purchase will in fact be the best product to service their needs.

There are a number of needs for the people on that island. One is a reliable ferry service in terms of the tourist trade which my government and the previous government were interested in promoting in that area. The second is the service to the farmers and the movement of farm goods. We want to ensure that whatever option we take will service both of those needs, and I can assure the former minister that I am very anxious to proceed with this as quickly as possible for all of the reasons he has mentioned.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. As the Minister of Health is undoubtedly aware, the Ontario Hospital Association has requested additional funding because of initiatives that the provincial government has imposed upon the hospitals, such as pay equity and the employer health tax.

In light of the fact that in the past year over 2,000 beds have been closed in Metropolitan Toronto alone, and according to the president of the OHA some 4,000 beds province-wide, with hundreds more likely to close between now and the end of the fiscal year, what are the minister's immediate plans to cope with this problem?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: In answer to the Conservative Health critic, I do not know what he is indicating is a problem. If he says that a bed closed is necessarily a problem, I am sure that is not what he means to imply. What we have been seeing over the last several months and in fact over the last couple of years is a willingness by the Ministry of Health and the hospitals of Ontario to sit down together, look at their financial problems together and work out adequate ways of financing the services that the hospitals need to be providing.

As the member is aware, special formulas have been developed so that each hospital that feels it is in financial difficulties can consult with the Ministry of Health, can in fact have taken into account in terms of its financial needs what kinds of equalization payments should be made to bring it up to the kind of level of funding that it requires. It is taken into account what the cases are in that particular hospital, the nature of the cases and what kinds of special life support programs a hospital may be running.

It is also the case that no hospital has closed beds in Ontario since last April without checking with the ministry to make sure that it was not affecting any specialized tertiary programs, emergency programs, critical care programs or

schedule I mental health facilities. It has been a requirement since April that if hospitals ran into difficulties in providing those kinds of services, they would have to get approvals from the Ministry of Health. There have been no approvals sought or given.

I think we have to say that we are entering a new period of negotiations for new funding. There are still funding accounts to be met within the 1990-91 funding period. Each and every hospital will have its needs considered in that process.

Mr Eves: The minister is very well aware that there are approximately 80 hospitals in this province projecting deficits for this fiscal year, not next fiscal year, of some $60.8 million. A large portion of those deficits is directly attributable to programs which the province of Ontario imposed on those public hospitals. Nobody is arguing about the merits of those programs. What we are talking about here, what we are asking the minister about, what her Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition, asked the government of the day to do, is to fund those programs.

Will the minister now do for the public hospitals what her Premier asked the government of the day to do, and is she standing in this House saying that the fact that 4,000 hospital beds in this province have been closed, when she has people dying on waiting lists for cancer and cardiovascular surgery, to name two examples, is not a problem? Is that what I understood her to say, that the closing of 4,000 beds is not a problem? It is not a problem if you are not dying of cancer, I guess.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I do not know which of the member's questions to address myself to first. Let me ask the member if he is aware that within the 1990-91 funding year hospitals which still have deficits and which have presented to the ministry explanations of the services they are providing and the kinds of cases they are bearing and the kinds of specialty care that they provide -- all these things will be taken into account as we are entering the period when those accounts will be finalized with the Ministry of Health.

Mr Eves: Does the minister think the closing of 4,000 beds in a year is appropriate? That was the question. Is the minister going to answer it or not?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The member cannot seem to make up his mind what his question was. I have done my best to answer the question.

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Offer: Mr Speaker, I would like to give you notice that I am very dissatisfied with what I believe was a very specific question to the Minister of Labour on a very specific promise and I want to register my notice of dissatisfaction with his attempted response.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 33, the member for Essex South has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Transportation concerning trailers on Ontario highways. This matter will be debated at 6 pm today.

Mr Chiarelli: Pursuant to standing order 33(a), I am not satisfied with the answers to my questions made by the Minister of Financial Institutions and I will raise the subject matter of the question on the adjournment of the House. I will provide written notice before 4 pm.

