Hansard Transcripts 1984-May-22 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to inform you that the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. McEwen) has now taken a seat on the government side of the House.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1985, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly. Signed John B. Aird, Lieutenant Governor, Toronto, May 22, 1984.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to report on the meeting of Great Lakes environmental administrators from state, provincial and federal jurisdictions which I attended last week.

Mr. Boudria: Do you have something to say about it?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: It was a fine meeting. The member should have been there.

The object was to develop a joint Great Lakes agenda to address the central issue of controlling toxic substances. In areas of direct interest to Ontario, the administrators resolved:

1. To explore jointly among the Great Lakes jurisdictions the feasibility of a program to monitor the atmospheric deposition of toxic substances. Michigan agreed to convene a group of technical experts from each jurisdiction to examine the costs and the technical aspects of the proposal.

2. To request the International Joint Commission to step up efforts to examine various approaches to the assessment of risks with toxic substances and the application of knowledge concerning risk tolerance activities.

3. To promote alternatives to landfilling and to encourage development of technologies for reducing, reusing, recycling and recovering waste with particular reference to hazardous wastes.

4. In co-operation with the International Joint Commission's water quality board, to work towards a greater compatibility of fish monitoring data among the jurisdictions to ensure improved human health advisories and increased public knowledge.

As the honourable members are already aware, Ontario has introduced a new initiative to increase the level of protection in the western section of the Great Lakes. The St. Clair-Detroit rivers improvement team will co-ordinate the assessment of environmental quality in these water bodies and Lake St. Clair, and make recommendations for future monitoring and control measures. The new team will bring a new and sharper focus to our activities in this part of the Great Lakes. I am confident that its work, in combination with our continuing water quality programs, will equal the performance of our Niagara River improvement team.

These two new initiatives will complement and strengthen my ministry's extensive ongoing programs to protect the important Great Lakes region.

CO-OPERATIVE EDUCATION

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure as Minister of Colleges and Universities to inform the House that, following upon our earlier announcement that we would be providing $31.1 million to the University of Waterloo for the construction of a new building for that university's Institute for Computer Research -- the entire project to cost something in the area of $45 million -- we have information that attests to the wisdom of that decision and augurs well for the future of the University of Waterloo and, indeed, for the future of our province and the economy of Canada in general.

I am pleased to report to the House that the University of Waterloo and Digital Equipment of Canada Ltd. of Kanata have recently announced the signing of an agreement for a joint scientific and research development program estimated to involve a total of approximately $65 million. To our knowledge, this is the largest agreement in history between one university and a single computer equipment supplier, not just in Canada but anywhere in the world. I know of one other such agreement that involves a comparable amount of money, but I am informed that in essence it involves two agreements, although they both pertain to one university. Those agreements are in the United States.

Initially, Digital will provide the University of Waterloo with up to $25 million worth of computer equipment including 15 large-scale VAX, virtual address extension, systems and 2,000 work stations. This equipment will greatly expand the university's ability to do work in such important areas as pattern analysis, which is integral to the advancement of the science of robotics; VLSI, very large-scale integration, which is equally important in the microchip field, as well as in other areas, many of them related to fourth- and even fifth-generation computer environments, including artificial intelligence, logic programming and expert systems.

The University of Waterloo has work under way in all these areas, as well as in computer communications, educational software and a wide variety of other computer-related fields. We have every reason to expect the university will benefit a great deal from this very significant agreement and will be able to achieve new levels of excellence in the future. Obviously, Digital Equipment shares this view fully.

2:10 p.m.

I think it is significant that, even as the $65-million Digital-Waterloo agreement was being announced, there came as well information from the United Kingdom that the University of Waterloo has been selected to prepare the software for the computerization of the Oxford English Dictionary. This involves an agreement with Oxford University Press that is worth about $6 million to the University of Waterloo. Waterloo, I might say, has been selected in a competition that included other universities and several firms of computer experts from the private sector from all over the world.

The selection of the University of Waterloo attests to the reputation this institution has won for itself for quality computer software research over the past few years. It also attests to the scholarship and the computer awareness of the university's nontechnology areas, including its humanities and social science departments.

The computerization of the Oxford English Dictionary will be a truly mammoth task since it involves the entire vocabulary of the English language tracing back to 1150 AD and encompassing 12 volumes, 21,000 pages and 60 million words.

Waterloo's involvement will include a worldwide user survey to determine just who uses the Oxford English Dictionary and what the users needs are. It will also involve creating the day-to-day structure that will form the foundation for many new applications of the computerized new dictionary.

SOCIAL FUNDING

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday my good friend the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. Grossman) introduced his initial provincial budget. Included in the document was a plan to help break the cycle of welfare dependency.

I would like to point out that during the last six months I have been working on and planning with my colleague the provincial Treasurer a viable means of dealing with this major problem. Today I want to advise the Legislature of the thrusts in supporting his statement and to tell honourable members that the days of handouts in the province are over. Thanks to the Treasurer and his budget, we are now able to offer a hand up.

The Treasurer has made $120 million available to the Ministry of Community and Social Services over the next three years so we can assist those on social assistance who want to overcome welfare dependency; gain experience, employment and training, and participate more fully in our economy.

Members will recall that within the past couple of years my ministry launched a series of employment support initiatives. These have been running in the cities of Peterborough, Thunder Bay and Windsor; the counties of Dufferin and Lanark, and the regional municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto, Ottawa-Carleton, Peel and Waterloo. These initiatives involved personal and pre-employment counselling leading to the development of a plan for economic independence, the provision of child care services and assistance with employment job search and employment-related expenses.

Let me tell members what has been happening. In the very large municipalities, client demand for this service has been so great that several hundred clients are waiting to be seen. In the middle-sized communities, where client numbers are smaller, the demands for service have been steady and most programs are reaching their upward limits. As for the small centres, Lanark, for example, has already assisted 24 clients to attain full-time employment.

There is no letup in the demand for service or in the achievement of success by our clients. I am confident that when we receive the first-quarter results of this year we will see a continuation of this successful trend. A message is being relayed to us and it is fairly easy to comprehend: our clients prefer employment to social assistance. The work ethic is alive, well and prospering in Ontario.

The overwhelming response to the employment support initiatives has prompted us to proceed with the enrichment of the existing ones and the introduction of approximately 12 new programs strategically selected across Ontario. That amounts to about 5,000 additional single parents.

This is just the beginning of a planned expansion of these initiatives that will eventually see these services being offered across the province to every recipient who wishes to participate. I will outline further details at the annual meeting of the Ontario Municipal Social Service Association in Sarnia in a few weeks and extend more invitations to municipalities to join us.

Let me re-emphasize that these initiatives could not have been put in place without the foresight of the Treasurer, who paid particular interest to those on social assistance.

This is the first in a series of initiatives I intend to announce. Today I am dealing specifically with the enrichment and expansion of the employment support initiatives program benefiting the single parent. In due time I will deal with the other initiatives announced in the budget, including those for youth.

Earlier today I met with a number of single parents, counsellors and representatives from agencies in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. They confirmed what I have just shared with the Legislature; that is, they enjoy working. Until now, we knew these programs were needed. Now we know they are wanted and they are working.

When we first began two years ago, we invited a number of municipalities to participate in a noncompulsory campaign to assist single parents receiving social assistance to secure full-time employment.

My ministry staff joined with their counterparts in the municipalities to implement a series of innovative projects. These were designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of integrating the delivery of family benefits to single parents with the delivery of social services by municipalities, combined with an employment support initiative package. I should point out these municipalities were assisted by staff from my ministry in developing program proposals and implementation plans.

The first project started in November 1982 with the remainder in full operation by early spring of last year. We gave these projects a minimum trial or test period of 12 months; however, we extended the operations of integration and employment support services to the end of the calendar year. This extra period was intended to provide the time required for reporting, for consultation and dialogue, and for planning and decision-making.

As the members may know, we established a joint steering committee, with representation from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Ontario Municipal Social Services Association, the test municipalities and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. This committee has been monitoring the projects and is responsible for the evaluation which has started. The data being collected, the analysis and the critical report-writing steps of this process are currently under way.

I expect the final report to be available within the next few months. At this time, it would be premature for me to anticipate the findings, but I am pleased to say the preliminary information is most encouraging. The response to the employment initiatives has exceeded our expectations in almost every location. About 8,000 sole-support parents on family benefits were served by the integration component of the projects. The duplication in documentation involved in transferring clients from one system to the other has been virtually eliminated.

As of the end of January 1984, the time taken between applying for general welfare assistance and the granting of family benefits to qualified recipients has been greatly reduced. It dropped from an average of 14 weeks at the beginning to between four and six weeks. I am sure the members will agree this is a very important improvement in service to the client and also that it benefits the municipal taxpayer.

Our friends in the municipalities have told us the improved stability in the relationship between client and case worker, due to not transferring between systems, is a great benefit. Clients appear to respond better to the opportunity for independence available through employment support services the sooner these are offered after the event that necessitated their applying for income maintenance.

Here are some rather interesting and impressive statistics. By the end of 1983, more than 5,000 clients initiated contact with the nine projects. More than 3,000 have actively participated and have already designed personal plans which, if followed through, should eventually result in full-time employment and economic independence.

In a weak economy with high unemployment, about 500 people obtained full-time work by the end of last year. Approximately the same number achieved part-time employment. Those who are not yet employed are either pursuing upgrading or training or are in the process of looking for jobs. We have had ongoing discussions with staff in all nine projects and the information we are getting back is good.

More important are the people. Let me take a moment to tell members how some of those people feel.

A woman from Ottawa, in an emotional response, said that for two years she had been walking a number of miles back and forth to an adult day school. She had found it very time-consuming and discouraging, particularly in bad weather. She wanted to express how grateful she was that this program had been established as it meant she could now afford to purchase a monthly bus pass. She is now pursuing courses that will gain her useful employment.

A Thunder Bay woman wrote to us to say: "Today I am working full-time and it is wonderful to feel whole again and a functioning member of our community. It has done wonders for my self-esteem, not to mention that I rather enjoy paying income tax again. I look forward to each new working day."

Then there is the comment from a grade 12 student who will soon begin a horticulture course. She said, "If it was not for this program, I would still be sitting at home twiddling my thumbs."

2:20 p.m.

There is success out there. Single-parent recipients are waiting in line to participate. The figures continue to swell. People want to get involved.

Three years ago the women I spoke to today were consigned to a life of dependency on welfare. Today they are full of hope; they are full of ambition and confidence that, given the chance by this government, they are not only going to be self-sufficient but also will contribute enormously to the community.

The Treasurer's budget only underlines the determination of this government to assist all in our society, where there will be opportunity for all and a quality of life second to none.

Mr. Speaker: There seem to be an awful lot of private conversations, making it difficult to hear the minister's statement. I ask all honourable members to please co-operate and not carry on private conversations in the House.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think one of the problems, if I may bring it to your attention, sir, is that for ministerial statements we are not used to having these long speeches. While it is always a pleasure to listen to the honourable minister, why does he not make a speech during the budget debate and make a statement during statements?

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of order; so I have to rule the honourable member as being out of order.

DIVING SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House, indeed to all residents of this province, a subject of growing personal concern regarding our most precious resource, our young people.

Tragically, Ontario has the second-highest rate of spinal cord injury in the world resulting from careless diving accidents. There has been an alarming 264 per cent increase in this type of accident in 10 years, resulting in quadriplegia and paraplegia. In 1979, the last year for which total Ontario statistics on diving accidents are available, 54 spinal injuries were recorded. In 1983 the Toronto Sunnybrook Medical Centre alone had 16 cases of spinal cord injury resulting from diving accidents.

I make this statement today because these disturbing statistics call for greater public awareness of these facts and of this issue.

Although any person who dives should be aware of this risk, there are approximately 1.4 million males in this province between the ages of 13 and 30, who, statistically speaking, are particularly at risk from careless diving accidents.

In an effort to warn the public about the dangers inherent in a careless dive, and in co-operation with water safety organizations, diving associations and swimming pool manufacturers, my ministry will launch a full-scale public awareness campaign for the summer of 1984.

Briefly, this campaign will include a television public service announcement featuring 21-year-old Gary Stockfish of Sault Ste. Marie, a young man confined to a wheelchair as a result of a diving accident at a friend's cottage.

To complement this announcement, we have prepared posters, kits for teachers and librarians and a media kit to include information on diving instruction and appropriate action to be taken if one of these tragic accidents occurs.

We plan a wide distribution of the material through schools, public swimming pools, Liquor Control Board of Ontario outlets, the provincial parks system and the media. The member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), in a thoughtful note to me a moment ago, suggested constituency offices could also receive this material. I think that is a good suggestion and we will do it.

It is my hope that with the commendable assistance received from water safety groups, along with the support and encouragement of the medical community, this public awareness campaign on unsafe diving will result in a measurable reduction in the number of diving accidents this summer and every summer thereafter.

I would like at this time to express my thanks and a warm welcome to two of my guests in your gallery today, Mr. Speaker. They are Mr. Gary Stockfish from Sault Ste. Marie and Dr. Charles Tator, head of the acute spinal cord injury unit at the Toronto Sunnybrook Medical Centre. Dr. Tator's in-depth studies in the area of aquatic spinal injuries have highlighted the urgent need for this campaign. May we recognize our guests.

BIRTH OF MEMBER'S SON

Mr. Bradley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of the House some good news today that some members may not be aware of. The member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) had some very good news to give to those of us in the opposition. He is the proud father of his third son, Colin; eight pounds, 13 ounces. We congratulate him.

Mr. Conway: Let it be said, Mr. Speaker, that on this day, May 22, 1984, there is at least one legitimate new Tory in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I must take issue with the point raised by my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) with respect to the minister's announcement today. I thought it was completely in order. Any time the Conservatives come to the conclusion that people like to work, it is a stunning road-to-Damascus conversion for them and indeed great news in this House.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: If I was the leader of that party, I would say that too. The member's party opposed all of this two years ago on the front steps of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Having said that, we will get on with oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Environment. The minister attended for some short time the transboundary --

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: Can you contain them, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: As I said before, a lot of private conversations are going on and this is having a disturbing influence on the House. I would ask all members to co-operate.

Mr. McClellan: It is a disturbing day.

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not really. It is only Tuesday.

Mr. Peterson: You are right, Mr. Speaker, but you must admit it is strange.

I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. The minister attended for a short time the transboundary air pollution educational and cultural exchange in the United States. He was accompanied by some of his colleagues in this House. We have been discussing for some time the lack of credibility that Ontario has because of the increase of sulphur dioxide emissions coming directly from Ontario Hydro, which is exclusively under the authority of this government.

We brought to his attention before the comments of Congressman Dingell. He felt Ontario's credibility was impugned because of the minister's decision to scrub the scrubbers. Is the minister prepared now to admit that he is indeed suffering a lack of credibility in that forum? I ask him that in light of the comments of Senator Percy in that regard. He said, "Canada is moving backward on the problem of acid rain." He was pointing specifically to the performance of Ontario Hydro.

The minister has defended our record. He has said he has attended meetings in the United States, spoken to congressmen, senators, environmental protection agencies, the coal lobby and environmental groups, and not once was the question raised with him. Is he prepared to admit now that his credibility and that of the government are at issue? Is he prepared to change his philosophy and the programs with respect to the installation of scrubbers on Ontario Hydro?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from the Leader of the Opposition because it is a very important question. I also welcome this opportunity to respond.

The reality is that during the course of my stay in Springfield, Illinois, the discussions I had with the American representatives, who included some of the congressmen and senators from that region, were most positive. Regretfully, the issue to which the member refers, which was later raised by Senator Percy, was brought up in my absence. I was required to attend another meeting in Michigan. I am pleased to say, however, a contingent of the Ontario Legislature remained in Springfield to discuss some of these very important issues of sulphur dioxide emissions.

The Leader of the Opposition will be pleased to know that, according to the observers at the meeting who heard the remarks of an Ontario legislative representative, one of the strongest defences was put by my critic the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston). He was very effective in indicating exactly what Ontario has done. The Leader of the Opposition would have been proud of that member in his defence of our policy.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, had the minister been able to remain there with the rest of us, who were working very hard at this two- or three-day conference, he might have noted we were detracting from the way the material was presented by the senator to take a particular view on one corporate polluter. I was embarrassed by the way that particular arm of the Ontario government was used as a dagger at the very heart of our argument about acid rain and its curtailment in North America --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Elston: I want the minister to promise us he will fulfil the promise the Premier (Mr. Davis) made not very long ago to install scrubbers on some of our largest Ontario Hydro emitters so we will not suffer embarrassment again in an international forum.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I should enlighten the member that at no time, to the best of my knowledge, did the Premier promise scrubbers. At no time have I promised scrubbers. I have indicated --

Mr. Foulds: Two scrubbers for one.

