L034 - Tue 29 Oct 1985 / Mar 29 oct 1985
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)
Resuming the debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Mr. Warner: As members will notice, over the dinner hour the information went out and the galleries are now filled.
I began my remarks just before the supper break, and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) did not have the opportunity to listen to all my remarks. Apparently he wishes I would repeat them. I think instead it would be more beneficial if he read Hansard.
I can say that over the supper hour I had some discussion with members of the public. This is the positive side, the good-news side. Through it all came the comment that no matter how we may feel about what is good and what is bad about the budget, the Treasurer is an honest man. That is probably the highest compliment one can pay a person, that he or she is an honest person. The Treasurer has earned that very deserved reputation of being an honest person over many years in this House.
Unfortunately, as we concluded at six o'clock, I had reached the end of the good-news portion of the budget. To make a short summary, since the Treasurer is here, the good-news side of it is that first of all the budget was in a language everyone can understand: clear, straightforward and easy to read. There were no real nasties in there of the kind the Tories always put in. There was some indication of progressive things, and we like that. There were some very positive things.
However, there are some bad things. This is the news the Treasurer probably does not want to hear, but unfortunately he must listen to the truth along with the other things he is obligated to hear.
The gasoline tax is wrong. Why is it wrong? The reason is that, while the Treasurer removed the thing that progressive people object to -- that is, the ad valorem tax, a continuous escalation of tax, something any democratically minded person would object to -- he has replaced it with a tax that is higher.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is 0.4 cents per litre.
Mr. Warner: It is higher. I understand the Treasurer is saying it is not a huge sum of money. I admit that; it is not a huge sum of money. However, it is an added punishment, especially to the people in the north.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: In north Scarborough?
Mr. Warner: No. I meant northern Ontario. The folks in the metropolitan areas will live with the 0.4 cents a litre or whatever; they will survive that.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Eight dollars a year, a matter of high policy.
Mr. McClellan: Come up to northern Ontario. Make that speech all through northern Ontario and you will lose half your caucus.
Mr. Warner: The hardship -- $8 a year. Is the Treasurer going to restrict the number of kilometres people drive? Eight dollars a year will not get the folks to and from work.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Our northern caucus will be decimated.
Mr. Gillies: It already is.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere has the floor.
Mr. Warner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your civility.
The point to the Treasurer is that it is a hardship for people in the north. I can appreciate it is difficult for the government to understand that. His party has one northern member, and today that member was quite silent.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Treasurer used to live in the north.
Mr. Warner: North Dumfries?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: No; Algoma.
Mr. Warner: Yes; before he was asked to leave.
Purely and simply, the gasoline tax has to be repealed. I think the Treasurer understands that, and I am sure he will accede to it.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: How about freezing it and letting ad valorem take its course?
Mr. Warner: Ad valorem will disappear, right?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Not if my friend's party votes against it, as it is going to. How about making that speech in the north?
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Warner: Now comes the hidden agenda.
The Deputy Speaker: The member is having trouble following his line.
Mr. Warner: I am following the Treasurer's line, and I do not like it. The hidden agenda has suddenly been revealed: Vote against the increase in tax and the ad valorem will stay in place. What a regressive thing to do for the progress of government.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: It will stay in place unless the member's party votes for the bill.
Mr. Warner: That sounds like a threat to me, and I do not respond well to threats.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: That will make a great speech in the north and in the south. It sounds like a good election campaign.
Mr. Gillies: I am liking this more and more.
Mr. Warner: I do not respond well to threats at all.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is not a threat.
Mr. Warner: The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), the member who is continually removed from the House, has a lot of nerve because it was his colleagues who put the undemocratic tax, the ad valorem tax, in place. Let us not hear anything from him.
Mr. Breaugh: Would you say that is hypocritical?
Mr. Warner: It is very typical; hypocritical. We are obviously going to deal with the gasoline tax in due course, and I am sure the Treasurer will amend certain things. Now I want to deal with his 99-cent bonanza. It is unbelievable.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member is very hard to please.