PETITIONS

ELEVATORS

Mr Harris: I have a petition signed by approximately 360 residents of North Bay and area which reads in part -- as per your request to us the other day, Mr Speaker -- as follows:

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

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

"We, the tenants of various senior citizen apartments, wish to express serious concern about the lack of qualified elevator technicians and elevator inspectors of North Bay, and probably the province. We are constantly faced with serious elevator breakdowns, which means elderly persons, with or without parcels, are sometimes required to walk up 11 flights of stairs. We believe something should be done before serious injuries happen."

I too have signed this petition.

SANDWICH WEST WOODLOT

Mr Dadamo: I am presenting a petition today on behalf of 790 of my constituents, and I wish to add my name as well. The petition, in protest of the development of the Sandwich West woodlot, reads as follows, even though it is in the past:

"To all members of the Ontario Legislature:

"On Saturday 27 October 1990 youth and environmental groups across Canada will be responding to the Environmental Youth Alliance rally for the Earth Day. The Environmental Youth Alliance is against further development in forested areas and has appealed to Canadians to voice their opinions locally as part of World Rain Forest Week.

"In Essex county there is less than 2% forested land remaining and the situation here is absolutely unacceptable. The development of the Sandwich West woodlot would be a disaster. We believe that the province should prevent this tragic loss of natural habitat and we are asking that this area should be preserved for the future of Ontario."

POLICE SERVICES

Mrs Mathyssen: I have a petition signed by 767 residents of the town of Parkhill to keep the Ontario Provincial Police in the town of Parkhill. I have signed my name to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ORATORY OF SAINT PHILIP NERI-TORONTO ACT, 1990

Mr Mammoliti moved first reading of Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting the Oratory of Saint Philip Neri-Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

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

Mr Curling: Yesterday, in an address on the comments of the throne speech, I was talking about the multicultural society as expressed in the throne speech. As we know and hear very often from members of this House, Ontario is a diverse multicultural and also a multilingual society. Scarborough North, for instance, the riding I represent -- I am very proud and honoured to know that it has returned me to this House to represent it -- is a microcosm of what Ontario represents.

There are tremendous benefits for Ontario's having a multicultural society, but this society continues to show bigotry, continues to show increased racism, continues to show intolerance for visible minorities and we have seen, over the last few years, unrest between the police and the black community.

I applaud the previous government for moving on getting the Police Services Act addressed after it had been neglected for the last 40 years, without any amendments. As an elected member and the member for Scarborough North, I will be vigilant that these injustices and inequities are addressed. I will be actively monitoring the legislation and the actions of this government in making sure that not only lipservice is delivered. The Police Services Act must be proclaimed and the regulations drafted and, as was often said by the now government when it was in opposition, these regulations must have public input.

I am extremely disappointed that, after months of being the government, it has not brought forward or indicated one aspect of when these regulations will be ready, but we stand prepared on this side of the House to have input and to get public input in the Police Services Act regulations when they come forward.

As I said earlier on, previously in this statement, the employment equity legislation is needed now -- not tomorrow, not next year -- employment equity legislation including not only women, who have been neglected for years, but all people who have been deprived of access and participation in society.

In closing, I would like to tell all members here that I am prepared to work very closely with them to make this province a better place, and in closing I would like to welcome all new members and returning members to the House. I look forward in the coming four years, unless the Premier decides to have a quick election, to working on the side of the government and the opposition to make this place a better place for our children and our elders and for myself to live in.

Mr Harris: I very briefly want to comment, since I know we want to get as many members as possible an opportunity to speak in the throne speech debate, on the member's remarks and suggest to him that I and my party share a number of the concerns that he has and has had, in a nonpartisan way. He had many partisan concerns when he was a minister we disagreed quite strongly with. He had a number of directions he wished to move in that we disagreed quite strongly with as well.

However, on the issue of multiculturalism and the very diverse nature of our province and the obligations on us to lead the way, to be sensitive to ways in which government can intervene and to ways in which government in fact causes problems when it intervenes if it intervenes in the wrong way, in making sure we have a responsive, pluralistic society where all can have the opportunity to achieve their potential, I believe that is what we are looking for.

Finally, the member indicated how pleased he was to have been re-elected. Normally it is for others you like to comment on that. I do not believe the member was fishing, but since he alluded to it, I want to say that I congratulate him on his re-election. He beat our party and our candidate and all others fair and square, and I congratulate him on his re-election and return to the House.