Mr. Eakins: The member for Brock (Mr. Welch) told the minister that.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: It must be feeding time over there. I realize there are certain apprehensions on the other side of the floor today, but I will do my best to explain this very complicated issue if I can.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They are nervous.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: They are probably very nervous.

The government of Ontario through my ministry has indicated that Ontario Hydro will be able to realize two objectives with respect to sulphur dioxide controls, one in 1986 and the other in 1990. Ontario Hydro, both verbally and in writing, has given its commitment to me directly that it will meet those two commitments with respect to sulphur dioxide abatement.

We have not dictated the technology. It has never been part of our requirement that scrubbers or any alternative form of technology be mandatory for Ontario Hydro. We are looking for the least-cost options that are available to Ontario Hydro so they will not affect the Hydro bills of the people of this province in an adverse fashion. I hope I have made that clear to the members opposite.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, the minister is correct in that the members of this House would have been proud of both the opposition members who were in Illinois last week. The opposition members were left to come to the defence of this government. The situation with Ontario Hydro is helping this province to lose its battle with the American jurisdictions --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Charlton: The minister is fully aware, no doubt, that the electioneering politicians in the US jurisdictions are going to use the Ontario Hydro emissions against us in terms of our ability to see those jurisdictions reduce their emissions substantially. Is the minister prepared to stop sounding like Senator Charles Percy when he talks about Ontario Hydro and get on with the job of reducing significantly Ontario Hydro emissions through the installation of scrubbers so we can win this perceptual battle with the jurisdictions across the border?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to get another question on this issue because I think it does require some debate to understand the issue in detail.

The reality is that my ministry has never at any time dictated the technology, whether it be scrubbers or any alternative; I have tried to make that clear. We have indicated what the levels of emissions are to be by 1986 and 1990. We have commitments in that respect.

I do not think we should be taken down the garden path with respect to comments made by a senator from Illinois who is representing coal interests and who made it abundantly clear he was not going to cost the state of Illinois jobs in coal areas in order to preserve the environment of Ontario.

The member should join with us in fighting that battle because he knows full well that Senator Percy is doing nothing other than raising a political red herring to justify his own position. It has nothing whatever to do with what Ontario is doing, and he is not winning the battle.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, the minister will recall, or at least he will probably have received reports from his officials with respect to the last two days of our visit there, that an overwhelming number of comments were made that only through regulation will the technology come about. I was very pleased to admire the tenacity with which two of his officials, Tom Brydges and David Balsillie, represented their ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Elston: I would like the minister to comment on the fact that in the past he has rewritten or reworded regulations in order to allow different levels of emissions to be made not only by Ontario Hydro but certainly by other polluters in the province. I would like to have the minister's undertaking at this time that there will be no rewriting of these orders or regulations to allow heavier emissions than are required under the current guidelines of the ministry's program of action.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I can give that undertaking. We have no interest at the present time and, frankly, we have had no discussion with respect to relaxing the guidelines or the regulations that apply to Ontario Hydro. We fully intend, in concert with my colleague the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes), to see that it meets its commitments, and we will fulfil the obligations we have already stated publicly in that respect.

[Later]

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I rise, if I may, to correct the record. Earlier this afternoon I suggested that the Premier had personally promised to install two scrubbers.

I will read for you the brief segment upon which I based that. He said: "My government remains firmly committed to having Ontario Hydro reduce the acid gas emissions from its coal-fired generating stations by half by the year 1990."

He went on to say: "Hydro will undertake whatever steps are necessary to meet the emission levels stipulated in the government's regulations. These steps will include designing and retrofitting scrubbers, installing some 700 special burners" --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Elston: This was not said directly, but --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would just point out to the honourable member that he may correct his own record but not the record of others.

Mr. Nixon: That is what he is doing.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I heard what he said.

Mr. Nixon: This is the record.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nixon: What is the matter with that?

Mr. Speaker: Nothing.

Mr. Nixon: What kind of advice are you giving?

Mr. Speaker: I am not going to argue about it.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know exactly what you were doing.

Mr. Elston: You say I was not correcting my own record. I was merely indicating --

Mr. Speaker: No, you were going on to quote directly from what the Premier had said on an earlier occasion, which had no bearing on what you had said.

TECHNICAL EDUCATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. The minister will be aware that we in the House have been discussing technical and vocational training in the province and that we have warned her in the past about what is happening in this regard, particularly with respect to the potential layoff of many teachers.

On April 9 the minister said that if information about declining enrolment in grade 9 technical classes were factual, it would be of some concern. The best evidence today as presented by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, unless the minister has better information, is that enrolments in technical education may be down by 20.5 per cent, enrolments in vocational education may be down by 16.1 per cent and enrolments in business education may be down by 11 percent.

Given the commitment of her colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) to economic transformation putting, as he does, a high premium on education in technical and vocational areas, and given the fact that we now have this evidence -- better evidence, at least, than the minister has presented --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: -- that we are running into a major problem with respect to technical and vocational training in this province, is she prepared as the minister responsible to back off on her jamming of the Ontario Schools: Intermediate and Senior Divisions guidelines down the throat of the system without consultation, which will put in jeopardy vocational and technical training in this province? Is she prepared to make that commitment now?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition should suggest there was no consultation. There was a year of consultation with the secondary school teachers of this province from the time of the response to the secondary education review project until the OSIS document was ready, and there have been consultations since then.

There have indeed been further discussions with boards. Boards were given the option to determine whether they would introduce OSIS this year or in September 1984, or whether they would delay it.

Mr. Bradley: That is nonsense.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not nonsense; that is the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Never mind the interjections.

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: If the honourable member does not know the difference between truth and nonsense, he should not be in this House.

We have continued that consultation and we have had meetings with OSSTF. Some interesting information has come out of its assessment of approximately 300 schools. There are some indications that worry me because they relate to the way in which the OSIS guidelines are being implemented in the various institutions where principals are demanding or boards are suggesting that all the mandatory credits be achieved in the first two years. That frequently puts an undue burden on the selection process or the choice that is left up to students. We feel very strongly --

Mr. Wrye: It is the minister's fault.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Of course, it is my fault. Everything is my fault; I know. None the less, we have been having those discussions with OSSTF.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It is the fault of the Premier (Mr. Davis).

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is the fault of the Premier -- anything at all.

Those doomsayers and naysayers on the opposite side --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary, please.

Mr. Peterson: The minister chooses to blame the Premier, and I am not sure she is wrong in that regard, or blame the principals or someone else. The fact is that now she is responsible.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: She has created apoplexy in the system. I have attended many meetings across this province where technical teachers who were recruited from industry to teach are now probably going to be laid off. She will not be able to wind the system up if it is off the tracks a year or so from now.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: She is creating mayhem in that area.

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, would you please keep some order?

Where is the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. McEwen) going? Even he cannot stand it, and I do not blame him.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: She has driven him out of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I presume the Leader of the Opposition does have a question.

Mr. Peterson: I was thrown off by that vision in front of my eyes.

I want to go back to the minister. She may choose to blame all those other people, but the facts are clear in front of her to show that what she hoped to happen is not happening. How much more evidence does she need? How many teachers is she prepared to see laid off? How many programs and shops is she prepared to see cancelled before she is willing to recognize that she has made a fundamental mistake?

How is she going to rectify this? Will she proceed immediately to make sure that those teachers are not laid off and that we have the programs in place so this province can proceed with its economic transformation?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I think it is a very clear and conservative medical diagnosis that the only apoplexy that is likely to happen around here is going to be with the Leader of the Opposition if he keeps on distorting the directions that have been taken.

The direction in OSIS and the direction as far as Renewal of Secondary Education is concerned are very much in support of the improvement of educational programs for children studying at the general level and providing greater choice for students in terms of the kinds of opportunities they will have to experience several kinds of educational programs.

There is no doubt that we need to continue the consultation. That was why, as soon as we introduced OSIS, we also introduced an implementation team in the ministry that has been actively travelling the province, gathering information and assisting boards, teachers and principals in the appropriate implementation. That activity will continue.

However, I am not prepared to listen to the very devious and somewhat misleading suggestion -- I am sorry; remove that word -- the unfortunate suggestion, which is based on less than good logic, that the kind of direction we are pursuing is wrong or is not going to assist students. What we hear from parents, students and educators is that it will and we intend to help them to ensure that does happen.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, we warned the minister on April 9 and again on April 13 that this was a problem and that this was happening, that the decline in technical education was not an aberration and was something that was happening as a result of the OSIS scheme itself. The minister still seems to be saying the theory is sound. She is proud of her theory. The problem seems to be out there somewhere and everybody is at fault except for herself, the Premier and the government.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the minister a specific question. Was it her intention to reduce the number of students in technical courses in the next year and the years following? Was that part of the plan? If it was not part of the plan, what does she intend to do to ensure the integrity of the technical and vocational options for the students of this province to ensure that every student gets the kind of education he or she wants?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is utterly ludicrous of the leader of the third party to suggest that we were going in the direction of attempting to reduce the opportunities for technical education. We have been very definitely moving in the opposite direction.

There is obviously some problem in implementation, and that is what has to be solved and will be solved through co-operative action. It will not be solved by those who stand up in this House screaming that we should destroy the plan, which has taken four years to develop and which has been developed by educators throughout this province in conjunction with those who are very concerned about education. We too are concerned about the quality of that program, and we shall do everything we can to maintain it.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not concerned that in addition to turfing out teachers who have served technical education so well over the years, many of whom are in their 50s and were recruited from private industry and who dedicated themselves to education, the implementation of OSIS is leaving the general-level students behind?

Is the minister prepared to take immediate action, as she has been asked to do, to establish a Ministry of Education control team with the power to review and revise OSIS, a control team that would include representatives of the Ontario Teachers' Federation and its affiliates and that would have direct communication with the minister?

Will she ensure that courses adversely affected by OSIS in specialized subject areas are not deleted from individual school calendars for two years to allow for the kind of flexibility and easy implementation about which she speaks?

By the way, the minister has made it very difficult for boards of education to deliver implementation by a year.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is ill informed. Boards were given the choice, and there was total choice on their part to determine whether they wanted to implement it in 1984 or in 1985.

Mr. Bradley: That is not the fact.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is the fact.

Unfortunately, I have just received the federation's suggestions today. I will most certainly look at them. But I do believe we have been very diligently pursuing the improvement of educational program for students studying at the general level. We are very much concerned about the quality of teaching provided within this province, and we certainly want to see quality teaching maintained in all areas.

I am just delighted, as I am sure the honourable members have failed to tell the House, that in spite of the concern expressed by the members opposite, there is a very significant increase in the numbers of students from grade 9 enrolled in music programs in the schools as of this year.

Mr. Rae: The minister is a classic idealogue who is pursuing her private, weird theories on these people. That is the fact of what is happening in education today in Ontario. Her private theory is at the expense of people.

TAX CONCESSIONS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my next question is to the Treasurer. I would like to ask him about the amount of loophole spending that is going on in Ontario. Can he explain why there was absolutely no accounting in his budget for the amount of money it is costing the Treasury for the kinds of loopholes that have become part and parcel of the Tory tax system in the province?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: If you cannot find them get the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) to appoint another inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Renfrew North please settle down and be quiet.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as always, we would be delighted to receive from the honourable member any real specifics on what he might call loophole spending. That is not the practice over here. If the member wants to offer us some details of what he thinks it is, I will be happy to receive them.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Rae: If the minister is not aware, he must be the only treasurer in Canada who has not had his ministry do a thorough accounting of how much money it is costing the Treasury to run a tax system that has all kinds of concessions to big business and powerful interests.

I would like specifically to ask the Treasurer why the government of Ontario does not do what other governments do, and in particular what the government of Canada did under Mr. Crosbie in 1979. What a good Conservative Finance minister he was -- short but good. Why has this government not done anything with respect to what happened in British Columbia or Saskatchewan?

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is not what you said. You did not say that about Mr. Crosbie at the time.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You voted against him.

Mr. Rae: Is the Premier saying something?

Mr. Conway: The leader of the NDP stabbed him in the front.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes. I am saying that is hypocrisy.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now to the question, please.

Mr. Rae: Can the Treasurer tell me why he does not do the kind of accounting for tax expenditures, for tax loopholes, that has been done in British Columbia and Saskatchewan? British Columbia's last accounting showed that tax spending amounted to nearly 50 per cent of total tax revenue. Does he not think the people of Ontario are entitled to know what tax concessions are costing them, particularly when it is the little person who pays more, precisely because of the Treasurer's concessions to big business?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I was interested last week or so to hear the member's endorsement of something called municipal development corporations. The suggestion is that municipalities invest in the small business development corporations program introduced by this government three or four years ago. It was very instructive to learn that his party had finally endorsed the concept that providing money to encourage small business development in the communities throughout this province is the real way to produce jobs.

Under the member's definition of loopholes, which I now understand because of his supplementary means tax concessions to stimulate job creation in the private sector, he would include SBDCs and all the money that has gone to them -- and this year I am proud to say that is $25 million -- as comprising loopholes.

I would be pleased and delighted if the member would go to various communities throughout this province and speak very clearly to the people in those communities about what he considers to be loopholes, the concessions given to big business. I would be delighted to hear him talk about concessions to big business, as he puts it, and to small business, in places such as Thunder Bay. I would be delighted to hear him speak specifically about which of those tax concessions, almost all, if not all, of which create jobs, he is opposed to. That is what really counts.

Finally, if my memory is correct, as the one who moved the vote of no confidence in the Crosbie budget -- did the member not move that motion, the famous motion that brought down the government and the budget he --

Mr. Speaker: Order. This does not have anything to do with the question.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, surely the Treasurer would like to live up to his commitment to provide as much information on the budget as possible. There was a complete and utter lack of information other than one or two background budget papers.

Regardless of the partisanship he wants to take on this issue, surely the Treasurer could inform the Legislature and the people of the province just what taxes are being forgone on all the programs of the provincial Treasury and what money might be available to the Treasury had those programs, some of them good and others not so good, not been in place, including, for instance, those people with more than $50,000 in income who are not paying taxes, which I understand is largely a matter that has to be dealt with by the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to see what information we can provide both here and in estimates. My colleague has just handed me some information. For example, in regard to retail sales tax exemptions, some of which I presume the leader of the third party might oppose, the exemption on farm machinery and equipment was $32 million. I suspect he may not oppose that. On fertilizers and insecticide, the retail sales tax exemption was $28 million. On fodder grain and agricultural feeds, it was $49 million.

Those are fairly important tax expenditures. I presume they are not loopholes. Maybe they are, but I do not consider them to be. I consider them to be very important mechanisms to support the farming community. We will see what information we might be able to provide.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, would the minister simply have the decency to recognize his responsibility to be accountable to the Legislature? Would he outline for us the total costs of the tax expenditures of the province and the total number of jobs, if any, his ministry estimates those tax expenditures will create?

Would he confirm that the total tax expenditure in this province is about $9 billion, of which $3 billion is deferred taxes directed to the corporate sector? Would he not think it worthwhile to impose at least an interim small levy on that deferred tax to the corporate sector of, say, 10 per cent per year?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I do not think that was a supplementary to the answer.

Mr. Foulds: That was exactly a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I do not think it was. New question --

Mr. Foulds: No, Mr. Speaker. No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, please.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, that was directly on the main question. If you do not know what tax expenditures are, the Treasurer does. I ask you to have the courtesy to let him answer it.

Mr. Speaker: I know very well what they are. There is no appeal to a Speaker's ruling. We will have a new question.

Mr. McClellan: It is arbitrary and unfair, sir, and I just want to tell you that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will have a new question.

Mr. Foulds: With regret, Mr. Speaker, I must challenge your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I beg your pardon? There is no appeal.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if I might, whether or not that question is in order, I would think the member would find that I dealt with each part of it in my answer to the previous supplementary. It has been answered.

Mr. Speaker: That is right.

Mr. Foulds: Then it was directly supplementary, and the minister did not deal with it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was -- new question, please.

Mr. McClellan: Maybe we should have two rule books, one for you and one for us.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, that is the most bizarre ruling I have ever heard in this chamber. I just make that point. We accept it, but it is passing strange.

Mr. Speaker: Just for your information, and for all other members' information, it was a question that had been previously dealt with. I ruled it out of order because it was not supplementary to the answer which the Treasurer had given. Now, we will have a new question.