Mr. Warner: Does the Treasurer know why I am hard to please? It is because I aim for quality. That is why I am hard to please, and the government has not pleased me.
I want to deal with the 99-cent bonanza the Treasurer speaks of. I can think of only one little group of people to whom this $1 tax break applies: the muffin-and-coffee set in downtown Toronto. I do not know of anybody else. It sure as heck is of no effect to the majority of my constituents. As has been recognized, it is a step back from the campaign promise; it was to be $4. Was that the promise?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is right. This is one timorous step towards that goal.
Mr. Warner: One timid step, and now are we going to make a quantum leap in the spring?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: It may be another step.
Mr. Warner: I wait patiently.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: My friend gets E for effort.
Mr. Warner: If nothing else, I have learned in politics that patience is not simply a virtue but also a necessity. With the other government, it was absolutely futile. In this case, however, we will wait patiently for the spring. With the spring comes really nice things, including the removal of the tax up to $4.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am not going to go that far.
8:10 p.m.
Mr. Warner: I do not know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot find a $1 meal anywhere. The Treasurer seems to think there is a $1 meal.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member eats at all the high spots; that is why.
Mr. Epp: La Scala, Winston's -- no wonder he cannot find any.
Mr. Warner: La Scala? La Scala does not give you iced water for $1.
Mr. Epp: I know. That is why the member cannot find it.
Mr. Warner: I do not frequent those posh places. Then again, I am not in the cabinet.
Mr. Breaugh: Neither do I, unfortunately. Can the Treasurer correct that?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am fading away.
Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, since I have the floor, I wish to interject in the conversation that is occurring between the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and the Treasurer. Do they remember the note that said, "Do not heckle your own members?"
I understand and sympathize with the Treasurer. He has a severe problem when he comes to introduce positive measures because of the imposition of the federal government. There is no question about that. One has to wonder how much damage can be done in four years by the Mulroney horde in Ottawa. They are well on the path to destruction. We understand that.
In particular, what is of intense interest to Ontario is the transfer payments. The transfer payments to provinces are under attack; and as they are, this province, like others, will suffer. The government in Ottawa seems bent on economic destruction, and it is doing a good job of it. I am going to come back to that later, because it impinges very directly on one of the programs announced by the government.
In general, the Treasurer has a problem in trying to meet expenditures that are necessitated by the federal government's reluctance to fund programs it should be funding. This poses a problem; I appreciate and understand that. The problem for the Treasurer then is to come up with creative ideas that get around the barrier placed by the federal government.
What is sadly lacking in the budget is job creation in the widest sense. The government introduced its program called Futures to deal with youth unemployment. The program in fact is a bit of a shell game, and I am going to deal with that in a moment; but that is the only positive suggestion put forward in the budget with respect to unemployment.
The overall question of unemployment for all age groups is not addressed. There is no job strategy; there is no economic strategy; there is no sense of direction as to where we are headed with regard to full employment. In fact, there is not a statement about full employment, and that bothers me deeply. Surely to goodness we should have as an underlying concern that we should be developing full employment. That should be a goal, an aim. We might not reach it, we might fail in our attempt; but at least we should set out our objective as being to achieve full employment. The government made no such statement.
The government addressed itself to youth unemployment, but again it missed the mark. What it has probably introduced is a bonanza for the McDonald's folks: free employment. It is a great program if one wants to bring young people in at minimum wage, if one is the employer and one does not have to pay the wage. The government will pay the wage; it will pay the $4 an hour. After the 16 weeks are up, one brings in another group of people and it does not cost a penny.
I do not know how that gets passed off as skills training. It is not skills training; it is free employment. This is what I call the Golden Arches proposal. People such as McDonald's will love it. These folks are absolute masters at exploiting labour. They will love this. It is a gift.
The aim of the program apparently is to reach those young people who are chronically unemployed, who have dropped out of school, the street kids. It does not reach them and it is not going to. We are talking about a maximum of 16 weeks of life skills courses. I am sorry, but the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) does not understand the streets. He is not going to reach those kids with $100 a week.