Mr Curling: Just a quick comment: the multicultural society needs no surrogate, and I am very proud of the members in the House here who at times, when they speak on behalf of the multicultural society, I feel speak earnestly and sincerely. I have worked with the honourable member who made those comments for the last five years, and I know his dedication and his interest, and that his heart is in the right place.

Mr B. Murdoch: I am delighted to be able to address this House today by replying to the speech from the throne. I would like to thank the people of Grey and Owen Sound who elected me to represent them and who have given me the privilege of participating in this debate.

I represent the riding of Grey. I follow in the footsteps of Eddie Sargent, who represented us in the Legislature for many years and who served his constituency well. I hope to be able to serve the people in Grey in the same caring manner.

Grey is a diverse riding, with Owen Sound as its largest urban centre. We also have the towns of Hanover, Durham, Meaford and Thornbury. There is a small manufacturing sector in the riding, but we would like to increase our tax base with the influx of clean industry.

Most of our riding's revenue, however, comes from tourism and agriculture, both of which were ignored in last week's speech from the throne. I know that the NDP power base in the past has not come from either of these two communities, but I say to the Premier and his cabinet that they cannot be overlooked. These two industries are vital to the wellbeing of much of the province, not just of my riding, and their needs must be addressed.

In Grey, our agriculture community consists mainly of dairy, beef, pork and sheep farmers. We also have a healthy apple industry which produces some of the finest fruit in Ontario.

Our tourist attractions are second to none. We have a four-season tourist area which attracts visitors all year to enjoy great skiing, beautiful walking trails, clean water and beaches and good fishing. I urge all members to see for themselves the fine recreational features my riding offers.

One of the loveliest areas in the province is the land in the Niagara Escarpment, and I feel very strongly that we should preserve its beauty for future generations. Its awesome beauty is there for all to admire and I trust nothing will change that.

There is, however, land in my riding which is marginal at best and my goal is to achieve a sensitive balance between conservation and development in these areas. This is difficult at present because my constituents cannot fully realize all the land has to offer, because of the lack of democracy shown by the Niagara Escarpment Commission. In my view, the commission has taken the decision-making away from the people who own the land, and this is not right. The land is theirs and they should have a say in its future.

Because the previous government offered few new initiatives to agriculture in the last five years, farmers have been forced to sell off parcels of land to survive. Unfortunately, this government does not appear as yet to rectify the situation. Some say that Grey leads the province in severances, but I challenge these figures. Even if they are true, however, I do not feel it is important, because we do have the needed land for sustainable and affordable development.

The contour of the land and tree cover is such that many building lots could be created and never noticed. It would not change the natural environment at all and would provide prime locations for people who wish to live there.

The issue of local autonomy comes up again in the government's treatment of municipalities across the province. I have been a long-time observer of the relations between the two levels of government and an active participant in the process. As a past member of the executive of AMO, as a local reeve and county warden, and as my party's critic for Municipal Affairs, I would urge this government not to intrude further into the lives of its people.

Because of my experience, I understand the importance of our municipal governments in the effective functioning of our province. They want and deserve a co-operative and consultative relationship with the province, rather than a dependent controlling one, in order that they may be responsive to the people who elect them. This level of government is closer to the people and more respectful of them than any other.

I feel it is incumbent on this government to listen to what people have to say rather than to lobby groups that often do not even live in the community but think they know what is best for the people who do.

In the last five years, we in Ontario have lost the partnership that had been built between Queen's Park and our municipalities. I urge this government to ensure not only that the relationship does not deteriorate further, but to consult with local governments to determine what can be done to correct some of the problems.

I am hopeful that the $700 million mentioned in the throne speech will be divided fairly across the province to assist in achieving that goal. So much needs to be done. The population of the province outside Toronto is growing quickly and smaller centres do not have, and cannot afford, the infrastructure to support this growth.

If the province is going to take the view that these centres must expand, then money is desperately needed. Water and sewer facilities must be expanded and highways must be upgraded. The roads in my riding are fast becoming very dangerous and I can only hope that this government will address the problem.

No mention was made of how or where this money will be spent. I hope, if it has not all been allocated as yet, that the minister and the Treasurer will try to understand the present plight of these small communities.