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my second question is to the Deputy Premier. It concerns the fundamental lack of support in the budget for rape crisis centres.

As the Deputy Premier will no doubt be aware, the funding for rape crisis centres totals some $200,000 a year, yet there are 16 centres across the province. Does the Deputy Premier not recognize that level of funding is totally inadequate? What does he intend to do about it in view of the very important service these centres are providing all across the province?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is hardly fair to say that the budget would deal with every item to which the honourable member might want to direct his attention. As far as women's issues generally were concerned, the Treasurer has been very generous. I need hardly remind the leader of the third party of those initiatives dealing with child care, the whole question of domestic violence and like matters.

I am advised as well that this issue comes under the leadership of the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker). If the leader of the third party reviewed the situation, he would find that these centres received exactly what they requested last year. I am sure this matter is under constant review by the minister and by those who are charged with that responsibility.

3 p.m.

Mr. Rae: In Peterborough, the centre receives no municipal or United Way funding; it has a 24-hour crisis line and counselled 120 rape victims last year. The centre gets $5,400 a year in funding.

I would like to ask the Deputy Premier, who is responsible in this House for women's issues, does he really think the women of Peterborough are getting an adequate service from the government of Ontario with respect to the vital matter of rape crisis intervention? Does he seriously think $5,400 a year is doing the trick?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think the best way to direct a question such as this would be to deal with those who are charged with the responsibility for this program to see whether there are ways in which we, along with them, can work out the particular problems they have.

I think it is very unfair to leave the impression that nothing is being done when one recognizes the resources that have been made available over the last several years; not to overlook, for instance, the Women's College Hospital centre, which was opened just recently to deal with this whole question.

If individual centres are experiencing some financial difficulties, no doubt we should be working with them to see whether there are means to assist them with respect to their problems. Overall, we have recognized the important work that is being undertaken by these centres and the very significant role they play as a result.

Mr. Rae: I simply say to the Deputy Premier that when he says they got what they requested, that is nonsense. The Deputy Premier should be aware that what they had was basically a take-it-or-leave-it deal from the government and that is what they had to put up with.

Specifically, I ask the Deputy Premier to look at the examples. Every single centre we talked to raised the issue of the adequacy of its funding. In Hamilton, the centre gets $15,000 a year from the province and a little bit more from the United Way. It has one full-time and two part-time staff and has to rely on the efforts of 30 volunteers. It handled 908 calls last year from the victims of rape, incest and sexual assault.

How does the Deputy Premier feel about the fact that the women are being so poorly served by the government of Ontario that the centres feel strapped for money all the time and are not able to do the job they want to do? Does he really think he is doing his job when this kind of discrepancy between need and performance by the government carries on?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Certainly no one is attempting to say, and I would not want to leave the impression, that everything has been done that can be done. Who would want to do that? I have already pointed out that if there are special circumstances that need some attention we should be looking at that.

The honourable member should perhaps have informed this House, by way of the preamble to his question, that in dealing with the Provincial Secretary for Justice last year, the coalition asked for $200,000 and that is exactly what it got. It was delivered to them to be disbursed by them as they responded to the requests that came in to them.

We recognize what our responsibility is here, but it would be very unfortunate to leave the impression that there has not been the broadest consultation with respect to this matter and a very sensitive response on the part of the government.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer in regard to more government waste we have heard about in the past few days.

On Friday, the government finally answered my question concerning the number and cost of public opinion polls in the 1982-83 fiscal year. The answer indicated that the government commissioned 22 polls during that time at a total cost of $632,142. This was an increase of more than $145,000 from the previous year, a jump of more than 30 per cent. This occurred in the same year that hundreds of thousands of public workers in Ontario were being held to five per cent pay increases.

How can the Treasurer justify saying he takes a hard line on government expenditures when the money spent on the polls in that fiscal year went up by 30 per cent -- or almost 36 per cent if we add in the ones that were not in the list of polls that was provided -- at the same time as he is supposedly keeping a cap on government expenditures and particularly civil servants' salaries?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I would only say that, among other reasons, one undertakes a restraint exercise, whether it affects salaries and wages or other parts of public expenditures, to have the flexibility to manage the overall affairs of government.

As we reallocate expenditures in-year, some times the kinds of figures the member is quoting will go up and some times they will go down. No one seriously suggests that every single item in the government's accounts is going to go up by five per cent, or only five per cent. The real question is how well are we controlling our overall expenditure levels.

With respect, not too many people have suggested that in the budget presented a week ago today we have failed to control our expenditure levels. In point of fact, everything I have heard, at least from the honourable member's side of the House, has suggested we should be spending more.

The real question is how well are we controlling our overall expenditure growth. We compare very favourably, as the member knows.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am sure the Treasurer, who prides himself on an open budgetary process, would agree with me these polls should be made available to members of the Legislature and the taxpayers who are paying for them. How can he sit in his place and say he is controlling nonessential expenditures like polls and the concomitant advertising budget, which went up 34 per cent in conjunction with the polls he takes, at the same time as he says he is controlling expenditures? He cannot have it both ways.

Is the Treasurer going to do something about it in this fiscal year? Is he going to cut in half the amount he is spending in polls, cut in half his expenditures on advertising that goes with the polls and cut it down to the bare essentials? As well, is he going to make this information known publicly?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can assure the member of one thing, and that is we are prepared to spend whatever we need to communicate information to the public with regard to the availability of government programs, whether that entails government advertising or more government advertising or more polls or fewer polls.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is obvious.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, and I have no apologies to make for that. I can assure the member I believe there is no point in us making grand statements on this side of the House which contain important new policy initiatives if that is the start and finish of it. There is no point in us setting up the programs and then pretending that eight and a half million people out there who are supposed to benefit from these programs do not want to know about them.

I find this particularly to be the case with young people. I would say that even prior to last Tuesday we had the best array of youth programs in the country. After last Tuesday, we have even outmatched that. It is a fantastic array of programs for young people. They are of little use if the young people most in need do not avail themselves of those programs.

I want to tell the member we are prepared to spend whatever funds are necessary in that area or other areas to make sure our good government programs are brought to the knowledge and awareness of the people who are the targets for those programs. I make no apologies for that.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, will the minister indicate exactly how much his government and various ministries have budgeted for polling and for advertising in the coming fiscal year? How much has been budgeted for advertising of his plethora of youth programs?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, all that information is available in the estimates and that is where the honourable member should ask that question. With regard to the various components of the youth programs, those decisions are being made right now. Some will not need much advertising. I can tell the member right now some of them are going to need advertising and they are going to get the funding for it.

FOREST REGENERATION

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning a completed study done by a senior forester in his ministry which his ministry officials sent to me and which I assume the minister will now table.

Mr. George Marek prepared a report on silvicultural treatments in the north central region. In that report, the senior forester commented: "The majority of silvicultural treatments in all three subject areas did not result in fully stocked stands of desirable species, except in a few isolated areas. Most of the treated cutovers will not produce stands of conifers which would compare favourably with the original stands which grew on these sites. There are too many failures throughout the north central region." I would like to ask the minister to comment on that.

3:10 p.m.

Given the very critical assessment of both past and present cutting practices and silvicultural methods in the north central region, which I assume would be not unlike those in other parts of the province, could the minister finally admit that all is not as well in our forests as he would have us believe; and would he comment specifically on that quote from Mr. Marek's report?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Marek was filing a report on an area of the province in which he had responsibility as the district forester. He is entitled to make those observations and we take his observations seriously. He made some recommendations that we have been examining over the past several weeks. In the context of those recommendations, we have been addressing issues of utilization and building them into a credit system with respect to increased crown dues.

As I indicated to the leader of the third party, I think it was a week and a half ago, we are examining Mr. Marek's recommendations. Some of them will find their way into changes we are making in utilization practices on which we are now beginning discussions with the industry and with other interest groups in the north.

I have to say that observations such as Mr. Marek has made do have an impact on our policies and we take his observations seriously. We are making improvements, and have done so over the past two years, to address some of the issues. Some of Mr. Marek's recommendations have already been acted upon in the ministry, if the honourable member will carefully examine some of the new procedures and practices that have been laid out in the last two years.

I want to put Mr. Marek's comments into the context of what we have been doing in reforestation in Ontario. It is a reality that we have expanded the stock available for reforestation from 80 million trees to 150 million trees this year. It is a reality that in northwestern Ontario we are tripling the amount of bare root and containerized stock we are planting this year over what it was in 1981. It is a reality that we are planting 50 million containerized seedlings in northeastern Ontario this year. The reality is that we have geared up to do a reforestation job, the likes of which have never been seen in any jurisdiction in North America.

Mr. Laughren: I do not blame the minister for avoiding the criticisms of Mr. Marek because his answer had absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Marek's very damning indictment of the ministry's reforestation practices.

Does the minister not think it very strange that someone with Mr. Marek's 30 years' experience would have difficulty in seeing much difference between untreated cutover areas and treated cutover areas? According to Mr. Marek's report, "The district staff quite casually admitted that the situation in the bush was quite different from the situation shown in the records." He means the Ministry of Natural Resources records.

There is also the fact that when more detailed assessments of stocking levels are done, they show lower levels of success than did the previous numbers used by the ministry. Is that the real reason the minister and his staff refused to give us the stocking level figures last year when the task force of this party was travelling across the province? Is that the real reason the minister is so secretive about the state of the forests in Ontario? Those are public forests and surely we have the right to those numbers.

Hon. Mr. Pope: That is typical New Democratic Party nonsense. The member knows Mr. Marek's report contains observations about reforestation. I have just given him the figures on containerized stock, the increase in stock and how it has been distributed across the province, so he should not say containerized stock has nothing to do with reforestation. How silly can he be. He knows as well as I do that the changes we have made in the reforestation program in the last two years will, and have already started to, dramatically alter some of the historical observations Mr. Marek has made.

I reiterate, Mr. Marek is making observations, unsubstantiated in the case of that observation from some unknown staff member who says the numbers in the ministry office are different from what the field shows. What field? Where is it?

The member knows as well as I do that the stocking figures are based on a one-plot cruise superimposed on a wide district area. They have no relevance at all to what is going on out there. It is time the member realized that we are making improvements. We have a record to be proud of on reforestation.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware that over a five-year period the results have been, if we have been lucky, about a 50 per cent survival rate, let alone how well they are growing. Will the minister then provide a historical record, if that is the term he likes, for the last five years of all the replanting that has been done across northern Ontario, the survival rates appertaining thereto and just how healthy the reforestation program has been?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, that information is already available. An 85 per cent survival rate was given to that party last fall; they would not believe it, but that is what the statistics show and that shows the success of reforestation in this province.

LOCATION OF ASPHALT PLANT

Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources in regard to the establishment by Warren Paving of an illegal asphalt plant in a wayside pit.

He will have correspondence. The township of Puslinch has expressed concern about this, as have the residents, and the only out they have right now is the possibility of taking an injunction before either the county court or the Supreme Court.

In view of the fact the Ministry of Natural Resources in Cambridge has indicated that this asphalt plant was established illegally, would the minister through his ministry take the necessary steps, if it is within his jurisdiction, to close this operation down and save the township of Puslinch from becoming involved in a lawsuit or an injunction procedure?

I would also appreciate it if at the same time he and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) would comment on a communication they have received from the Presbyterian Crieff Hills Community about the hours of operation of the wayside pit portion, which was approved some months ago.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to look into the matter. Quite frankly, I am not aware of recent correspondence, but I will review the correspondence file for the last week. It may be that there are some provisions in the zoning bylaw that might have an effect on the legality or illegality of that pit. In any event, I will examine it along with my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) in the context of both the zoning and the pit licence and see if there has been a breach of the licence or the zoning.

We have tried to put conditions in the pit licence in the last three years with respect to hours and the way in which operations are carried forward, and I would have to verify whether or not such conditions were in that specific wayside pit permit.

Mr. Worton: Rev. Spencer has indicated to me in a letter of January 19 that the hours of operation of that pit were 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. It was later changed to 6:30 p.m.

The thing that is most important to the solicitor for the township is that if there is some chance they have to go through an injunction process, no amendment will be made without due thought being given to it.

Hon. Mr. Pope: I will try to communicate any response to the honourable member and the township before we consider changes.

ACTIVITIES OF POLICE

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. Four weeks ago today his agent in Hamilton withdrew the charges against William Franklin Baker in circumstances that required an investigation by his ministry. Will he today, tomorrow or Thursday table in this assembly the report of that investigation into the circumstances surrounding the arrest, detention and subsequent discharge of Mr. Baker?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, my recollection of this matter is that the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) indicated the Ontario Provincial Police was making the investigation in relation to the arrest and detention of Mr. Baker.

Obviously, the local crown attorney's office had a role to play as well, and I would expect we will be in a position to indicate just what the position or role of the crown attorney's office was when the OPP investigation has been concluded; but I think we will have to wait until that has occurred.

Mr. Renwick: The Solicitor General has refused so far to provide any further information with respect to the investigation by the OPP. I am asking the Attorney General whether he will do one of two things in consultation with the Solicitor General. Will he undertake to provide the report of the OPP in conjunction with his office to this assembly or, failing the provision of that report, will he in consultation with the Solicitor General recommend to his cabinet colleagues that a public inquiry be held by the Ontario Police Commission under section 59 of the Police Act?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: All I can say at this point is that when the Ontario Provincial Police investigation has been concluded, as Attorney General I will certainly be prepared to make a report to this House.

RECONSTRUCTION OF OTTAWA QUEENSWAY

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. It has to do with the concern and great consternation of the people of Ottawa-Carleton about the continuing construction on the Queensway and the chaos it is causing to traffic, especially the east-west flow of traffic.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Does the member want them to stop?

Mr. Roy: Was somebody suggesting it should stop?

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Roy: That is about the most intelligent suggestion that minister has made in this session.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I get somewhat annoyed at that useless minister making comments.

The minister will know that this is the only east-west artery for traffic in Ottawa-Carleton. It will be of concern to those who are now planning the Pope's visit and the mass at the western end of Ottawa-Carleton in Nepean.

I would like to ask him whether his ministry has received a request from the organizing committee to close the Queensway for a number of hours or for the day when the mass is held to allow public transportation free access to move some 200,000 or 300,000 people to the western end of the city. Will the minister undertake to advise whether the construction on the Queensway will not unduly impair this type of traffic flow during an event as important as the Pope's mass, which I think will be on September 19?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation between my ministry and those arranging the Pope's visit to Ottawa. Representatives of my ministry are sitting on co-ordinating committees in Ottawa, Toronto and Simcoe county. We will be working with those groups on all aspects of arranging for transportation.

With regard to Ottawa, to my knowledge there has been no decision yet as to where the mass will take place. I believe three sites are being considered and that a consultant has been hired by the archbishop or whoever is in charge to come up with recommendations as to the site best suited for the mass.

My colleagues from Ottawa have spoken to me with regard to the construction on the Queensway and I have checked with my people in the region. We hope the present contract will be completed by the time the Pope's visit takes place and the next contract will be about to start. I do not want to delay the start of that contract, but I want to make sure no construction is taking place at that time. It may be necessary to delay the number two contract by a week or so to make sure everything is clear and in the best possible condition.

Mr. Roy: The minister will be aware that the preferred site, and the one originally chosen for the Pope's mass, was the National Capital Equestrian Park in Nepean at the western end of the city. The only reason the other sites are being considered is concern about moving 200,000 or 300,000 people east-west to that site. Given the minister's earlier statement, if a request is made, is his disposition such that he is prepared to close the Queensway for a period of time to allow public transportation free access to the Queensway to move these people?

Second, when we are talking about the construction and closure of certain ramps on the Queensway itself, could the minister not get better co-operation from local government so that when he closes off a particular ramp and diverts traffic to another street in Ottawa or other parts of the city, an adjustment is made for traffic lights and construction is not going on with the result that there are traffic jams all the way down the Queensway and undue delay for people using that important artery?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We worked very closely with the region of Ottawa-Carleton and the lower-tier municipalities in all the planning for the construction on the Queensway. Even though the member and one of his colleagues from Ottawa, as well as certain other people, have been very critical of the planning process and the construction that is taking place, it so happens that I have had a great many compliments about the co-operation that has taken place for that major construction project.

Certainly, we are prepared to consider the closing of any highways and arteries, as we are for the other sites. In Ottawa, if we close the Queensway for a major amount of time, it will mean a very serious disruption to the traffic flow east and west in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I am sure the member realizes that. A very serious decision will have to be made if that site is chosen.

EDUCATIONAL FUNDING

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities. The minister may not have been present in the House last week when her colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), in response to questions about the absence of job-creation programs in the budget, said he preferred "long-term, sensible investment in our people."