To a young person, aged 17, in the city of Toronto, who has been kicked out of his house and is trying to live on his own, $100 a week to get himself housing and food is totally unrealistic. It is not going to happen. That young person is better off on welfare. The program is not going to reach the targeted group.
Furthermore, the government misses the mark again because the challenge over the next five years is the group of people between the ages of 25 and 36. They are the challenge. Whatever studies one wants to read will indicate the group that is going to be hardest hit over the next five years in terms of unemployment is the group between the ages of 25 and 36, not the under-25 group. There is absolutely nothing in the budget that addresses itself to that problem, and that is a serious omission.
As far as I can determine, the government has not yet come to grips with an employment policy. It has not come to grips with the reality that in some towns the problem is not unemployed youth but people between the ages of 25 and 40. These people have families whom they cannot support. There is not a single word about it in the budget; it is a glaring omission. It is a problem this government is going to have to address, if it has any conscience at all about employment.
I want to dwell on employment for a moment because we sometimes forget about the concept of full employment. What does full employment mean to the individual? There is a sense of self-worth when one has a job. There is a sense of belonging, of contributing to society, of being an important member of society, if one has a job.
8:20 p.m.
I was reflecting the other night that for the first few years after I was elected, the most common difficulty presented to me in my riding office was housing. Since I was returned in May, the most common problem in my office has been unemployment. Every week people come into my office absolutely desperate for jobs. For the most part, they are not young people. They are people in their 30s, 40s and 50s. They have families, responsibilities, mortgages, etc. , and they do not have jobs. They are highly qualified, they have all kinds of skills and background and they cannot get work. They have reached a state of absolute desperation.
What does one tell someone who is aged 40 with a couple of children, a house and mortgage, and has been unemployed for a year and a half? What kind of hope can one give? Full employment is something that should not be easily dismissed. It is crucial to our society; it is absolutely crucial. Members should understand that.
When we talk about job creation we have to talk about the role of technological change. How many people are we going to displace because of technological change? How many people will we replace with the new technology? How do we re-equip our labour force to take those jobs? There is nothing in the budget about that. There is nothing here which addresses itself to that technological change, but it is here. Some members may wish to pretend that it does not exist, but it is here, it is real.
When my colleague the member for Oshawa spoke about the robots being put into the General Motors of Canada Ltd. plant, that is not an isolated incident. It is happening throughout our industries. It is robotization and automation. What do we say to those workers who are thrown out of jobs? Are we looking at retraining? Are we trying to make sure they acquire new skills for a different market? No, we are not.
Do members know what the federal government is saying? Just a minute, Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I have it accurately. The federal government says there is a new direction for federal training and job creation policies. It intends to direct job placements through the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, which used to be called Canada Manpower.
It intends to direct those places only if there is an actual job. Gone is the notion that a person can go into a community college, acquire a skill and then go out to the job market. No, the federal government does not want that. It wants to train a person only if there is a specific job available. Otherwise there will be no money available. This is a direct threat to the community colleges of Ontario.
I have here a further item that I have learned from direct conversation, although some members may have trouble appreciating this or accepting that it is factual. In what has proved to be an extremely valuable and useful program, at West End Machining, a place which has been involved in helping young women to become trained in mechanics, the federal government's approach is that women should not be trained for high-paying jobs. Can you imagine that? That is the Tories in Ottawa. Women should not be trained for high-paying jobs and therefore the federal grant through the CEIC to West End Machining will be cut off.
I do not know where these folks are coming from other than the 18th century. It is incredible. The problem then is dumped on to this Legislature. I think, quite frankly, the Treasurer has an obligation to deal with it.
West End Machining should not under any circumstance be allowed to die. It is an absolute must that it be sustained. The funds involved are relatively minuscule in comparison with the gigantic budget presented by the Treasurer, but the benefits to essentially disadvantaged women who have been convinced that they should re-enter the job market with new skills are very important for this government to support.
I will be coming back, first to the Minister of Skills Development and then to the Treasurer, in looking for money for West End Machining. I hope he has his cheque book out and the pen in working order, because it needs the cash. There is no point in counting on the federal government; we know its attitude. The federal government is Mr. Mulroney.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Who wants the cheque?