As members know, the previous government excelled in announcing initiatives which sounded wonderful, but upon examination came up with no funding to put them in place. This left the people of the province with high expectations and then greater disappointment when their local governments could not afford to deliver without huge municipal tax increases. This also was not fair and I hope this new government will not continue to place these burdens on our local councils.

Some of the smaller urban centres in the province now have very fragile economies and cannot afford to lose what industry they have. I was disappointed to note that there was nothing in the throne speech to address this issue and I hope the government will give its attention to this matter as quickly as possible.

I am afraid that measures such as the proposed environmental bill of rights will indeed have the reverse effect and serve to drive industry away. I hope this is not the case, but I will examine the legislation closely and with the interests of smaller businesses in mind.

In closing, let me say once again how honoured I am to represent the voters of Grey and Owen Sound. I pledge to represent them to the best of my ability. I will be watching this government to ensure that my people's interests are addressed and I will work with them in order to meet Grey's and Owen Sound's goals and aspirations.

Ms Haeck: I have a question for the honourable member in relation to his comments on the Niagara Escarpment Commission. If I may point out at this point, the NEC was in fact a creature of a previous Progressive Conservative government and I am somewhat concerned that he does not recognize the important function of the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

I am wondering how he proposes to protect the natural beauty of a county like Grey -- as I also have represented in the riding of St Catharines-Brock -- and also the tourism that he mentions, and the clean water, without having a commission such as the Niagara Escarpment Commission to protect the interests of tourism, of the residents who live there and the natural beauty, all of which are part and parcel of the statement that he made.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission, I believe the honourable member for Grey will recognize, plays an important function. I wish him to comment on what he believes to be the true function of this commission.

Mr McLean: I would just like to take a couple of minutes and compliment the member for Grey on the observations he made with regard to the riding and to the comments he made with regard to his past experience. I know he is going to be a great asset to this assembly and I want to compliment him on the contents of his remarks and wish him well in this assembly.

Mr B. Murdoch: I have a comment on what the honourable member mentioned across the floor. The Niagara Escarpment Commission is probably one of the most undemocratic commissions ever put in place in Ontario government. Unfortunately, it is there. What I had to say about it is that I think it should be disbanded. The people of Grey county and our area can look after our own resources and keep it beautiful as we have done for the past 100 years, so I do not think we need interference from someone else.

Mr Wood: Last week when I rose in the House, I neglected to congratulate the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker on their election to the chair. I want to do that today. I also want to congratulate all the other new members who were elected to the House as well as the older members who were re-elected.

I also want to thank the people of Cochrane North for giving me the opportunity to serve as their representative here. It is an honour for me to be able to participate in the legislative process. I can assure them that I will work hard for their needs at Queen's Park and in the riding.

At this time I want to pay tribute to my three previous predecessors in Cochrane North. René Brunelle represented the riding for close to a quarter of a century. René Piché followed in his footsteps and represented the riding for five years and was followed by René Fontaine who also represented the riding of Cochrane North for five years.

Cochrane North is one of the biggest ridings in northern Ontario. It covers thousands of square miles in size and is characterized by many small towns which are single-industry towns. Mostly sawmills and pulp and paper mills make up the area of Cochrane North. It also has a number of powerhouse operations located along the Missinaibi, Abitibi and Mattagami river systems. Its scenery is magnificent. Countless square kilometres of forest, lakes, rivers and streams dot the landscape. I invite all the members to come and visit my riding and experience the vastness and meet the friendly people.

Being a former millwright at Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co, I am pleased by the many initiatives regarding labour that the government has planned for the north. We will be ensuring that workers have the right to freely exercise their right to organize. Also, we will be establishing a wage protection fund for employees which will secure some income to families that have lost jobs due to these tough economic times. Raising the minimum wage to 60% of the industrial wage will help these people to have a better standard of living as well as create a better economic base.

This throne speech is about being fair to people. We want to work with people to establish better living standards and rights for all. We want to encourage people who were left out of other governments so that everyone is heard. That is why we will work with the local governments to create strong partnerships in all areas.

Cochrane North has one of the highest percentages of francophone population. In Cochrane North, 63% of the people speak French. I am proud that this government is working with the francophone community to ensure its rights. I might add that my three constituency assistants in Cochrane North are bilingual, and I myself am working with a tutor to improve my French as a second language. I am looking forward to being able to address the assembly here in my second language.