In the light of that remark, with which I am sure the minister will associate her ministry, how can she possibly justify a budget that includes a real reduction in dollars for both her ministries, which are so critically important for long-term investment in our people, especially at the end of a decade of declining real dollar investment that has left the province in elementary and secondary education at 12.3 per cent below the national average and post-secondary at 11 per cent below the national average as a percentage of gross provincial product?

How can the minister possibly accept a budget that reduces her expenditure in real dollars? Is any other major industrial country following that disastrous course of reducing its educational investment in its people?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, from my point of view, the investment by the province of about $3.2 billion in elementary and secondary education and about $2 billion in post-secondary education is real money. It is not a significant decline in the amount of money that is made available through the provincial coffers for the provision of educational programs.

There is no doubt that there has been a significant improvement in allocation at the university level through the budget announcements of last week, the availability of which will be more clearly presented to the institutions in the not too distant future. The colleges of the province are having a significant rise in the budgetary allocation again this year.

I would remind the honourable member that for the past three years the allocation has been quite markedly above the level of inflation each year. If he compares that with what has happened in other provinces in the last two years, he will find Ontario has done far better than most other jurisdictions, simply because we began the process of being thrifty and concerned about unnecessary expenditure at a much earlier time and, therefore, we are now able to provide the institutions with the funds they need.

3:30 p.m.

PETITIONS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that reads as follows:

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the government and the Legislative Assembly to support the private member's bills of Don Boudria, MPP, to permit the sale of beer and Ontario wine in small, independent grocery stores.

"Pétition adressée au Lieutenant-gouverneur en Conseil et à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

"Nous, soussignés, par la présente pétition demandons à l'Assemblée législative et au gouvernement d'appuyer les projets de loi du député Don Boudria qui permettraient aux petites épiceries indépendantes de vendre de la bière et du vin ontarien."

This petition is signed by 2,352 people, bringing the grand total of people who have signed these petitions to 6,043 to date.

I have another petition. This one is opposed to the sale of wine and beer in grocery stores. It is signed by 15 people.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members representing the constituencies of St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) and York Centre (Mr. Cousens), I table the following petition:

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

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

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 percent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that reads as follows:

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

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

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

It is signed by Sharon Kelly of Simcoe, Ontario.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TENANTS SECURITY ACT

Mr. McClellan moved, seconded by Mr. Renwick, first reading of Bill 78, An Act to extend Security of Tenure for Tenants.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to extend security of tenure for tenants of residential dwellings by protecting them against economic eviction. It does this through amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act, the Residential Tenancies Act and the Planning Act.

The principle of security of tenure for residential tenants is broadened by the following new provisions:

First, tenants should receive financial compensation when the tenancy agreement is terminated under the no-fault sections of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Second, tenants should have a right of first refusal to purchase their residential premises when the landlord proposes to sell, demolish or change the use of the premises.

Third, the exemptions in section 134 of the Residential Tenancies Act are deleted, including the exemption for buildings rented since January 1, 1976, and the $750-a-month rental exemption.

Fourth, landlords will not be allowed to pass through the costs of renovation or repairs without prior approval of tenants.

Fifth, the cabinet shall have the power to set an absolute upper limit on allowable rent increases.

Finally, all municipalities will have the power to control both demolitions of rental units and conversion of rental units to luxury accommodation.

NURSING HOMES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cooke moved, seconded by Mr. McClellan, first reading of Bill 79, An Act to amend the Nursing Homes Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, this bill would restrict new nursing home licences to charitable, nonprofit corporations. After the end of 1990, licences held by licensees who are not charitable, nonprofit corporations would not be renewed.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 236 to 247, 294 and 318 [see Hansard for Friday, May 25].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue with my comments on the budget.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I understood that the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) was the last member to adjourn the debate and that rotation would properly be recognized with this party resuming.

Mr. Speaker: My information is that the member for Lakeshore has the floor.

Mr. McClellan: No. The last speaker was the member for Leeds.

Mr. Speaker: Just one moment. Our records show that on Friday, May 18, the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) spoke, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) spoke and the member for Lakeshore was speaking and was the person who adjourned the debate.

It is right here on the record, with all respect. The member for Leeds adjourned the debate on Thursday night.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Kolyn: Today our main challenge is to ensure that our young people have the opportunity to receive the skills training and work experience to meet the demands of the job market. Through the Ontario youth opportunities fund and the strategy outlined by the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) in the budget, I believe we will go a long way towards providing and coordinating the necessary training and employment for our youth. These measures, as well as others in the budget, underline the importance of investing in the human resources of our province.

As the members opposite have realized, the economic transformation we are undergoing often means that existing jobs are lost, but it also means that many more can be created if we have the right individuals, enterprises and policies. Our job is not to stop or slow the transformation, because that cannot be done. We must ensure that we can take advantage of the changes to create new jobs, which will in turn generate even more employment. We must invest now in skills training, innovations and long-term job creation.

This budget does just that. This budget will provide young people with basic work skills and job placements. Disadvantaged youth will be offered education, vocational training and counselling. Young people who left school early will have additional opportunities to receive instruction in basic work skills, on-the-job training and counselling through our community colleges.

We will provide subsidies to those jobs in the private sector that will provide meaningful training or job experience. A variable subsidy rate will be used to help those youth in greatest need. The number of youth employment counselling centres will be tripled, providing young people in smaller communities access to counselling.

As well, the Ontario career action program will be expanded by almost 30 percent to provide training and employment for more than 16,000 young people. In addition, year-round venture capital incentives, a new part-time employment program and the Ontario youth tourism program will provide a wide range of opportunities for our young people.

As I said earlier, I am glad to see that our older workers have not been neglected. The four initiatives under the Ontario skills fund will help this group of workers through the investment of $150 million over the next three years.

I know that many members, including myself, have had to deal with the concerns of older workers facing layoffs or technological change. We should therefore congratulate the Treasurer for his effort to establish training trust funds which will result in continuous training efforts. This incentive will encourage employees, employers and the province to establish jointly funded trust funds.

For the first year the province has offered to match employee contributions to the fund up to a maximum of $100,000 per firm. The employees benefiting from the plan will be more valuable to the business, better prepared to adapt to new developments and in more demand.

The Treasurer is also allocating some $40 million in special training initiatives to help those workers affected by technological change. In particular, these initiatives will aid women and older workers by allowing them to finish their high school education, take additional technical courses, receive and upgrade skills with new technologies and receive on-the-job training.

Where workers over the age of 45 have actually been laid off, the province will give a $2,000 hiring incentive to the employers who hire these workers for at least one year. Such an incentive will be useful in breaking down an employer's reluctance to hire older workers.

Fourth, we will be giving additional support to laid-off workers by providing financial assistance to unemployed help centres run by the trade unions.

Individually and in total, these initiatives are proof of this government's deep concern for the wellbeing of Ontario's current and future workers.

I was glad to see that the budget followed closely the Treasurer's paper released back in March on technological innovation and diffusion in Ontario. That report indicated that during the period of economic transformation, there were four important policy areas in which government could provide policy direction and leadership. Those four were: human resources policy consisting of education and training; research and development funding; industry policies for innovation; and industry policies for diffusion.

Many of the budget's initiatives aimed at youth and older workers have included aspects of education and training in recognition of the province's economic transformation. The budget also provides an increased effort to expand the research capacities of our universities and to strengthen their relationship with our economy.

By creating the university research incentive fund, the province will assist the private sector in stimulating research activity which should create economic benefits. New policies to stimulate innovations will be developed through the enterprise growth fund. This will result in the creation of innovation centres in selected universities and colleges and in funding for enterprise centres in communities across the province. Both types of centres will result in the establishment of new enterprises and jobs.

Technology diffusion will also be aided by a variety of means. We will give our technology centres the means to assist in modernization retooling. The Ontario development corporations, together with the technology centres, will assist small and medium-sized businesses to acquire high-technology equipment.

There will be a new program to assist businesses that want to rent robots and high-technology equipment. A technology diffusion training program will provide educational grants to managers, engineers and technicians who are instrumental in bringing high technology into small and medium-sized companies.

A very positive idea in the budget was to ensure that children be given greater access to computers. The distribution of 4,000 computers to communities across Ontario will guarantee the exposure of tens of thousands of children to computers. It is time they appeared in libraries and other community institutions. I think this is an important step, and we should watch the development of this initiative to see whether it should be expanded at some future time.

Continuing with technology diffusion, I was pleased to see that we are continuing to aid the auto sector, which is leading our economic recovery and assisting our steel industry, rubber plants, transportation and the retail trade. In fact, according to the Conference Board of Canada's latest report, we can expect an amazing 20 per cent or greater increase in automobile manufacturing this year.

However, I would like to point out we should not be content in the belief that our automobile industry is out of the woods with nothing to worry about. I continue to remain convinced that Canadian content regulations are essential if we are to protect Canadian jobs in this industry. Here in Ontario roughly one job in six is linked directly or indirectly to the auto industry, and we must ensure these workers are not endangered by unfair trade practices.

The problem is competition from Japan and abroad. The Japanese take about one quarter of the Canadian automobile market, yet their assets in this country are about one tenth those of Chrysler, Ford, General Motors and American Motors. Although Japan is selling cars here, it is doing very little to establish a real presence on our soil as a manufacturer. The fact is, the Japanese auto industry has contributed virtually nothing in the way of new investment, jobs or capital in Canada, while it is running away with the domestic car market.

Canada is the seventh-largest vehicle market in the world, yet Japan exports more cars only to the United States and West Germany. Obviously, the popularity of Japanese cars is here to stay; but what must accompany this popularity, if we are to preserve our economic strength, is a commitment from Japanese auto manufacturers to create jobs in Canada.

Regulations ensuring a certain percentage of parts are created or the assembly of Japanese automobiles is done in Canada by Canadian workers must be set in place. These kinds of regulations, known as content regulations, are essential if we are to protect and expand our automotive industry. They are necessary to protect Canadian jobs, as well as Ontario's jobs, and to encourage new investment.

To my mind, content regulations make sense. If the Japanese wish to enjoy access to our domestic market, it is only fair that they be prepared to make some kind of investment in this country similar to the kind of investment we have already seen in the United States. The Japanese have invested approximately $3 billion in the auto manufacturing sector in the United States.

The comparison between the American and Canadian situation is interesting. The United States has rejected any kind of local content regulation. It has done so, not because of any commitment to free trade or the recommendations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the famous GATT negotiations, but because it was able to persuade the Japanese to create jobs and make investment in the United States without resort to content regulations.

It should also be remembered that the US Congress did have before it a bill that, if passed, would have required 90 per cent American content in all imported cars. In Europe and the United Kingdom, governments are even stricter with imported automobiles. France sets a limit of three per cent of Japanese automobiles. Italy draws the line at 3,000 cars, no more and no less, while Britain limits Japanese cars to a flat 10 per cent of its domestic market.

3:50 p.m.

Canada and the United States are the only major automobile markets that have not clamped down on the free flow of products from Japan. The United States, however, through the threat of creating restrictive trade legislation, has Japanese auto plants on its soil employing American workers. As yet, Canada has none.

I believe it is time Canada and the federal government took action to protect our domestic automobile market and the jobs of Canadian auto workers. We have seen what has happened in the field of television, electronics equipment and calculators. North American companies established in these fields were squeezed out of world and domestic markets by tough-nosed competition from the Japanese.

The Japanese do a lot of business with Canada, especially in the resource field, but I do not think the Japanese will close off their market to our resources if we start taking a hard look at establishing content regulations for imported automobiles. Japanese businessmen are too shrewd to be governed by sentiment. The reason they do business with us in the resource sector is that they know they are getting good-quality goods at bargain prices.

Canadians must realize their domestic market should be a tool for recovery and job creation. Our economy will be stronger and our employment situation will be better if Japanese auto manufacturers establish plants here in Canada as they have in the United States and as Japanese electronics firms have done already in Ontario.

We must use our demand for their products as a tool to create jobs and investment. Otherwise, we run the risk of seeing further erosion of the automobile industry in Canada. In fact, the president of Chrysler, Mr. Closs, recently told reporters that should the current situation continue, Canadian auto makers may be forced to consider contracting out work to other nations that will be able to do the same job at a cheaper price.

A similar situation has occurred with other Canadian industries, such as sporting goods and textiles. Based upon competition from the Far East, these companies began contracting out work to countries that can produce parts at a price that will meet the challenge from Japan.

This, however, is only one possibility. The real concern remains that our automobile industry will be weakened if the Japanese do not invest in Canada. Since the Japanese have made no move to create plants or working agreements with the auto makers already established in Canada, I believe we must have content regulations on imported vehicles to protect jobs.

To my mind, there is only one course ahead: jobs and investment must be protected. It only makes sense to see that auto makers, who control a significant portion of the domestic market, can be required to set up shop in Canada and employ Canadian workers. Without this protection, our auto industry and our economy as a whole stand in grave peril. We must all press the federal government to implement content regulations.

Because of the national importance of the auto industry, early last month I wrote an open letter to the candidates running for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. I wrote because the candidates, delegates, and even the media coverage, have been strangely silent on this very important policy issue which affects Ontario. Forty per cent of Canadian voters live here in Ontario. This is the powerful text of my letter:

"As a Canadian" -- and as an MPP in the Ontario Legislature -- "concerned about the future of our domestic auto industry, I am writing to you, and all other candidates for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, to request information on your position with regard to the future of the Canadian auto industry.

"I assume that you have no quarrel with the statement made by your government in its speech from the throne in December 1983 that: 'The auto industry is crucial to our economic wellbeing. Stabilizing employment in automobile manufacturing and supplier industries is an essential task.'

"As you are aware, the auto industry directly employs more than 100,000 Canadians and represents about 60 per cent of Canada's exports of manufactured goods. While the future of this industry is of interest to all Canadians, it is of particular concern to the people of Ontario. In Ontario, which accounts for 95 per cent of the Canadian industry's output, an estimated 20 per cent of our economy depends on the auto industry.

"The industry is a major employer in our province supporting, either directly or indirectly, one in every six jobs in our economy. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the recent strong performance of the industry is largely responsible for Ontario's relatively rapid recovery from the recession. The above figures serve to illustrate that the future economic health of our province is closely tied to the future economic health of the auto industry.

"It is then perhaps understandable that I and, I am sure, thousands of other people in Ontario are interested in learning what you, as a possible leader of a major national party and a potential leader of this country, would do to carry out the 'essential task' of building a secure future for the industry in Canada.

"Specifically:

"Do you support the federal government's declared intent and current efforts to negotiate a Canada-Japan auto agreement which would lead to the construction of additional production facilities in Canada and to increased parts procurement in Canada?

"If such negotiations fail, would you be prepared to extend existing import quotas scheduled to expire March 31, or would you be prepared to introduce new, more stringent quotas?

"Would you be prepared to support the introduction of Canadian content regulations?

"In the negotiations with the Japanese or with any other offshore producer would you link the level of any quota to the level of offshore investment in the Canadian auto industry?

"Would you be prepared to support and assist provincial government programs designed to enhance the competitiveness of Canadian auto parts manufacturers, programs such as the recently announced Ontario initiative to help fund retooling projects at auto parts plants?

"While the Canadian industry is currently enjoying one of the most successful periods in its history, that is no reason to become complacent about its future.

"A number of international developments, such as the entrance into the Canadian market of the South Korean producer Hyundai and the planned entrance of South Korea's second-largest producer, Daewoo, into the North American market in 1986 under the terms of a joint venture agreement with General Motors, and the expansion by Ford Motor Co. of its Mexican operations, could have a very real negative impact on our domestic auto industry.

"An integrated strategy consisting of some of the measures mentioned earlier is, in my opinion, required if we are to ensure the continued vitality of our domestic industry and protect the thousands of jobs which it supports.

"I look forward to hearing from you on these matters."

I would like to report that to this date not one candidate has replied directly and that I have heard from only one campaign, John Turner's. Before I mention the contents of this reply, I would urge my colleagues in the official opposition to voice their concerns about the auto industry to their federal colleagues, particularly those who are leadership candidates.

Here is Mr. Turner's reply:

"John Turner has asked me to reply to your letter of April 2. He shares your concern for the continued growth of the domestic automobile industry in Ontario and Canada. He agrees that because of its effects on jobs and the economy -- and on the whole the auto industry is crucial to our economy -- it is of paramount importance that we seek an integrated and comprehensive strategy to protect our current industry and ensure that Canada has a healthy ongoing automotive industry.