Mr. Warner: The cheque is required for West End Machining.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: West End Machining. Shall I just make it
Mr. Warner: "West End Machining" is how the Treasurer makes out the cheque.
Mr. Breaugh: If he will sign his name, we will fill the rest in. Do not worry about a thing.
Mr. Warner: Just sign it. How much does it need?
Mrs. Grier: In the riding of Lakeshore.
Mr. Warner: How much does it want?
Mrs. Grier: I do not know. A couple of hundred thousand dollars.
Mr. Warner: This is supporting disadvantaged women, single-parent moms who have been retrained as machinists
Mrs. Grier: And auto mechanics.
Mr. Warner: -- and mechanics. That program is about to be axed by Mr. Mulroney.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Oh, well.
Mr. Warner: They require the Treasurer's help. We cannot atone for all the sins of the ancients in Ottawa, but we can do something.
I want to speak for a few moments about health care. There are a few little problems in the budget with respect to health care. Somewhere there has to be a beginning to end the Ontario health insurance plan premiums. They are an unfair tax.
If this Treasurer will allow, I am using the same kind of straightforward language he used in the budget and I am saying --
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Are we back on the gas tax?
Mr. Warner: No. The Treasurer has drifted off again. He is back in South Dumfries. I am saying the OHIP premiums are an unfair tax.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have frozen them.
Mr. Warner: Right. The next thing to do is to melt them. I am glad the Treasurer has frozen them; I want him to melt them so they disappear. They are to melt away bit by bit till they are no longer. They are an unfair tax.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: If I do that, where am I going to get the taxes?s
Mr. Warner: Wait and see. The world will unfold.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Are you mixed up or are you mixed up?
Mr. Warner: I can only be accused of being mixed up once I got in league with the Treasurer. Until then, I knew exactly what I was doing. Things are a bit more confused these days.
Mr. Epp: The member has greater clarity now than he had four years ago.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the member please address his remarks to the chair?
Mr. Warner: Of course, Mr. Speaker. I am most pleased to because I know you are listening. I have some considerable remarks to make about the health care system and I wish to address them directly to the Treasurer through the Speaker. I want to put them in a certain framework, which I am sure the Treasurer will appreciate. I am starting from this base.
8:30 p.m.
In our family Bible there is a little newspaper clipping which I will always keep, which my children will always keep and my grandchildren will keep; that is, the announcement of the sale of my grandfather's house. The house was sold to pay medical expenses. My grandmother was sick for 10 years, during which time my grandfather attempted to pay the medical bills. The bills became so severe that he had to sell the family house. My grandmother died shortly thereafter and my grandfather died at age 70. He died in a one-roomed flat with a hotplate and a cot. That came about because we did not have public health care.
I will retain that little notice as a reminder we never turn back the clock. I do not want anyone in Ontario to go through what my grandfather went through. It was a disgrace, totally uncivilized. It should never have happened. It would continue today if the Tories had their way. They fought medicare tooth and nail. They were dragged into medicare in the early 1970s. They did not want to do it. They had no interest in doing it.
I remind the Treasurer, as he goes through his deliberations about what should and should not be spent, medicare arrived in Saskatchewan at a time when the NDP government, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation as it was known then, inherited a bankrupt government. One third of the provincial budget went to the interest on the debt and yet Tommy Douglas had the courage to bring in a public health care scheme. Why did he do that, against all the economic odds? Because it was desperately needed.
The Treasurer should keep that in mind when he starts looking at extra billing, drug benefits, privatization in the medical market and extending dental care to elderly people.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: We must have a committee on that some time.
Mr. Warner: We are supposed to do that. I suppose it is percolating somewhere. When the Treasurer looks at the cost of each of these adjuncts to our public health care system --
Interjection.
Mr. Warner: Of course it will. I will come to that in a minute. I have a little more to say on that.
An hon. member: It is a revenue item.