The government is also committed to looking at and devising a new tax system. We will set up a commission called the Fair Tax Commission to make sure there is a more equitable tax system for the people of the north.

I am proud to be a part of this government that is aiming at fairness for the people in Ontario and especially for the people of Cochrane North in northern Ontario. I thank members for the opportunity to express my views.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased you remembered the riding. Thank you very much for that introduction.

It is truly my pleasure to rise in this House once again. I have not had the opportunity since that fateful day of 6 September when many of us -- none of us here; some of the members opposite, I guess, but none of us -- received a surprise about the outcome in our own ridings. It is a pleasure indeed to be back and to address the House on the throne speech and perhaps some other issues that might be of some interest.

I want to make a comment, though. I was talking to the member for Durham East, the MPP for Sam Cureatz's old riding. I was talking to him about his predecessor, who I am sure he would like to speak to. When he spoke in the House on very many occasions, he would address what he called "the great Liberal back bench over there," and he referred to us as trained seals because we were trained to applaud whenever a minister stood up and said the slightest thing, however inconsequential it was.

I just want to tell the members opposite that they have gone to new heights. They make us look like pikers when it comes to -- all of it, really. I am deeply impressed. The timing is excellent and I must give the credit to my counterpart, the whip for the NDP, who obviously is truly the iron lady and who obviously has all of the members opposite trained. They have their notes down and I am truly impressed, I really am.

I say that with sincerity, because I was told, and it is obviously untrue, that the first time the bells rang in this House, half of the members opposite would leave for recess and the other half would think it was a coffee truck. But that is obviously not the case. They have obviously done their homework and they have studied this. I am particularly interested in how they are reacting.

I would also, though, just caution the members opposite, as our dearly-departed-from-this-place friend Sam would do. That is that while they are sitting up there in those seats, where on a clear day they can see the Speaker, while they are way up there they really want to be down here in this little row over here with the big guys, $27,000 a year more over here. But as they are sitting there, they are going to feel a little frustrated.

They are going to be frustrated because of documents like the throne speech, which do not address the doctrine, or the dogma, depending upon your point of view. that socialists and the NDP have espoused for many years. They are going to get upset when they see their Premier standing up there and looking like David Peterson or, God forbid, Bill Davis. Already I see it. His hair is getting a little greyer. I do not know if that is by design. I am expecting a red tie any day. He has an $800 doublebreasted suit and he looks the part. He is perfect.

Maybe it is the chair in the corner office of the Pink Palace that creates that sort of ambience, I am not sure.

Members will also notice, by the way, that question period is not answer period. I do not know if members have noticed that yet, but we do not get answers to any of our questions and the little lobs that the members opposite throw over, "Dear Mr Minister, can you tell me what wonderful things you have done for the people of this province in the past seven days?" -- tough, tough questions. Those little lobs that members throw over are not going to get answers they can take back to the folks who are the real left-wingers who elected those guys. Remember that.

Because anything they do in this Legislature is not going to help them. What is going to help them is what they do on the ground back home.

I have a unique perspective of the position they are in because of my upbringing. You see, I grew up in a very socialist family. My dad was a labour leader of some note. if not some notoriety, and I grew up with a number of very fascinating people around me. As a matter of fact, I must tell members that when I was a young, somewhat heavily influenced teenager at high school --

Mr Curling: Younger.

Mr Mahoney: Younger, as my colleague has said -- I actually ran in a high school election as Tommy Douglas. Guess what? It was in a pretty well-to-do community in Etobicoke and I won, much to the chagrin of the bourgeoisie parents who were there. I was quite proud of that. but I have to say that the way I won is that I sort of promised certain liquid refreshments and company to my constituents to get together the odd time with each other. It was in a very similar way -- not based on any solid platforms, but rather on some little tricks.

Now I am seeing exactly the same thing happening. I grew up with people -- Tommy Douglas was at my wedding 21 years ago. David Lewis was an extremely good friend of the family, and he was around all the time. Even a socialist who finally got smart was around from time to time, a guy by the name of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. So I grew up with this background of all these socialist hordes invading my rather large family.