"Once the leadership convention is over, Mr. Turner has promised to consult more widely with everyone involved and concerned with this issue. His political style is one of consultation and mediation, and I think that this is one area where all Canadians, regardless of political affiliations, must work together to ensure our economic prosperity."

The letter was signed by Bob Foulkes, policy adviser.

I welcome John Turner's promise to consult after the campaign, but I would rest easier knowing what his position and those of the other contenders are before this convention. What is "integrated and comprehensive strategy"? This is an important matter with which our national government should deal sooner rather than later.

I would like to touch briefly on a few other areas covered by the budget. The first deals with Ontario health insurance plan premiums. Here I agree strongly with the words of the Treasurer when he says there should be a clear and continued link between premiums and the cost of health care.

During the budget briefing for reporters, the Treasurer said too few people realize that about $700 in premiums buys $4,000 worth of health care. The average cost of health care for a family in Ontario works out to $4,000, but that same family is required to contribute only some $700 in premiums to the health care system. In many cases it is the employer who pays the OHIP premiums; but even where that does not happen, the taxpayer is not really made aware of the actual costs of health care.

No one can dispute that Ontario provides probably the best health care in the world, but few people realize what resources are required to maintain this system. All one has to do is to look at the expenditure charts on page 43 of the budget document. It is clear that health costs are consuming an ever-increasing percentage of public expenditures, and I believe that OHIP premiums are virtually the only way of bringing this fact home to the average person.

4 p.m.

Increasing premiums are a constant reminder of increasing health care costs, and the premiums are not even rising as fast as the costs are. The premiums are a gauge by which people can decide if too much or too little is being spent on health care.

The budget document chart shows that in 1980-81 the provincial budget was some $17 billion dollars and that health took up 28.4 per cent of that, or almost $5 billion. Actually, it was $4.86 billion. This year the provincial budget is $26.8 billion and the share going to health is even greater. This year 30.8 per cent of expenditures are going to health, an estimated total of $8.24 billion.

This year's health budget has increased by some $661 million and next year it will likely require an $800-million increase. The Ontario health insurance plan premiums will bring in only an additional $62 million, less than one tenth of the increase.

The challenge today is not only economic; major changes are taking place in the social fabric of Ontario and these changes must be reflected in our actions. We want independence, good health and dignity for our seniors. We will help the disabled contribute fully to their community and lead active, independent lives. We want to give the disadvantaged a greater sense of purpose and self-worth. We will deal compassionately with the problems of family violence. We will help those who rely on social assistance to assert their independence. We will increase access to day care for children in low-income families.

I welcome the exemption from an increase in assessment for renovations and additions to keep elderly people at home. This will be of particular benefit to elderly home owners in my riding. Its purpose is to further ensure the continued wellbeing and independence of the province's handicapped and senior citizens by helping to keep them comfortable in their own homes.

It is to encourage other property owners to undertake alterations, improvements or additions to their property for the purpose of providing residential accommodation to either disabled or senior citizens who would otherwise require institutional care. These objectives are met by exempting from property taxation the value of those alterations, improvements or additions to property undertaken by May 16, 1984, for this purpose.

Eligibility for property tax exemption applies to alterations, improvements or additions commenced after May 15, 1984, to properties of not more than three units for the purpose described below. The alterations, improvements or additions must be undertaken for the purpose of providing residential accommodation for the disabled or senior citizens who without these alterations, improvements or additions would otherwise require care in an institution.

Only the assessed value of those alterations, improvements or additions constructed for the above-noted purposes are exempt from property taxation. Also, the exemption is only for as long as the disabled or senior citizen or citizens reside in the property as his, her or their principal place of residence.

The property of disabled and senior citizens in their own homes also qualifies for tax exemption. Again this applies only if the alterations, improvements or additions begun after May 15, 1984, were undertaken to allow the owner or owners to continue to reside at the property as his, her or their principal place of residence.

In the case of property owners providing accommodation for disabled and senior citizens, the owner of the property for which a tax exemption is being sought must complete an affidavit, which is available at regional assessment offices.

The affidavit will describe the alterations, improvements or additions begun after May 15, 1984. Again these must be for the purpose of providing residential accommodation for the disabled or senior citizen or citizens, who, without these alterations, improvements or additions, would require care in an institution. The affidavit will also affirm that the disabled or senior citizen or citizens are currently residing at the property as his, her, or their principal place of residence.

In addition, the increases in guaranteed annual income system payments for seniors will raise Gains payments for the single elderly in conjunction with the increase in the federal guaranteed income supplement. By the end of 1984, our single elderly will be guaranteed a basic annual income of more than $8,000, or 60 per cent of that provided to couples. These Gains increases will benefit 124,000 elderly persons in Ontario, most of whom are women. We are providing an additional $27 million for these improvements.

To the many elderly singles in my riding of Lakeshore, this is a welcome change. I have talked to many elderly singles who always made the argument that getting 50 per cent of what a couple received was very unfair. Rent and other expenses are often the same for both singles and couples. I am personally pleased that the Treasurer was very sensitive to the needs of our elderly singles.

Our ability to respond successfully to change will depend in large part on the vigour and strength of entrepreneurs and small businesses. The job creation record of young firms is evidence of their will and ability to adjust and to innovate. We must use our resources to supply these new firms, which create most of the new jobs in our economy. This focus was confirmed in the prebudget discussions with small business people and their representatives.

Small business must look to world markets. What makes a successful trading nation? Personally I can think of one area that pretty well fits that description. That jurisdiction has eight million inhabitants, a diverse economy, a proven history of sound research and new technology, high standards of education, an excellent transportation and communications network, and ready access to one of the largest export markets in the world.

In addition, that jurisdiction has a proven track record of success in foreign trade. In fact, its per capita foreign trade is three times that of Japan and its people have been among the most successful traders in Europe and North America for several hundred years. Have the members already guessed who I am talking about? It is not Belgium or Holland. The area I have just described is Ontario.

In the last 10 years, our trade with world markets has mushroomed by 300 per cent. Yet in the same period we have let ourselves fall behind. That is why the Ontario Ministry of Industry and Trade is aggressively promoting the idea of new export markets for Ontario companies. Let us look at the record. For every manufacturer who sells abroad, there are three or four that do not. For every company that keeps on top of new technology and regularly updates its operations, there is one that does not. Too many Ontario firms, both large and small, are content to follow the old ways and are satisfied to supply the domestic market.

A protected home market can no longer be relied on for business success. Through international agreements, the industrialized nations of the world are moving towards freer world trade. This means tariff barriers are coming down and trade and production is being reorganized on an international basis. The result is that Ontario companies must keep pace with world trends or they will be squeezed out by competitors from home and overseas.

Already, nearly one million jobs in Ontario depend directly on exports. If our share of international trade is boosted by one tenth of one per cent from its current 1.5 per cent to 1.6 per cent over the next four years, our exports will hit $60 billion and we will have created 150,000 more jobs in this province. It sounds incredible; it really is not.

Let us take a look at the United States market for a moment. The United States buys 82 per cent of Ontario's exports. The trade flow between New York state and Ontario amounts to $8.2 billion, which is more than most nations trade with each other. In fact, Ontario is a larger trading partner of the US than is Japan.

Ontario industry and expertise has already proved it can compete in overseas markets. For example, this past fall Ontario was represented at Japan's largest electronics trade show. Why? It was because Ontario electronics firms have proved they can produce short-run specialty electronics at the price and quality today's world market demands.

The plain fact is Ontario can compete. The Ontario Ministry of Industry and Trade has set itself the goal of boosting our province's export trade and has set up a number of programs to achieve this. First, there are the research and development centres located throughout the province sponsored by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development. These centres help businesses of all sizes keep in touch with the latest techniques in robotics, electronic design or what have you. The provincial Ministry of Labour's Quality of Working Life Centre also provides the employer with sound advice on how to win the co-operation and involvement of workers in the introduction of new production techniques.

Second, the Ontario government has a chain of eight trade offices throughout the United States, as well as offices in Britain, Europe and the Far East. These offices know the demands of the local market and will help to identify specific export opportunities.

4:10 p.m.

To help businesses get established in overseas markets, the Ministry of Industry and Trade runs frequent trade missions and participates in international trade fairs. Participation in these undertakings helps businessmen get a first-hand idea about prospective markets. The Ontario government will pay their way and set up meetings so their time on these trips is well spent. Similarly, the Ontario government will pay to bring prospective customers to see them in their facilities. A program has been established to bring qualified business leaders from around the world to Ontario.

How successful have these operations been? Last year the Ministry of Industry and Trade's foreign office set up meetings and appointments that resulted in $171 million in immediate sales orders for Ontario companies. No one knows how many more millions of dollars were involved in follow-up orders. Ontario's export development programs do work. More important, they can work for business right here in Etobicoke. No business is too small to be incapable of winning overseas or American business. The challenge of winning export sales is a challenge the Ontario government is willing to share with our business community.

All members will remember the measure the former Treasurer, the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller), took to help small businesses weather the recession. In the 1982 budget he exempted small businesses from paying corporate income tax for two years, and in last year's budget he extended that holiday to include 1984. By taking these steps, the province made a major contribution to preserving and creating employment in this most important sector of our economy.

As a result of the tax holiday, a great many of our small firms have emerged from the recession on a solid financial footing. In recognition of the fact the recession is now behind us, this tax holiday will run out at the end of the year; however, the current Treasurer has decided to continue the exemption from Ontario corporations income tax for startups and young firms. The exemption will apply to companies during their first three years of incorporation. In future years it will mean an estimated $45-million annual benefit to newly incorporated businesses, providing significant support for young firms and reinforcing our commitment to entrepreneurship.

The Treasurer has decided to maintain our commitment to the successful small business development corporations program by providing a $25-million allocation for 1984-85. Consistent with the need to target and focus our efforts, changes will be made to increase the benefits available to new enterprises and provide pools of capital for small businesses in selected regions of Ontario.

The small business development corporations program will be organized into three separate funds: $12.5 million will be available to investors in small business throughout Ontario; in addition, a special fund of $7.5 million will be dedicated exclusively to investments in the north and the east; another special $5-million fund --

Mr. Wildman: That is just a pittance.

Mr. Kolyn: The member will have his chance. He can rebut it.

Another special $5-million fund will be available specifically for investments in startups.

Further, to ensure a wider and more effective distribution of equity capital, additional technical changes will be made which will, for example, limit the maximum size of SBDC investment in any one small business to $2.5 million. This will enable more firms to take advantage of this program.

This budget helps to create new opportunities for young people and older workers; improves job access for women; helps the disadvantaged and the elderly to live independently in their communities; strengthens the role of our learning institutions; helps our small businesses to grow and our large firms to innovate; encourages enterprise and entrepreneurship; and faces up to the reality of change and deals with it. The Treasurer is reaffirming our commitment to restraint. He is avoiding significant tax increases and he will reduce the deficit.

In summary, this budget will help the older unemployed worker in Lakeshore; it will help the young unemployed worker and the single disadvantaged woman there; it will help the elderly to stay in their homes in Lakeshore; it will help the small businesses in that area; it will help the person who wants to return to school and upgrade his qualifications in Lakeshore; and it will help the taxpayers there because the Treasurer has not increased taxes.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand in the House this afternoon to address some comments with respect to the budget delivered not so long ago by a new Treasurer (Mr. Grossman). As a first-time effort, I suppose it is to be expected he may not have a grasp of the difficulties around the province that he should have taken into consideration before addressing his concerns about the expenditure of money in the province.

The budget is nothing but a reshuffling of old programs, setting out expenditures on some programs over a period of three to five years, and not coming to grips with the urgency of the circumstances of a good number of people in the riding of Huron-Bruce.

The member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn) just spoke to us about what the budget was going to do for all his constituents. Although he may sincerely believe all his people are going to get all those great advantages, like the cartoon that portrayed the Treasurer floating by himself in a bubble somewhere in Never Never Land, the member for Lakeshore is somewhere off in the distance and out of touch with the reality that affects a good number of us from other areas of the province.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to some problems in the budget, addressing them specifically to the needs of my constituency.

The riding of Huron-Bruce consists of parts of the great county of Bruce and parts of the great county of Huron. It is well known for the production of some of the best beef anywhere in the world, some of the best grain corn and a good deal of the white bean production that goes on in this sector. It is also probably one of the areas most harshly dealt with by the economic circumstances in which Ontario finds itself.

I will also speak for a few moments about the budget's treatment of the tourist industry. The tourist industry has been held out in many sectors, particularly by the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and various other people who go about the province spouting about the great things that are going to happen and should happen, as one of those industries that must be taken advantage of by many areas of the province that are not overly endowed with the extremely high investment dollars from industry proper, as it were, the manufacturing sector and otherwise.

First, let me get back to the agricultural section and then I will proceed to talk about tourism.

The budget has very little to say about agriculture. It starts by addressing two paragraphs out of some 20 pages of writing towards an industry that is described as an industry in transition. After having made such a bold comment about what I see as the most vital segment of our economy, it discusses nothing about where that very important industry is heading, how it is being transformed or how it is going to be developed into something new and virile in the economic life of Ontario. In fact, after making that statement, there is nothing to indicate what the Treasurer, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), the Premier (Mr. Davis) or anyone sees as the future of agriculture in this fine province.

One would have to indicate that is a very serious flaw indeed. How in the world can the government commit itself to the expenditure of funds if it does not know what it will end up with as a final product?

4:20 p.m.

It is a most urgent need of this government to address itself to exactly what it does mean when it says it is addressing the problems of agriculture. It has to be indicated by the Minister of Agriculture and Food or by someone who speaks with a voice of authority, from knowledge and from caring, as to what the government is planning to develop for the agricultural sector of this province.

Bruce county is particularly hard hit by some of the very nasty economic situations with which we have been confronted. Bruce county is the home of some of the most dedicated, hardworking farm people one will ever find anywhere in the world, let alone in Ontario. They know how to produce and compete against the production of other areas if they are able and allowed to do so on the same footing as people from other areas.

That situation is a luxury now for the province and we have not been able to come up with it. In the last number of years we have seen the influx of a good number of dollars from governments assisting their producers. For instance, in Quebec each farmer is subsidized on average to the tune of about $8,358. This is not so in Ontario. In addition, there are subsidy programs in such other provinces as Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia.

On the international scene we see massive influxes of money from the United States government to its farm people. If things were not bad enough in competing in North America, we have on top of that the European Economic Community supporting its farmers to the tune of billions of dollars.

In Ontario we do not provide assistance to cushion the long-term problem of unstable interest rates. We cannot call on payments to stabilize our red meat industry. In short, there is nothing in this budget that addresses the very problems the people in the riding of Huron-Bruce, and particularly the people in the beef and hog industries, are experiencing right now.

Our calls for assistance for those people have gone largely unheeded. It would be of interest to us all if we could find out what people in my riding think about the current stance of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. For the benefit of those people who are here this afternoon, I would like to read a few short excerpts from a letter I received from Brian Ireland, a constituent of mine, a member of the executive of the Bruce County Federation of Agriculture, an active farm person from Bruce county and one who has become upset with the lack of assistance from the Ontario government over the last number of months. I will start off by reading just a very short passage:

"Dear Mr. Timbrell" -- this letter was originally addressed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and I am quoting:

"Harry Pellisaro sent me a copy of your reply to him regarding the retroactive stabilization resolution passed by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture board on April 18. Your reply is of special interest to me since I was instrumental in bringing the resolution to provincial meetings. I have been a provincial director of OFA for numerous years and represent the county of Bruce.

"The fact that the board did pass the resolution should tell you something. The fact that it passed with an overwhelming majority should concern you. Your reply, in my mind, reinforced the gist of the resolution that we need some action or that you resign. Your answer clearly indicated that you do not have the best interests of farmers at heart and are again totally disregarding the severity of the problem.

"The resolution in no way intimated a demand for stabilization that would be an incentive to produce more. The resolution demanded a retroactive payment for past production, not for future."

This producer goes on to indicate that the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program and the minister's preoccupation with the tripartite stabilization program and the sow-weaner stabilization program have been of little assistance to him and many like him in the county of Bruce and throughout Ontario.

He sums up by saying there are opportunities for farmers who are not able to continue on the land, who go bankrupt or who voluntarily remove themselves from the land. Those opportunities really are as farm managers rather than as any other type of farmer. In other words, he is not going to be his own owner-operator. He is going to have to manage for somebody else.

There is a statement that is telling with respect to the feeling of a good number of my constituents: "How ironic that after several generations of producing food for our nation we have now the unique opportunity of being hired for the farms our forefathers carved out of crown land."