Mr. Warner: Yes, but the Treasurer is probably going to look at it and say he is going to have to enrich the pot a little for all the doctors out there.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: There is no way. That is just a personal opinion.
Mr. Warner: It is funny, but the Treasurer's personal opinion carries weight. He has indicated that in no way is the pot being enriched. I am glad. It is interesting that he is here and some of his colleagues are having their arms twisted at the Ontario Medical Association banquet up the road.
When we look at prescription drugs without cost,s dental care for senior citizens, children and the rest of the population through the staged program, and all of the medically necessary treatments which are not now covered by OHIP, at prosthetic devices or whatever it is, they are expensive. Please keep in mind that when public health care came into Canada, it was brought in by a government faced with bankruptcy and it made it happen.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Thank God for Lester B. Pearson.
Mr. Warner: Thank God for Tommy Douglas. He was the guy who made it happen and the Treasurer knows it. When he brought it in, he said it was more important than our --
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Triple-A rating.
Mr. Warner: Yes, and then I think it was more like a Z rating. This is a heck of a lot more important, so we are going to do it. I am asking the Treasurer to take that perspective because when it is all boiled down, if one is trying to run the province well, in the interests of all the people, one looks at health, education and social services. Right? Those are the big three.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: One has to pay the bills, though.
Mr. Warner: They are the money bills. Right.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: One cannot have it both ways, unless one is a permanent opposition.
Mr. Warner: But where there is a will, there is a way.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I cannot print money.
Mr. Warner: In fact, the Treasurer can print money. No, he cannot personally; he has to go up to Ottawa. I am not suggesting that the Treasurer print money.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes, the member is.
Mr. Warner: No, I am not.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member is saying, "More services with lower taxes."
Mr. D. S. Cooke: No, with fair taxes.
Mr. Warner: Fair taxes.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is 0.4 cents a litre.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. This is becoming a debate back and forth. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere has the floor.
Mr. Warner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Despite the heckling from my colleagues, I still have the floor.
I am not suggesting that the Treasurer print money; I am not talking about his gas tax. I am, however, talking about what the member for Oshawa raised earlier in this debate, and that is the rather quaint notion that we tax rich people -- incredibly novel, even radical. The Treasurer started on the route. I appreciate and acknowledge that he has started on the route and has introduced a somewhat modest beginning. I am suggesting he has to strengthen that.
We in this House all know -- and I know it hurts some members of the House to hear it; it falls as tough news upon their ears -- that there are people in Ontario who are paid, I will not use the word "earn," $100,000 or $200,000 per year and do not pay a single penny of income tax, not a penny. That, to me, is unfair.
An hon. member: Name them.
Mr. Warner: We do not need to name them; we have the names. Does the member want the names? I did not want to talk about his relatives, but if the member wishes me to, I will.
That is what bothers me about the surtax. What is three per cent of nothing?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Speak to Mulroney.
Mr. Warner: The Treasurer says, "Speak to Mulroney." I tried that. It is like going out and talking to a tree. He has absolutely no interest in taxing the wealthy. He campaigned on it during the election, but then when he got into Ottawa and he had 200 seats, it was a different story. He decided to bring in a surtax. The surtax, of course, was a surtax on nothing, because if one is not paying tax now, what the heck is a surtax? The folks who are actually paying their taxes honestly, who are filling out the forms and are not into the loopholes, pay a bit more.
I suggest the Treasurer is on his way in the right direction. What I am also urging him to do, however, is to accelerate that and, as he does it, to put pressure on those nasty folks in Ottawa, because they are the ones who have to amend the tax system so that people who earn large sums of money actually pay tax.
Quite frankly, I am tired of carrying the rich on my back, thank you, as most of the workers in this country have been doing for 100 years. We are tired of corporate subsidies. We are tired of corporate welfare. We are tired of carrying the rich and giving them a free ride.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: What is the average teacher's salary in Scarborough?
8:40 p.m.
Mr. Warner: I do not know. The Treasurer hands out the money. Let him tell me.
It is interesting. I am glad he raised that. Teachers pay tax. Stockbrokers do not; teachers do. Is that not right?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Teachers pay stockbrokers.