Tremendous labour movement people like Johnny Barker from Sault Ste Marie, a wonderful trade union guy, terrific solid guy; Ivan and Ollie Campbell, great friends of my family, of my mum and dad; Larry Sefton, members all know Larry. They are all taking orders from Leo now. Well, Larry used to give the orders to the party in those days. Lynn Williams, we all known Lynn, the president down in good old Pittsburgh. Well, he used to be right here; he used to be district 6 director.

I grew up with all of these folks. A number of these people are no longer with us, unfortunately. They have gone on to that great labour union in the sky. They are in the blast furnace or they are up in the clouds having a good time. They would roll over in their graves if they saw how this supposed traditional CCF/NDP socialist government has put together an agenda. The Agenda for People laid it out. The Agenda for People said what they would do. The then Leader of the Opposition was right over here, standing up, saying what he would do if he were Premier.

Now he has just leaped across the floor and all of the friends of my family would roll over in their graves, because what have they done? What they have actually done, amazingly enough, is transformed themselves, believe it or not, into Liberals.

I am upsetting my colleagues on this side of the House. I am upsetting my colleagues on this side of the House by suggesting that these folks are Liberals, but the reality is, the left wing over here and the left wing over there, they think they are part of a socialist movement, but what have we heard in the first week of getting back to work in this place?

Mr Tilson: They're really Liberals.

Mr Mahoney: Of course they are. There are even some Tory little lines that come down. I heard the honourable Minister of Transportation, who I thought was a wonderful guy over here with all his hard-hitting questions and his points of view, stand up and announce -- and this is for the Tories in the room -- that he was actually going to set aside a transportation corridor on Highway 403. I could not believe it.

When Highway 403 opened in my city, I was a member of city council. Guess who the minister was? It was Jim Snow, and there was already a transportation corridor along Highway 403. As my honourable colleague the member for St Catharines said, "We should give Ed Philip a third hand so he can pat himself on the back a little bit for making all of these announcements that even go so far back as the Conservatives." I find it hard to admit that they did some things well, but they truly did, and Highway 403 is one of the solid things done by that administration when it was in power under Jim Snow as the Minister of Transportation.

Take a look at some of the other things that the Minister of Transportation has announced. He is going on about all of the promises our government put in place with the $5 billion we announced in spending in the greater Toronto area for transportation, and yet he is trying to pretend once again -- it may not bother him right now, but when the member has to go back to Oxford -- by the way, I would have loved to have seen the new member for Oxford debating with Charlie Tatham on a platform; that must have been a hoot; that must have been absolute entertainment.

Mr Curling: What about the accident? The accident of Peter Kormos. What about him?

Mr Mahoney: Oh, never mind Peter. Peter, have a seat. Nice to see you here. Good to see you come, good to see you go. Peter, if you ever pass by here again we would appreciate it.

He will know that when he has to go back to Oxford to some of his group homes or his homes for battered women -- we heard a great litany of comments from the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues announcing everything the Liberal government had done. This is a bit of a strategy and a ploy that I see on the part of the Premier, where his party wants to be nice. I see him over there even applauding some of our members' statements.

The camera does not pick that up, but the Premier sits there and says, "Oh, that was a wonderful statement." I do not know when all of this nonsense is going to stop and his party will start to realize that what in fact is happening in the leadership, in the little group -- how many are there in the apocalypse now? We are not sure. Are there still only four? There were four in ours; there were four guys who ran it.

Let me tell members something else, by the way. What they really have to do if they want to move down into the front benches is lose the next election. I am proof positive. I was way up there, way up where the member for Oxford is, okay? We sort of lost the election, you might have noticed, and now I am getting closer to the front. You never know, when we go out and win the next election I might even be down in there or down in there. I do not know. I think it could be close; right down in there. So that is the strategy members have to adopt.

What I want members opposite to do is look to their right and then look to their left and recognize that the people on either side of them will not be back here after the next election. Cureatz used to tell us that. I looked to my right and there was Gino, and he is gone, and I looked to my left and there was Keith, and he is gone. So Sam must have known, surprisingly enough, what he was talking about. He must have known.

But in the case of those guys, I would also recommend they go look in the mirror, because they might find out there is somebody in there who may not be back here next time, especially when they have to go back to their constituents and tell them that this great leader of the left, this great demagogue of social democracy, is in fact a Liberal in disguise. Oh, it is obvious.