That is the bleak future for the farming people in my riding and for farming people in other ridings around the province. It is the opportunity of becoming almost a bondservant in the tradition of those people who came out from the old country and contracted to serve for a good number of years before they were allowed to go free. It seems to me that this budget does nothing to provide people such as this constituent of mine with the type of program they need to ensure their survival as farmers in the province.

I would like for a moment to turn away from the question of the red meat industry. I should make one more comment before I get away from this industry. So far this year, just to underscore the severity of the situation, of the Farm Credit Corp. loans that are outstanding in Bruce county -- as members know, this is a federal institution -- some 30 per cent are in arrears. That should tell us something about the problems that are facing us.

In addition, there are some 150,000 units of beef capable of being produced in feedlots in Bruce county. Of those 150,000 units, approximately 50,000 units are in danger of being lost almost immediately if something is not done. I think this underscores the type of loss that not only the farmers of Bruce county are going to feel but the whole province is going to feel if something is not done.

I will go ahead with another part of agriculture which is not really spoken about very often and for which there is very little help. I want to comment on the problems that are experienced by farm families and in particular the problems experienced by farm women as they deal with the same financial and economic hardships that have been foisted upon them by people who really have not seen their way clear to reduce the suffering that is going on in rural Ontario. If there is one area in which the budget could have spoken with respect to transition, it might very well have spoken a little bit about the changing role of the farm wife as it unfolds in the 1980s.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food has just released a study which indicated that 73 per cent of farm women are now in the work force. That probably will be up substantially, basically because most farm women were probably not counted as part of the work force since they were labouring at home. Most of those people are now forced into taking jobs outside the farm, not because they necessarily want to, although that is the case in some situations, but because they have to, because there has to be an off-farm income to help subsidize the farm operation from somewhere.

The report strongly recommended that more child care facilities be made available for rural households. The budget says there will be only 1,500 more places for day care in the province and, of those, about 1,000 or so places are required in Metropolitan Toronto. That does not really leave us very many to assist the people in rural Ontario in dealing with the problem of adjusting to off-farm labour requirements.

4:30 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food has been unable to persuade his friend the Treasurer to do anything about this. We have a small increase in the budget. I think the Minister of Agriculture and Food was bold enough to say it was about a 16 per cent increase over the expenditures made in 1983-84. While that may be so, when his budget is about one per cent of the total provincial budget, 16 per cent of a one per cent budget does not seem to add up to too many dollars at all. There can be no support for that refusal to provide the dollars to meet the difficulties facing the people of Huron-Bruce and of rural ridings throughout Ontario.

As a party, the Liberals have recognized some of the difficulties. We have been out on the rural municipalities task force. We have talked with people at first hand. People have been coming to us because they have never before seen government members, members of the Ontario Legislature, coming out to talk to them about the problems that affect them.

We have put together several pieces of policy we think meet and address those problems. For instance, we have proposed emergency assistance for the red meat industry in Ontario. It is something we know is required if there is going to be any kind of functioning red meat program in Ontario to take advantage of the stabilization programs of which the Minister of Agriculture and Food speaks.

We have asked for funding for tile drainage loans. We have requested special attention to upgrading the lands in northern and eastern Ontario, programs that will provide some enthusiasm and some degree of hope for those people who are now in the farming industry and who see very little to interest them in this budget.

I would like to move very briefly to the tourism section of my reply. Tourism has been held out as one of the growing and glowing opportunities for communities throughout Ontario. In my area and in many like it, tourism is seen as a key industry and it will become a key industry if there is any assistance to us to develop it.

We have the makings of a very good infrastructure now with respect to facilities for camping. Fisherman's Cove is rated as one of the 12 largest camping facilities in Ontario. We have others along the shores of Lake Huron and up to Southampton where my riding stops. They can provide very good accommodation for people who want to visit our part of the country.

The tourism trade is worth some $6.5 billion in this province and accounts for upwards of 350,000 to 400,000 jobs. However, we have found this industry has fallen from being the second-largest industry in the province to being third, behind the chemicals and automobile industries. The tourism deficit is rising. In 1980 we had a return from tourism of $392 million. In 1981 that return was $328 million. In 1982 it looks as if we are going to find ourselves in a worse position than ever.

The Treasurer might argue that one of the reasons for the shrinking return from tourism is that fewer people in the province are travelling. People are not taking advantage of some of the opportunities his budget gives them. I would like to talk for a moment about the types of opportunities this Treasurer supports as the successor to other Treasurers over the last several decades.

He provides tourists from outside Ontario with the opportunity to pay seven per cent sales tax on a lot of items that are not taxed in other provinces. He provides tourists from outside the area with the chance to pay not only a sales tax on the hospitality industry for the serving of beverages and meals, but also the markup imposed by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. He provides tourists with the opportunity to pay the ad valorem tax on gasoline.

It is to be noted that people will go to places such as New York state to buy some beverages. They will go to Quebec and to the United States to buy fuels which are less expensive. They pay a tax in Ontario of some five per cent on rooms and now the Treasurer says he will give them back that money if they go home and apply for it from there. That is very little incentive towards assisting our tourist industry.

What is there specifically that would provide the tourist industry in Ontario with some hope that it is going to be given a boost by this budget? It does not seem to me that we are going to be taking advantage at all of the 30 per cent premium the American dollar now has over the Canadian dollar. We are not taking advantage of the traffic across the border which could be ours if the minister decided to provide some sort of program to assist our tourist industry. I refer to a program that would provide the very basic services at reasonable prices that all tourists would really like to see.

How can we take advantage of providing the tourists in our area with the opportunity to tour the Bruce county museum and the marine museum in Southampton? How can we provide them with the opportunity to tour the Pine River cheese factory? It was built specifically to accommodate large numbers of tourists so that people could find out what is happening in the cheese industry. How can we take advantage of getting those people into our area to tour sites such as the Bruce nuclear power development so they can see at first hand what is happening in the production of electricity from these large sites?

How can we get people into our area? How can we attract them to stay there? How can we provide the facilities they would like to see when there are no programs which specifically set out assistance to our tourist industry that would make it reasonable for the tourists of our province and those from out of province to stay with us for a while?

The member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) has pointed out positive changes that could be made to the tourism budget. First, he suggested a permanent extension of the provincial sales tax refund. That would cost only about $750,000 and generate 100,000 additional room-night rentals. It is a very sensible suggestion, and I have always found his suggestions to be sensible.

He also recommended elimination of the provincial gallonage fees for licensed establishments. We should consider that no other province in this fair land of ours has such a charge, yet Ontario does.

Such changes would recognize the important multiplier effect of the tourism industry. They would provide the tourist operators with a sort of gut feeling of having some hope of being able to get ahead in the business. But this budget fails to recognize that this is a possibility. It fails to do anything to assist an industry which is falling backwards in terms of a net return to this province. Their situation is somewhat similar to that of the people who are in the agricultural industry in our province.

4:40 p.m.

To digress a moment or two, it seems to me that this government is trying to tell the people from my area they are no longer needed as a vital part of our economy. If this is so, if the government does not want us to participate as tourist operators or as people who are owners or operators of farms, agricultural operations and businesses in this province, I wish it would say so directly. That would be better than choking us off bit by bit, little by little, by refusing to provide us with some hope, by refusing to provide us with the type of assistance and support we need if we are going to continue at all.

It seems to me that this government is slowly but surely removing from the operation of the economy these very important sectors. I believe the Treasurer is one of the leaders in trying to fool the people of Ontario into believing there is a commitment to any part of agriculture or tourism.

If he feels I am wrong, I want to challenge him to come out and provide those services for tourist industry operators and for the farmers in my area. That would show me wrong. I would like to see him provide those programs and provide the dollars and cents figures for me so that I can take them home to my constituents to show exactly where the people of my area are going to find any benefit out of becoming involved in the programs talked about in the budget.

I do not see any and, to be quite honest, I think it is time the Treasurer and others in that government admit that concern for areas outside the large urban centres has waned substantially over the last number of years and that they no longer place a high value on the businesses of agriculture and tourism.

I would like to turn for a moment to the particular area of criticism I have in this Legislature with respect to the Ministry of the Environment. I would like to comment on the fact that since the 1982-83 budget year, we have fallen consistently with respect to the commitment of dollars to the Ministry of the Environment. In 1982-83, some $341 million was budgeted; in 1983-84, some $331 million was spent; in 1984-85, under this current Treasurer, only $312 million is designated for the Ministry of the Environment.

There are several problems I do not see us dealing with when we keep cutting back our budget. Not long ago I listed for the benefit of the public some of the problems we have to face in Ontario. What are we going to do about meeting the recommendations of the study on the Upper Ottawa Street dump? What are we going to do to implement the recommendations of the task force report on abatement options at Sudbury with respect to the critical and vital problem of acid rain?

As the members will remember, earlier in question period today I requested the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) to fulfil a promise made as to the installation of scrubbers on the facilities of Ontario Hydro. They might also remember that I had thought originally the Premier had actually made that commitment himself but discovered that the Lieutenant Governor of the province had indicated on March 9, 1982, among other things:

"My government remains firmly committed to having Ontario Hydro reduce the acid gas emissions from its coal-fired generating stations by half by the year 1990. As a public corporation, Ontario Hydro must set an example for others to follow. Hydro will undertake whatever steps are necessary to meet the emission levels stipulated in the government's regulation. These steps will include designing and retrofitting scrubbers, installing some 700 special burners, increasing use of blended and low-sulphur coal, and replacing coal generation with new nuclear and hydraulic energy."

I want to bring to the attention of the members that this was a commitment made in the throne speech of March 9, 1982, and it comes from the representative of Her Majesty on the advice of the executive council of this fair province. To date we have not heard any indication that those scrubbers are going to be installed. In fact, we have heard they are no longer needed because of various occurrences.

As I told this august body earlier in the day, we have problems when we go into the international field trying to make the argument that we are reducing our sulphur dioxide emissions when the government's own crown corporation is seen to be increasing its emissions rather than controlling them.

With respect to a budget that has been cut back to $312 million, there is no leeway to develop programs to meet the perception in international fields that Ontario is falling behind. Whether the total emissions have fallen or risen in the overall Ontario scene does not matter to people in other areas when they become viciously involved in partisan issues in their own political arenas. They point to Ontario and, with derision, ask us how we can come to them and ask for cuts when we are continuing to increase the emissions.

In my release after the budget, I went on to discuss questions with respect to cleaning up the Perkinsfields and Stouffvilles of this province. How can we deal with these when we are cut back? How can we deal with providing cleanup operations for polluted beaches in this province? How can we implement the recommendation of the blueprint for waste management in Ontario?

How can we do these very important things when we see that the funding level for the Ministry of the Environment keeps sliding year after year, and every year the issues of clean drinking water, pollution by chemical poisons of Lake Ontario and the creeping pollution of the subsoil and the water supplies of the people of Ontario keep mounting and becoming more critical?

There is nothing in this budget that looks anywhere close to providing the Ministry of the Environment with the necessary tools to do a job for the people of this province, a job that is ever more increasingly critical for the welfare and long-term survival of our province.

Even though the member for Lakeshore thought there was a great deal of assistance to the constituents of his riding, there is no help for them when it comes to dealing with the new issues that are going to be generated by the unregulated and unmonitored activities of those polluters who have not been chased by the Ministry of the Environment up to this date.

Mr. Nixon: Thank God for Charles Caccia.

Mr. Elston: The honourable member speaks of a well-known member of the federal cabinet, Mr. Caccia, the Minister of Environment Canada. He and his assistant form a very dynamic team with respect to helping maintain the integrity of the environment and taking steps to clean our beaches and our waters.

Mr. McClellan: Dynamic? Charles Caccia is the most undynamic person I have ever met.

Mr. Elston: The member for Bellwoods has just indicated that the Minister of Environment Canada is the most dynamic person with whom he has ever crossed paths. I think that is an indication of the quality of the person for which Mr. Caccia is known.

Mr. McClellan: I said "undynamic" -- the opposite of dynamic. He is de-dynamic.

Mr. Elston: I am sure the member for Bellwoods would want to indicate he is in favour of the steps taken by the Minister of Environment Canada.

Mr. McClellan: If I knew that he had done anything, I certainly would be.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. McClellan: He is putting words in my mouth.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to put words in his mouth. He can tell us all a little later --

The Acting Speaker: You will to speak to the motion.

Mr. Elston: -- so I will continue on. I want to say a couple of things further about the budget with respect to some of the parts that I hope will be of benefit to our area.

The budget deals specifically with money for homes for battered wives. As a result of studies in our area, there is a need with respect to providing some funding for the alleviation of the social difficulties which the hard financial problems of our time have placed on the people of the riding of Huron-Bruce.

4:50 p.m.

For instance, in Bruce county, from one end of my riding to the other -- actually from Huron, which is roughly Highway 8, to Southampton, I guess it is -- there are only two houses that women can use if they have the need. One is located in Owen Sound and the other in Vanastra. For most of the ladies in my area, it is just not possible for them to move. It is too far for them to take advantage of the program.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Owen Sound is centrally located.

Mr. Elston: The Provincial Secretary for Justice just interjected something about Owen Sound. I did not hear it.

The Acting Speaker: Do not allow yourself to be distracted by it.

Hon. Mr. Walker: It is not a distraction.

The Acting Speaker: You are not speaking.

Mr. Elston: For instance, we have some information with respect to domestic disputes in Bruce county. We have reports from the Ontario Provincial Police in Walkerton, and the police from Wiarton and Kincardine, that there were some 79 calls concerning violent domestic disturbances. Those areas cover roughly one third of the Bruce county area. If we use these figures as a basis to project the number of violent domestic disputes, there are some 200 cases in the whole of Bruce county which have to have access to that one home in Owen Sound, which happens to be located in the great county of Grey.

Mr. Nixon: Thank God for Eddie Sargent.

Mr. Elston: You cannot beat Eddie Sargent.

The problem is that it is very expensive to set up homes like this. In my riding, we are looking at the possibility of a full-time home in Kincardine. We need between $65,000 and $130,000 to deal with the creation of a haven for those who suffer the problems of domestic violence.

I would like to sum up by saying there are definitely a number of areas the Treasurer did not take seriously enough with respect to the problems that exist, from financial and social standpoints, in areas I represent and probably in areas that other members represent.

It is obvious the Treasurer did not see his way clear to providing help for agriculture and tourism, as I outlined earlier. There is no indication that there is going to be any new initiative to attract business around the Bruce nuclear power development which is required to make the Bruce Energy Centre a reality, at least before the next election.

There is nothing to indicate that the Treasurer is in any way going to try to assist that great crown corporation, Ontario Hydro, to keep its own expenditures in line. He has increased its costs by an estimated $44 million by increasing its rent for water resources in this province. This is being done at a time when he says he is practising restraint. What he is doing is putting a new tax on the people of Ontario through his Ontario corporation.

It seems to me this budget can be described as a nonbudget. There are lots of things for people in it. People could be deceived into thinking they are there. There is no tax increase, at least perceived, and yet the minister has told us he will find some extra $1 billion from personal income taxes.

He tells us today there are some expenditures for the purposes of agriculture which are not even outlined in his budget. He explains to us further that the way he has made these expenditures is by not taxing such things as chemicals, farm equipment and other items. He says if the government had a tax on them, they would generate some income. The government does not have a tax on them, therefore they consider that as a tax expenditure.

The people in the riding of Huron-Bruce will not fall for that sort of malarkey. They will not believe the minister when he says he has committed those millions of dollars of funds by not taxing them. He is trying to pass off a bit of a charade on the people of Ontario by not dealing with a number of very critical problems which face us.

He is not dealing with the question of the economic calamity that has befallen agriculture. He is not facing the problems of developing a new and fledgling business of tourism in areas such as the region of Huron-Bruce. Those types of programs which are needed to help the people in my riding are totally lacking from this budget. There is nothing in here that would provide us with any ability to see that we are going to survive and thrive in the very near future.

This is not a budget for the people of Ontario. This is a budget for the Treasurer so he can propel himself out of controversy, away from difficulties and away from dealing with delegates. It is a budget designed to protect one person, the Treasurer, and no other person.

He has dumped on the Minister of Agriculture and Food by underfunding his ministry, and he has dumped on the Minister of the Environment by failing to fund him. He is putting out a call for volunteers throughout Ontario to come to the aid of every program that has been set up by every government ministry in the province. The great call throughout the province is, "Volunteers come forth and help us out."