Mr. Warner: Teachers pay income tax and stockbrokers do not pay anything. Right?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Okay. The member can have that.
Mr. Warner: Okay. The minister knows I am right. We have the screwiest kind of tax system one could think of. The more money one makes, the less tax one pays. Right?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: No.
Mr. Warner: The minister knows that is true. Once one reaches a certain threshold, above that one does not pay anything. It is totally marvellous. I want to link the corporate tax to that. The budget has made some increase in the corporate level, but it is not sufficient in my books.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member is clearing the galleries.
Mr. Warner: I guess that is because they are the minister's supporters.
The corporate tax level is not yet at the proper level.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: The highest in Canada.
Mr. Warner: No. Until this budget, it was the lowest.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: No.
Mr. Warner: Where is it now?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is 15.5 per cent. Quebec is 5.
Mr. Warner: Are they paying their fair share?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Their personal income tax is a little higher.
Mr. Warner: I am talking about the corporate tax.
Mr. Mulroney said the country was bankrupt, which was a silly statement to make. The corporate tax owing would almost singlehandedly wipe out the national debt; yet the Prime Minister said the country was bankrupt. If he demanded that corporations pay the taxes they owe, we would be doing very nicely, thank you. But no, in his strange world, Mr. Mulroney seems to think corporations deserve an even bigger break than they get. They have to pay their fair share. They have a responsibility and that responsibility goes beyond the tax.
Another thing not addressed in the budget is plant closure laws. I watched one, and it was fascinating. We had a General Electric plant in our riding which at one time employed close to 1,000 people. In the latter stages of its operation, it had 400. It made steam turbine engines. The company announced to all and sundry it had decided to close the plant. There was no market for steam turbine engines. General Electric was going out of business.
Just like that, they closed the door and 400 people were tossed out on the street. Many of those were good people who live in the Scarborough-Ellesmere riding and many others lived in Scarborough West. The plant happened to be on the boundary between them. Lo and behold, within a year General Electric was located in South America with a government grant from Canada. What were they making in South America? Steam turbine engines, the same objects for which there was no market.
They now magically have a market, they have government money to do it and they can exploit cheap labour in South America while we sit idly by. There are no rules. A company can close a plant. That company has responsibilities to the community and to the families who have invested their lives in that plant. They built their homes and entire lives around working in that factory, and the company can pick up and go whenever it pleases. There is nothing to address that.
I want to speak for a few moments about care for seniors. The budget addresses itself to approximately $11 million which will be directed towards seniors programs, but the government has a serious problem on its hands. First of all, the money is inadequate.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Eleven million dollars?
Mr. Warner: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Not a bad piece of change.
Mr. Warner: The problem is that the Treasurer missed my opening comments, in which I set the framework. I am saying to him that the things he has done in the budget are certainly more positive than those in any Tory budget we have seen in 40 years. The member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) understands that. But there are certain deficiencies within that framework, and it is those deficiencies to which I am addressing myself.
One is in the area of care for seniors. There is no overall approach. It is not organized; it is disorganized. Why do we have home support programs in certain communities that are geared to helping seniors remain in their homes as long as possible, yet those programs are not available in other communities? I find this even in different parts of my riding. In a certain part of the riding, home care is available and in other parts it is not. That is just plain dumb.
The aim of the exercise is to make sure senior citizens can remain in their own homes as long as possible and as long as they wish to remain in their own homes. Doing that means a lot of different things. It means snow shovelling, cutting the grass, having somebody come in as a visitor. It means someone to come and do modest repairs around the home and it means meals on occasion or a visit by a nurse.
Do members know what? All of those programs are cheaper than institutional care. If that little economic bell rings a nice tone with the Treasurer, those programs are cheaper than running institutions. They are not only cheaper but a heck of a lot nicer.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is all done by volunteers in our community, except for the nursing.