Let me tell members that people like Larry Sefton, if he were here, would tell them that. He would not kowtow like Leo and Bob and the boys. He would not do that. He would get up and he would tell the straight goods, that this man is not following his doctrine and he is leading members down the path to ruin. He is leading members to the point where they will be defeated without a doubt in their next election. So let them enjoy paradise, if this is what they think it is, while they are here.

On some of the really interesting issues, the one area where I noted there was a departure from good Liberalism -- and it bothered me because it is such an important area, if I could be serious just for a moment -- is education funding. When we came into power -- well, five years ago, those guys and we got together and made a deal, but the real true power we came into started three years ago -- we had to face the fact that in the final year of the Tory regime there was $72 million granted throughout the entire province of Ontario for capital for school funding. We increased that to $300 million a year for five years, $1.5 billion for school capital.

I get the sense from the minister that her people had simply said, "Well, the Liberals did enough in that, so you don't need to do any more." I would ask the minister to look very closely at that, because frankly we even admitted when we were in government that it was not enough, that we needed to do more in that area, particularly in the high-growth areas.

As a matter of fact, the best Minister of Education, with respect, that the New Democratic Party never had was Richard Johnston. Richard would tell members that during our deliberations in the select committee on education, of which I had the privilege of being vice-chair for a number of years in the former government, we recommended a number of things to increase capital for school funding. The backbenchers are the ones, you see. It was us on the back benches who came to our Treasurer, to our Premier, to our Minister of Education and said, "Look, we think that you have to do something about this." We showed them and documented for them why it needed to be done, and they listened.

Now, if the minister wants to hear consulting, which some of her buddies over here are talking about, she should see if they consult with her. That is going to be the real test, whether or not they do. So I would ask the minister to read very carefully the reports of the select committee on education, particularly the report on financing. I would ask her to address the issue of capital school funding; I would ask her to address the issue of funding for the fixing up of older schools.

Hon Mr Kormos: Are people taking the member seriously? Where is your caucus?

Mr Mahoney: The Minister of Cowboy Boots had his 17 hours. Why does he not just relax and let some of us go, before he makes me go to a 17-hour filibuster.

Hon Mr Kormos: Do it. Come on, show us.

Mr Mahoney: Any time, pal, any time.

But I want to tell the members that the education matter is something that was not addressed in the throne speech. Very clearly there are issues that need to be addressed to give some direction from the minister's party, to put her agenda on the table. What the government has effectively done is recycled old Liberal promises. Let me tell members something: We were accused of recycling issues when we were in government but, by God, at least they were ours to recycle. What the government is doing is recycling Tory promises and Liberal promises.

Obviously, I am not in support of the throne speech. I would encourage the government and all the ministers to stand up and put their agenda forward so that we and the people of Ontario can understand where this socialist New Democratic Party wants to take this province.

Mrs Mathyssen: I would like to thank the honourable member for Mississauga West for his kind remarks regarding our youth and enthusiasm and commitment to representing the working people of Ontario who have created the prosperity in this province.

I would also like to comment on his use of the S-word. He has called us socialist. Now, if he means by socialist that we are committed to caring for seniors, providing help for the disadvantaged, promoting a universal health care system and providing proper education funding, then yes, we are guilty, we are socialists.

Mrs Cunningham: It is not our usual position to stand and make response to comments, except when we are personally singled out from time to time. So it gives me a great deal of pleasure today to respond to the member for Mississauga West in his pointed comments with regard to when our government was in power.

I think basically what we should be talking about in this House when it comes to education is what is right for young people. I will say that there was some criticism mentioned today about some $70 million being set aside for capital funding five years ago and that this was not enough money. That may be so, but I will remind the member for Mississauga West that during those times many of us sat on school boards and we were looking at accommodation of young people that would not only meet their needs but meet the numbers of dollars that school boards had, and that the government of Ontario had, in accommodating young people.

They were very difficult times of declining enrolment. There was not the need, because we were trying to utilize empty space within schools and within buildings. It was an efficient use of government money. I will take the opportunity to say today that in spite of the vast amount of money that was spent in the last five years, it simply has not been enough to accommodate the increased enrolment of young people across Ontario. Most of us heard that in our ridings during the election.