I have heard the advertisements on the great media stations from the city of Kitchener, lauding the volunteers. I saw a program just recently on the great assistance the hospital auxiliaries are providing hospitals, an incalculable volunteer service in value of dollars added to the benefits of the hospitals. It is a service without which the hospitals could not function. They are asking for volunteers to take over some recreation programs. They are asking for volunteer dollars to help fund some programs in my area which have been cut back in expenditures because of a decrease in dollars for Experience '84.

Everywhere the people in Ontario are having to volunteer to bail out this government from the irresponsible expenditures made heretofore. The only way a good number of the programs that have been put in place by the various ministries can hope to survive is through the largess of the public in general. Unfortunately, it speaks poorly of this budget that it does not take into consideration the fact that more dollars are required to help the people of my area and of other areas to survive so they can volunteer to bail this government out of further fiascos.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for listening to me this afternoon. I trust the Treasurer will address himself to the problems that remain unanswered after his budget.

5 p.m.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to speaking briefly in the budget debate, because I assume the next time I speak in a budget debate it will be to a new parliament.

Mr. Nixon: You may be Treasurer.

Mr. Renwick: I may well be.

This is, as the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) keeps reminding us, a time of change. It is a time particularly of change in political leadership, likely a change in political leadership of the Conservative Party in Ontario coupled with a change in the leadership of the federal Liberal Party and the change that has already taken place in the leadership of the federal Conservative Party.

I suppose it is mainly for that reason I wanted to speak today about some fundamental and basic concerns in my mind about Canada, about Ontario and about where we are now. As I read the budget statement and as I listened to the budget as it was delivered by the Treasurer, I found myself saying, "How could it be that a Treasurer of Ontario could stand in his place and deliver a budget statement which acknowledged the level of unemployment in the province will remain at the high level it is at present -- and if the projections of the federal government and this Treasurer are correct, it will likely remain at that level through the greater part of this decade -- and compliment himself at the same time on the contribution he has made to dealing with that question of employment?"

The numbers are obvious and known to everyone. We are talking, give or take, about nine per cent of the working population of Ontario being unemployed and continuing to be unemployed for a significant time. We are talking, in real figures, of about 450,000 people unemployed, of whom 150,000 or 160,000 are classified as young people. A substantial number of the balance are persons who have been laid off work in the latter years of their working lives. Those are concerns which leave me with the impression the government has a degree of callousness, indifference and incapacity to face up to a reality.

It is customary now in bad times to say no one is fundamentally concerned about unemployment unless one happens to be one of the unemployed. I do not happen to believe the conscience of the country or this society permits any such blasé assumption about people's concerns on job creation, job security, training and retraining and all the things which go with a sensitive approach to a serious economic concern. No one underestimates the complexity of the problem. In a few minutes, I trust I will come back to that question.

I was somewhat intrigued as I read the budget and the autumn prebudget statement given by the Treasurer in the assembly on December 15 of last year. I was struck by the strange response of the media. I do not understand whether the budget meant nothing to them and therefore they had to create a story out of thin air, but all of us will have seen comments in the press such as: "Did the Treasurer fool us? Did he set us up?"

It seemed to be the one consistent theme the media transmitted about the budget. There were articles and headlines in the press about it. There were comments on the radio. There were columns in the Globe and Mail on the question that somehow or other the Treasurer had set them up and then did not produce what he had created in their minds.

It is impossible to read the statement of December 15, 1983, and not understand that the budget the Treasurer presented to this assembly was totally consistent with that statement. If one read that statement, one could come to the conclusion -- subject to the reservations the Treasurer made at that time, none of which were fulfilled -- that the budget we got was exactly the budget he told us in December we would get.

I find it passing strange that budgetary comment would not have noticed the similarity between the statement he made in the assembly and the budget he introduced five months later. All of the main questions were answered in that statement. There were one or two reservations, and they did not come into play. Therefore the Treasurer was able to produce a budget totally consistent with the statement he made some months ago.

There is a certain caution in the figures he used, but by and large the figures on the anticipated growth are identical with respect to employment, to concern about interest and to the deficit. All those matters, in the direction he was moving, were very clear.

He made one reservation -- that there be no significant change in the federal position. When Mr. Lalonde introduced his budget in February, the Treasurer continued on his course in parallel with the federal government.

That is my first point about the political leadership of the country. The alliance that now exists between the Conservative Party as the government of Ontario and the Liberal Party as the government of Canada, and the business and financial community, the people who actually run the country at the present time, is very firm. It is so structured and so sound that the budget the Treasurer presented in this assembly is totally consistent with the budget the Minister of Finance produced in the House of Commons in February.

It is totally inconsistent with the budgets that were presented by the predecessor of Mr. Lalonde as the Minister of Finance, Mr. MacEachen. It is interesting to note that the financial and business communities forced Mr. MacEachen into line in the same way as they forced Mr. Crosbie into line. It is quite interesting that this government, which is always speaking about supporting its federal counterpart, contributed substantially to the fall of the Progressive Conservative government under the then Prime Minister Clark.

They are not going to have a problem this time with the federal Conservative Party under the leadership of Brian Mulroney. They have a leader who is consistent with the likely leader of the Liberal Party, John Turner. They are both aligned to the business and financial community in a way that makes them indistinguishable in the policies we can expect. Those Conservatives who stand for Canada, with those in the New Democratic Party and in the Liberal Party leadership race, of whom the pre-eminent one is Jean Chrétien, are few in number.

My principal concern is the subtle, slow slide into integration with the United States. I read this weekend, with some concern, the article in the newspaper by Joe Schlesinger about the embassy in Washington. I want to read a few paragraphs of that article into the record because it reflects the concern I have as to where the country is going.

The architect is the world-famous Arthur Erickson. Joe Schlesinger, the CBC-TV correspondent based in Washington, had this to say in the Star on Saturday in a column on foreign affairs:

"To architect Arthur Erickson, there is nothing particularly Canadian about his design for the new Canadian embassy here. The style of the building, he says, is international.

"Technically and artistically, Erickson is undoubtedly right. But when you look at the embassy's location and how Erickson adapted his design to it, you begin to see that it says a lot about Canada and our relationship with the United States.

"First, there is the location -- a unique and magnificent site. The embassy will be built in the next couple of years on Pennsylvania Avenue along the wide ceremonial route of American presidents between the US Congress and the White House.

"Construction along that stretch of the avenue is tightly controlled by presidential commission. It took approval from on high to allow Canada to purchase the site and build there.

5:10 p.m.

"No other foreign government has been -- nor apparently will be -- allowed to build along this stretch of historically hallowed ground. All other embassies in Washington are kept well away from the governmental centre of the city.

"That makes Canada's presence on Pennsylvania Avenue an extraordinary gesture of American goodwill and a symbol of the closeness and friendliness of relations between the two countries.

"But when you take a second look, you see another aspect: Canada's embassy will be surrounded by agencies of the US government.

"Within a few blocks of the site of the new embassy is the looming presence of the US Capitol, the Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Archives, the National Gallery, the US Internal Revenue Service, the federal courthouse, the Federal Trade Commission and many other of Uncle Sam's children.

"A Martian wandering along Pennsylvania Avenue a few years hence might be forgiven if he concludes that, among all these US federal government structures the building with the signs 'Embassy of Canada -- Ambassade du Canada' is just another agency of the US government.

"Non-Martians may know better, but they may also wonder how much of this unique cosiness can be accounted for solely by feelings of neighbourly affection.

"Some of the more sceptical or cynical among them, Canadians and Americans included, may be driven to speculate on how much Canada's departure from Embassy Row to Government Centre is a reflection of a Canadian dependence on US power.

"Erickson's design, if not deferential, is certainly respectful of all the centres of power around it. The cornice line is set so as not to overpower its neighbours.

"The design pays obeisance to both the prowlike sharp modernist lines of the east wing of the National Gallery to the east of it and the traditional pillared colonnade of the Federal Trade Commission building to the west.

"It fits in perfectly with its surroundings. It is a good design -- good enough to make any Canadian proud."

I am not going to read the rest of the article; I trust that others will. But it typifies for me the concern I have about a ground swell of discussion and concern with our focus on economic matters, which leads me to believe that only by direct leadership by the federal government in the country and direct support by the Ontario government of the federal government are we going to be able to clearsightedly establish and maintain the kind of economic independence that is an essential ingredient to political sovereignty.

If I had occasion and if I had the time to do so, I would want to draw to the attention of the assembly the exchange, for example, that took place between Edwin Goodman and John Crosbie at the time of the leadership contest for the federal Conservative Party. Edwin Goodman wrote an open letter to John Crosbie with respect to the whole question of Crosbie's believed-to-be position on free trade with the United States, and Edwin Goodman's letter to John Crosbie tried to point out very clearly the tradition of the Conservative Party with respect to the independence of Canada and its economic independence in the policy of Sir John A. Macdonald.

Mr. Crosbie wrote back saying that Mr. Goodman had distorted his views and that a significant misrepresentation had taken place, and he did not bother to answer the major points Mr. Goodman made in his letter.

I do not use their names because they are particularly Conservative persons. However, I did notice in an issue of Policy Options magazine, which came across our desks quite recently, Darcy McKeough indicated one of his items for the economics of a new government would be that "we must concentrate on expanding trade with the USA including selective expressions of free trade." In the latter part of his article he says:

"Next on my list is the expansion of trade with the United States. We should indeed be aiming at expanding trade wherever we can. But the greatest opportunity for quick growth in exports is undoubtedly in the USA, the friendliest and most receptive and best understood market available to us. Fortunately, the paranoia that has gripped some people at the thought of closer trading relationships with the USA seems to be subsiding. I think we should get down to brass tacks on sectoral free trade. We should identify the industries where, to our mutual benefit, we can reduce or eliminate the barriers between the USA and Canada."

That is from the vaunted former Treasurer of this province and a respected member of the Conservative Party, who seems to misunderstand the slippery slope of integration into the United States on an economic level, which will ultimately mean on a political level.

Mr. Haggerty: It is all right to have free trade; but fair trade, this is the point they missed.

Mr. Renwick: Right. Since the turn into this decade, there has been a continuing emphasis in everything we read away from the attempt to establish our position, either in the European common market or on the Pacific Rim, both with some obvious exceptions.

The basic thrust of the economic policies of this province, the pivotal province in the country, a province with immense authority on the federal level with respect to its views, is to move gradually and slowly to an integration with the United States. I do not believe it is in the interests of Canada, nor do I believe it is in the interests of any of the people in Ontario, that such integration should take place. Yet there is not a single businessman now standing in his place and suggesting alternative policies.

Honourable members can understand the immense attack made on the national energy policy when it was put forward a few years ago in the federal budget, I believe in 1980, by then Finance minister J. Allan MacEachen. That attack was directed towards something I would have assumed was an essential ingredient to the independence of Canada: the security of supply of energy in the country. That may involve a lot of problems within the country, and we have certainly faced up to a significant number of those problems, but that national energy policy found itself confronted with the massed weight of something called the "business community in Canada and the business community in the United States." Therefore we do not any longer have any real debate about energy policy in this assembly.

Not so very long ago in the early part of this decade, one of the major, fundamental questions was whether or not by 1990 there could be energy self-sufficiency in Canada. I have not heard that discussed, thought about, commented upon or considered for a significant period of time. I do not pretend to know anything about the details of all the economics behind that proposition, but I want the members to believe we will not have a Canada of the kind essential to preserve unless we are prepared to debate again the question of energy self-sufficiency by 1990.

Are we prepared to pay the price? Or should we, as the spokesmen for the Fraser Institute say, treat it as we treat oranges and lettuce and apples or whatever else. If we can get it on the international market, why pay the extra price? I say to the assembly, in the area of energy policy we have to pay that extra price.

5:20 p.m.

We have to pay another extra price to which this budget and this government does not at any time address its attention, and that is the deficit on the current balance of payments for Canada. I am not talking about the current balance of payments on merchandise trade; I am talking about the current economic balance of payments overall. I would like to quote this brief paragraph.

"The two broad components of the current account behave differently. Merchandise trade continued to provide a substantial surplus, the traditional pattern for Canada. Since 1973 this surplus has been inadequate to cover services and transfers, particularly increasing expenditures by Canadians on travel abroad" -- and the point I want to make -- "and higher interest and dividend payments to nonresident suppliers of capital for investment and for public borrowing. The Woods Gordon long-range economic forecast projects a deficit on current account of almost $11 billion in 1985."

That is another item on the agenda of concerns I have that are not being addressed by a government in Ontario which carries such tremendous clout on the decisions made at the federal level.

Let me move to another area, the question of tax reform. I was most interested in the strange exchange that took place between the Treasurer and the leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for York South (Mr. Rae) and the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) this afternoon on questions of tax incentives, tax loopholes or tax expenditures, whatever the esoteric terms maybe that can be applied to them in the course of the work which is before the assembly in consideration of the budget.

I try never to go back in time beyond this decade. A good starting point was the budget statement made by the then Treasurer, the present Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) when he spoke in the kick-off speech on Thursday, November 13, 1980, the kick-off to the 1981 election which brought that illustrious row of back-benchers into the ranks of the Conservative Party in this assembly.

I have not heard since about the study the Treasurer emphasized was going to be made at that time on the question of the relationship between performance and tax incentives. I want to quote what he said in the assembly on November 13, 1980, about the whole question of focusing tax incentives to produce a performance of the goals which the incentives are designed to achieve.

The then Treasurer had this to say: "Ontario's tax incentives are an integral part of the tax structure. Tax expenditures, as they are popularly called, are not directly equivalent to spending programs. A dollar given up by a tax incentive is not necessarily the same as a dollar given in a grant." Some of us find it difficult to understand that particular legerdemain.

"Tax incentives are fundamentally important in establishing a competitive tax structure and achieving our economic goals. It is important that these incentives be closely examined in the context of the economy's structural difficulties to ensure they are cost-effective and efficient. My ministry reviews our incentive programs on an ongoing basis. These reviews are carefully done and are instructive. However, I believe a more comprehensive analysis should now be undertaken and I have instructed my staff to commence this review immediately.

"I would like, in so far as possible, to concentrate our tax incentives more selectively in areas with the greatest promise and that offer the biggest potential economic gains. For example, I believe we should do more to encourage...." He goes on to list the areas he wants to encourage.

I have never seen that study about the impact of incentives with respect to the achievement of the goals established by the province. Behind all the semantics that go on in talking about this, it seems to me that the fundamental flaw in the budget presented to us by the Treasurer the other day was the relationship between jobs and the programs that are going to be introduced.

He started immediately with an admission of failure by saying that when all of the programs are in place there will still continue to be, for the next two, three or four years if the projections are correct, an unemployment rate of 9.1 per cent or 450,000 people. He started with that admission of failure, and we began to understand how casual the government's position is. It is more concerned with catchy phrases to describe the programs that are supposed to benefit older workers and young people in their search for employment.

As usual I owe a debt to legislative library research. I did try to have some work done for me on the question of what the Ontario Manpower Commission has accomplished since it was established in 1979 for the purpose of matching employment needs in the province with skills in trade. One report, of a number that have been made, is Industrial Training for High-Level Skills, which was published in June 1983 by the Ontario Manpower Commission.

The report tried to indicate the kinds of problems facing our society. In its analysis and conclusions, participation by industry was said to be abysmally low. The bigger corporations are very little interested in this kind of skills-matching and skills-training and very certain that, regardless of what may happen in the employment market, the continuing mismatching of skills will be evident in this society.

I could go on at some length on the question of what is in the Ontario Manpower Commission's reports. The commission has been in position since 1979. There is a commissioner in charge and an advisory body of other persons. It has a significant research function going on. Yet its reports indicate it has little, if any, clout in the cabinet of the province. There is little, if anything, one can say has been or will be accomplished by the manpower commission.

I am not a naysayer. We raised serious questions about the struggle at that time between the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and the Ministry of Labour as to which would be in charge on the question of matching, but we are still bedevilled by that same problem.

It is all very well for the Treasurer to talk at length about change and how we must adapt to change in our high-technology society, about what is going to happen to our traditional industries and what we have to do in order to be able to adapt to what he called "the transformation of the society which is taking place."

Very briefly, without going into any details, if we do not very soon have a committee of this assembly struck for the purpose of looking into the co-ordination in this government of so-called job-creation programs, so-called training programs, in-plant skills-training programs, all the paraphernalia of studies that are supposed to have gone on and, identified with that, the question of whether the programs in place or being put in place by this government will achieve the goals of providing that employment, then we will be seriously in default.

5:30 p.m.

I call upon the Treasurer and upon all those who are interested in this fundamental problem. This assembly must have a committee which if it were struck now as a select committee, could report when the House resumes its deliberations, if we can call them that, next October. At that time we would have a report of a committee of this assembly that would hear representations that would answer some of the major unanswered questions about jobs, job creation, skills, skills-training, the new society we are entering and the role that has to be played, so we could in some way mediate with the government of the province in trying to clarify what is taking place.

The last problem and the most serious problem I found with the budget is that one can go back to all the budgets of recent parliaments, both federal and provincial, and it would be impossible for anybody to tell whether or not performance has taken place. The only numbers that appear to matter are the Statistics Canada numbers. If they turn up, that is for the government's good; if they turn down, then the government is not to blame.

The mishmash of programs, policies and periods of job creation and production defy analysis. The only clear fact is the sad fact, the callous fact that with all the efforts this government believes itself to be making, unemployment will not be altered in any respect during the course of this particular parliament. It has been a disaster for working people. When the next parliament assembles in 1985, it will be faced with the same level of unemployment.

In a very brief way I want to deal with a matter of immense concern to me. I do not often speak about matters I know very little about, but I had occasion to read the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision when Mr. Stanley Gray brought a complaint against Mr. L. D. Bergie before the board as a result of an extended hearing with respect to the safety of occupations at Westinghouse Canada Inc.

I raise this matter because I do not believe people quite understand what happened. There were a series of hearings dealing with a number of incidents at that plant over time. At the beginning of the hearings, objections were made to jurisdiction, to whether or not the complaint could be heard by the labour relations board, as to whether or not Mr. Bergie could be sued and all of those questions. For reasons no one knows, the labour relations board deferred its decision on its jurisdictional matters until the very end and then made the strange remark that it would not be dealing with the jurisdictional question because it had decided to dismiss the claim.

It takes even a lawyer more Jesuitical than myself to understand how one gets through that kind of reasoning. I do not understand it. I do not understand how a board can say there are serious questions of jurisdiction, on the one hand, and then say it will not deal with the jurisdictional questions because it is going to dismiss the complaint, when it has heard the whole series of evidence about the complaint. The reason given means that for practical purposes, unless one is foolhardy, it is unlikely such a complaint will ever again be brought before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

For that reason it is essential that I put before the assembly very briefly what the problem was. There was no question about the credibility of the evidence; the board accepted the credibility of the evidence. The board at one particular point wanted to deal with this whole question of joint health and safety committees on the one hand, as provided by the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and on the other hand the obligations with respect to inspection and enforcement on the Ministry of Labour. That was the problem and that problem remains now for this assembly to solve.

I can assure the House that if one takes the trouble just to read the problems that were faced by the working people in the plant at Westinghouse with respect to stopblocks, which is one of the few esoteric matters I could understand, one would realize there was something seriously and fundamentally wrong.

What the board appeared to say was that the joint health and safety committees were to function until the outer limits were reached. What those outer limits were was a matter of judgement in each case. What the outer limits meant was that the time would come when the enforcement provisions would be exercised by the ministry.

This is a catch 22. This was not the intention of the assembly when we passed that piece of legislation. The Ministry of Labour now refers to it as the internal responsibility system. We can go through the whole of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and we will never find the phrase "internal responsibility system." We will find a joint committee established with an adversarial content of management and workers. We will find the only people who can implement the changes that are required to make the working place safe are the management, not the workers.

The setup of the act is that the ministry, in its inspections and in its work of providing a safe place for working people in the plants of the province, will do the enforcement and the inspection. They will carry it out. The talk about an outer limit is something I find somewhat difficult to understand.

I do not want to go on too long on matters such as this, as is my wont. However, because we had some difficulty doing so recently in the committee, I did want to place this before the assembly.

Behind all this is an inherent contradiction that is built into the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The act itself makes no reference to internal responsibility and it reflects the adversarial relationships between employer and employee in its keystone structure, the bipartite joint committee, but the committee itself has no real enforcement authority. Without voluntary compliance by the employer, enforcement is up to the ministry; yet the ministry interprets its role as being primarily one of mediator and facilitator in easing conflicts between the workers and employers.

It is unrealistic to think that health and safety enforcement can escape the adversarial relationships. Measures to protect and improve health and safety usually involve monetary costs, and employers will always attempt to minimize any expenditure which makes inroads on their profits. As the New Democratic Party task force summed it up:

"Too much power in health and safety matters continues to lie in the hands of those whose actions resulted in introduction of this legislation in 1976. The clear consensus among those who presented evidence at our hearings was that only where management wanted a safe working place would it occur."

There are many other references in the course of the comments that have been made with respect to what can or should be done. Let me express it as the task force of the New Democratic Party expressed it:

"Internal responsibility must be redefined to ensure the right of every worker in Ontario to a healthy and safe work place. This right includes the worker's right to participate, the right to inspect, the right to shut down any operation that is unsafe, the right to full wage and benefit protection as a result of any medical monitoring program or during any work loss or shutdown due to health and safety problems, the right to know, the right to refuse and the right to strict enforcement of the act by the Ministry of Labour. These rights must be entrenched in the Occupational Health and Safety Act."

5:40 p.m.

My colleagues on that task force made some significant recommendations. I am not going to recite them. A copy of that report is available to any member of the assembly who wishes to look at it. I simply want to point out the inherent contradiction of the decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the clear indication that it is unlikely a matter such as this will ever again get before the assembly.

In a committee of this House, where the annual report of the Ministry of Labour was referred under the rules, consideration of the failures of the inspection and enforcement branch of the Ministry of Labour in matters related to occupational health and safety was blocked by the vote of both the Conservative and Liberal members on that committee.

There will not be, for some considerable time, any forum available in this assembly for consideration of the fundamental problems that were unearthed in the hearings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board related not only to Westinghouse but also to any number of other plants, as was indicated during the course of the New Democratic Party hearings.

There is very little doubt, if one reads that report, that the enforcement provisions as related just recently in the report of the Royal Commission on Matters of Health and Safety Arising from the Use of Asbestos in Ontario and all the paraphernalia of the Ministry of Labour with respect to the protection of workers' rights, appear to be designed to inhibit the protection of those rights in the interest of something similar to getting along well together. That is where the fundamental problem is, and we in this assembly are going to have to deal with that question very soon and very clearly.

So far, our attempt in this House has meant that the sub judice rule was called on us in the committee considering the referral, even though the members of the Conservative Party sitting in that committee did not know what the case was that was being called in aid of the sub judice rule. The members of the Conservative Party who sat in that committee that night did not understand, were not interested and could not have cared less what had happened. They were prepared to say that as long as a lawsuit is outstanding in the courts, the problems with respect to the protection, safety and occupational health in the work place of the workers of this province are no longer going to be considered by the assembly.

It will be a long time before this party accepts that provision. Those members who give any substance or concern to the workings of this assembly might, at their leisure, read pages 76, 77 and 78 of the report on Witnesses Before Legislative Committees by the Ontario Law Reform Commission. The report was made on a referral by the Attorney General, at the request of the standing committee on procedural affairs of this assembly, but we have never got around to debating it.

That report states very clearly that under no circumstances could the debate of matters of public concern and the right of the assembly to debate those matters be overridden because of a lawsuit that might be kicking around in the courts for any period of time. The report says that, but in direct defiance of it we had the sorry sight of the Liberal and Conservative members on that committee that evening simply saying no.

The matter of whether the Ministry of Labour is enforcing and inspecting in the way this assembly expected it to enforce and inspect for the purpose of procuring safety in the work place for working people in the province did not matter. The message was that clear, and in a funny way it is reflected in the fundamental philosophy of the budget of the province for this year. It just does not matter. If one is a cog in the machine and gets kicked out, they will provide some safety nets. The nets may have a few holes in them, but that is all one is entitled to. That is all one is entitled to and that is all one is going to get from this assembly.

They will make a few gestures here and there so the conscience of people in the province will not be unduly upset. They will do it by saying to the province, and they will get away with it, that if the Conservative government has its way, when this parliament is over, they will go back to the hustings to regain their seats on the proposition that nothing could be done by this government for 450,000 people, young and old, who are out of work in the province, let alone all the other failures of this government in matters related to concern and care for individual people in a society that is one of the wealthiest on the continent and one of the wealthiest on the globe.

The government of Ontario, which calls in aid all the other factors, never stands up and faces the fact that a province as wealthy, as strong, as powerful and as influential in Canada as Ontario has little if any concern for Canadian economic independence, for Canadian cultural independence and for the working people of the province and is prepared to drift along without any leadership.

I say to the Premier (Mr. Davis), it will be a good time. We will adjourn the House any time he wants so he can go to his home at Georgian Bay and take all the time he needs to rethink his position. Whether he chooses to leave or to stay, we in this party cannot stand any longer the vacuum of leadership that is evident every single moment this parliament continues to sit.

I am angry. The world will not agree with me. I want the House to know that there are fundamental matters on the agenda that have to do with the wellbeing of this country which are not being considered and which will not be considered because nobody is interested in them. They are interested in something called deficits. That is what they are interested in.

The interest rate today on government and corporate bonds in Canada is 13.35 per cent. Do they think they are going to get much risk money to develop the kind of new world we are talking about when the guys who have the money can put it into government and corporate bonds at 13.35 per cent on short term because they do not know what is going to happen to interest rates tomorrow, and when we read that National Trust has eliminated the fixed interest mortgage for five years and is now providing mortgages on house properties at only a variable interest rate?

We never debate those problems in this assembly. We never get the opportunity to debate them. Some time, somewhere, somehow, there may be a change in the government of the province and perhaps a different outlook could be taken toward the needs of the province, its place in the country and where the country is going.

Mr. McLean: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate with my colleagues and offer my comments on this year's budget. In my opinion, the budget demonstrates this government's commitment to the people of Ontario to provide strong leadership, responsible management and effective programs.

Mr. Laughren: The lucky 85 per cent.

Mr. Harris: We listened to your garbage.

Mr. McLean: This is good stuff. We have addressed the most pressing problems before us and have proposed long-term programs and policies to alleviate their effects.

Mr. Laughren: Name one.

Mr. McLean: If the honourable member will just listen, I will name lots of them.

In essence, we have rejected so-called stopgap measures for innovative ones that will benefit our citizens for years to come.

Mr. Laughren: Nonsense.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Simcoe East has the floor.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. McLean: It has often been said that politicians can be very near-sighted, unwilling to look beyond immediate needs and problems. In the same view, this category of politician is the first to call for short-term solutions to long-term problems. He never lays foundations upon which to build, nor does he plan strategies to address changes until it is too late.

Fortunately, we live in a jurisdiction where the government plans for the future. The budget, as presented Tuesday last, has shown that this government wants to look ahead and be prepared for changes now seen on the horizon.

Additionally, the budget demonstrates this government's belief that it is now time for the people of Ontario to undertake initiatives that will help them meet the challenges of tomorrow. The programs and initiatives introduced in the budget will lay the foundation for the fundamental changes in our current economic and social structure.

Mr. Laughren: Name one. Tell us which one you are talking about.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: He is talking nonsense.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) is not conducting this debate. The member for Simcoe East is entitled to make his opinions known in this debate, and you are thoroughly required to avoid the interjections and let the member proceed with the debate.

Mr. Laughren: Is parliamentary nonsense in order?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the member for Simcoe East try to ignore the interjections. We are not going to have any more or else we will have to address them.

Mr. McLean: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We fear the unknown and the untried. We wonder whether we will be able to adapt or be left behind. But such fears are usually born of ignorance and the want of preparation. This budget assists and encourages our citizens to become informed and prepared for the pending changes ahead of us.

It is very enlightening for me to listen to the comments made about this year's budget by the official opposition and the third party. We have heard the terms "smoke and mirrors," "fraud," "illusion" and "con game" used to describe the budget. Opposition members have complained that there is no substance and no money.

I can somewhat understand the third party's misgivings, because the main focus of the budget is on strengthening free enterprise. That is the system we have in Ontario. It is a well-known fact that the third party has ideological difficulties with free enterprise systems. The official opposition, however, is known to have a more sympathetic bent towards free enterprise, yet it is unhappy with the government's proposed initiatives. I can only suggest the majority of its members must belong to that category of politicians that I referred to earlier.

This year's budget will set Ontario on a path towards the future. It points the way and offers assistance to those who wish to come along. It offers help to those less able to follow -- the young, the old, the sick and the poor. It offers help to our businesses and communities which will lead the way in the coming transformation.

The future for Ontario is bright. We are not alone in this opinion. The Conference Board of Canada has echoed the Treasurer's (Mr. Grossman) projections for our province. Studies undertaken by the board have indicated that Ontario's projected output in 1984 will outpace that of all other provinces in Canada. This projected increase of 4.8 per cent in real domestic product growth gives added support and verification to the Treasurer's own forecast of 4.7 per cent. This will place Ontario ahead of the other nine provinces for the first time since the board began monitoring such figures.

Mr. Laughren: Tell us about unemployment.

Mr. McLean: Quoting from the board's report: "The motor vehicle manufacturing sector is the source of Ontario's exceptional strength in 1984. Output of this sector alone is forecast to rise by more than 20 per cent, directly providing more than one quarter of the province's overall growth for the year." This is certainly good news for the automotive sector. It indicates a full recovery from the recent recession is under way.

Mr. Laughren: Come to Sudbury and say that.

Mr. McLean: The board also estimates that Ontario's share of Canada's total production of goods and services will rise this year by at least 15 per cent from our current level of 40 per cent to more than 55 per cent. The budget outlines --

Mr. Laughren: The people in Sudbury will be greatly relieved.

The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the member's debate, but I do have to caution the member for Nickel Belt. He has been constant in his interjections, and if it continues I will have to ask him to leave. Would all members join in showing the same kind of courtesy that was accorded other debaters before the current speaker.

Mr. McLean: It did not bother me, because I just considered where it was coming from.

The budget outlined a number of proposals which will assist our manufacturing and service industries in maintaining this level of production and will lay the groundwork for further improvements in the future.

It is important to understand the overriding philosophy that drives the budget formulation process before any discussion occurs regarding specific proposals. This government has long recognized that free enterprise is the fundamental driving force of Ontario's past, present and future and its economic progress.

The health and wellbeing of the private sector is vital to Ontario's economy. The economic recovery and transformation currently under way is being led by the private sector, because only private enterprise can undertake the investments and create the permanent jobs needed to ensure continued prosperity.

The role of government is not one of intervention; rather, it must develop policies and programs that will provide assistance and work to strengthen the private sector.

In this year's budget this philosophy is reflected in the initiatives designed to strengthen Ontario's small business sector and the proposals that will stimulate the innovation, diffusion and adoption of advanced technological and management methods.

Small business has traditionally formed the backbone of our economy. Today, in the changing dynamics of our economy, small firms have shown a unique ability to adapt quickly. They are recognized as being the main generators of new jobs and innovation. Between 1970 and 1980, three out of every four new jobs were created in the small business sector.

The main problems associated with the establishment of viable smaller firms have been locating sources of financing and the development of effective management and marketing skills.

In this year's budget, the government has announced initiatives to increase the availability of financing for young firms and startups through proposed changes to the small business development corporations program. A total of $25 million has been allocated during the 1984-85 fiscal year for this program, and the plan to divide the funding allocated to the SBDC program into three separate funds will contribute significantly to the diversification of our regional economies.

Without the small business development corporations program, many small businesses would not have been established. This was especially true during the recent recession when investments and new ventures were seen to be particularly risky. The traditional small business funding institutions, such as banks and trust companies, were turning away business they considered marginal. At the same time, however, there was an enormous amount of venture capital known to be available in Ontario.

Consequently, the government took an innovative, aggressive approach to attract investors by establishing the SBDC program. The program allows investors to pool their capital for equity investments in eligible small businesses. For providing this capital, the SBDC investors receive a 30 per cent grant or tax credit. To date, 432 active loans have been registered, resulting in the investment of $182 million in 434 small business.

At a conference held recently by the Association of Canadian Venture Capital Companies, Ontario's SBDC program was called the best government program in Canada by a wide margin. The government's initiatives and programs helped our small businesses to emerge from the recession in far better shape than those in other jurisdictions.

In addition to broadening the perspective of the SBDCs, the budget has called for the extension of the corporate income tax exemption for new and young firms, the establishment of innovation and enterprise centres and increased assistance for technological diffusion. These proposed initiatives are all aimed at providing assistance for our small businesses. They will ensure their continued viability and provide the opportunity for additional growth in this vital sector.

The people in my riding of Simcoe East are fully aware of the coming economic transformation and the benefits that will result. I know they will be supportive of any measure designed to facilitate this transformation and hasten its arrival. They have learned this the hard way, from experience.

The Deputy Speaker: This would be an appropriate place for the member to interrupt his comments.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.