Also, the auditor said today -- and I will point this out -- that closer monitoring of underutilized schools is needed. Therefore, I am saying, for the sake of efficiency, this government and certainly the previous government have the responsibility to enforce their own programs. The regions made no attempt to ensure that boards were complying with their closure policies or to monitor school utilization rates. That is bad management and bad government. We expect new schools where they are needed, but buildings to be utilized as efficiently as they can be. That is what our government did, and I will take the opportunity to say so.

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haslam): Before we go on, I have been asked to make two announcements.

Pursuant to standing order 33, the member for Mississauga North has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Labour concerning the minimum wage. This matter will be debated at 6 pm.

Pursuant to standing order 33, the member for Ottawa West has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Financial Institutions concerning automobile insurance. This matter will be debated at 6 pm.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mr Mahoney: I am sorry that I struck such a sensitive chord in the third party. If I offended, it was purely by reciting the facts. I did not really intend it to be on a personal basis. We know what the contribution was to capital.

But I am also interested in the refusal of members of the opposition to say "socialist." Maybe we should have a class and all say it together, because in reality the government has told the people of this province that it has a socialist, democratic platform to put forward. If it wants to call it the S-word, well, let it go right ahead and hide behind that. If the government wants to continue to be a wolf in sheep's clothing, God bless: it can go right ahead and do that.

What I am telling it is that the throne speech is an opportunity for any government to put forward in clear, concise terms what it is that it is going to do and where it is going to lead this province for the balance of this term, or at least until its next throne speech.

I am suggesting to the government, and I think the facts are clear, that what it has done is recycle the former government's programs, and even some of the former, former government's programs, rather than come up with directions that are going to satisfy the concerns of the constituents who it represents. The government should remember who it represents. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe what they did, when they voted was they went "uh-uh," like that on the ballot. Maybe it was an accident that the government got here, I do not know.

But the reality is that it has to go back without the coattails of its Premier -- and believe me, I know what that is like -- to its constituents and defend a throne speech that is totally lacking in social democratic policies.

Mr J. Wilson: I would like to thank all members in the House for extending to me the courtesy of letting me deliver my maiden address in response to the speech from the throne. It is both an honour and a privilege to be surrounded by individuals of such quality and distinction who have helped me in easing my transition as a new member here at Queen's Park. These individuals are found not in just one party but throughout all three parties in the Legislature. I am pleased that we are all able to join together in the task of governing this great province.

As I rise to make my comments, I am struck by the largeness of the task I face. Following in the footsteps of the former Simcoe West MPP, George McCague, can be formidable, but I find comfort in the behavioural model he provided, a model of action which daily emphasized his commitment to his constituents and an undying loyalty to this province. For 15 years, George McCague showed us all that politics can be both honest and effective. He is truly a gentleman, a man of honour and integrity, and I know all members would join with me in extending our best wishes to George for continued success in all his future endeavours.

As I look around the Legislature at the myriad of faces, some, like me, are here for the first time. Others have been here before and are more familiar with the nuances of governing and opposition. As I cast that glance, I am struck by the overwhelming responsibility that we all share.

The public has grown weary of a system that continually falls short. None of us in this House needs to be reminded of this; we heard it at almost every door during the election campaign and we hear it every day with calls of complaints from citizens who have been taxed both physically and mentally by a political system that is out of date and ineffectual.

In the context of the current political climate, I feel the need to remind all members to bring to the Legislature a sincere belief that today they begin the process of re-establishing public trust in Ontario's political system. A new age in politics has dawned, and those who adhere to old practices will not find themselves recycled in four years but, instead, buried amid the landfill of broken promises where the former Liberal Premier currently resides.

While at Queen's Park we must not lose sight of the needs and aspirations of the people who have placed their trust in us. All honourable members are here because we entered into what philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau called "a social contract." That contract contains much of the emotional and moral commitment that we find in the institution of marriage, but I am afraid that the contract has been left in a precarious state. The public has become separated from the politicians they trusted to lead. The stakes are high but, with sensitivity and foresight, we can prevent social divorce.

As Rousseau said, "The wise lawgiver begins not by laying down laws good in themselves but by finding out whether the peopl