Mr. Warner: Good. There is an important role for volunteers. We have an extremely strong and excellent volunteer program in Scarborough. The volunteers at Bendale Acres home for the aged do an absolutely incredible job. There is a real role for volunteers, but we have to underpin it with some professional services, and that costs money. But the money is a heck of a lot less than what the Treasurer is shelling out to the privateers who are running nursing homes. We could substitute other words for "privateers."
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Privateers?
An hon. member: Buccaneers.
Mr. Warner: Yes, sort of like buccaneers from the 17th century. These are the swashbucklers who are ready to rob and plunder. There is no other business I know of in which one can recoup one's entire investment within three years, as in running a nursing home. It is gold, and these folks have it down to a science. The idea is that one buys the property and cuts the services to the absolute bare minimum. In fact, if one is really lucky, one can pass off folks who are not really professionals and pay them less.
8:50 p.m.
The Treasurer will recall that in 1976 I raised in this House the situation of a woman who came to my office and said she had been hired as a physiotherapist by the Kennedy Lodge Nursing Home but that she was not being paid as a physiotherapist. Does the member know why? Because she really was not a physiotherapist. She told them, "I am not qualified." They said: "That is no problem. Wear a little badge that says `Physio,' and we will pay you $5,000 a year less. You know what you are doing. Go ahead and do your physio."
Her conscience got to her. She came in and spilled the beans. We raised it here in the House. It is one of the little dodges in nursing homes where they get extra loot. That is what care for profit is all about. To a lot of the folks who run nursing homes, it is like running a hot dog stand.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Has the member ever been in a good nursing home?
Mr. Warner: The Treasurer raises a good point. Are there good nursing homes? Yes.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Even the ones that make a profit?
Mr. Warner: I have visited a good nursing home, but I have also visited rotten ones. The problem is that the government is saying people should make money from caring for elderly, sick people, and I say that is wrong. Caring for our elderly is society's responsibility, mine and the Treasurer's.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: But the member will not let me raise the taxes.
Mr. Warner: If the Treasurer wants to tax the rich people, he can go right ahead. I will certainly support that.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: This is a graduated progressive tax. If a person has a big car, he pays more. If he has a small car, he pays less. That is a graduated progressive tax.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order.
Mr. Warner: The Speaker is right, but the interjection is really fascinating.
Mr. Wildman: If one drives long distances, one pays more.
Mr. Warner: The problem in the nursing homes is manifold.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: How many folds is the member going to give us?
Mr. Warner: Many.
I want to start with the folks who are there. At both ends of the scale there are people in nursing homes who should really not be there. If we look at one end of the scale, the folks who require very little care would survive quite nicely in their own homes if they had a proper home care program, which is not now available. At the other end of the scale are people who require chronic care facilities and in many communities that is not available.
Nursing homes would have sufficient space to accommodate the people who really should be there if we had a complete home care program throughout the entire province and adequate chronic care facilities. Both of those have to be in place before we even talk about expansion of space in nursing homes. I think that is absolutely essential.
As far as seniors are concerned, there are a number of other issues that bother them greatly. I do not know whether the Treasurer is aware of this, but in my area and throughout most urban areas, one of the most serious problems is transportation. Seniors genuinely have difficulty with transportation. In a lot of cases there are seniors who are at home and are mobile but really have problems in navigating subways, buses and streetcars. I am suggesting we need a little more imaginative approach as to how we supply appropriate transportation for senior citizens.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Volunteers.
Mr. Warner: Volunteers may be part of the answer. I am suggesting that in some communities we need to integrate a taxi cab system with the public transit system. There is an opportunity here in some cases, with a blanket agreement on a flat fee basis subsidized through the seniors' program --
Hon. Mr. Nixon: They should not be making a profit on it, though.
Mr. Warner: No. It is a public service. It is an adjunct to the public transit system. That is just some food for thought, and I know the Treasurer likes to be fed.
Mr. Villeneuve: For less than a buck.
Mr. Warner: For 99 cents. We will save the taxi cab discussion for another day.
I want to suggest to the Treasurer that as he goes through his employment moneys, there is a connection with social programs. It is no accident, for example, that as Manitoba achieved the country's lowest unemployment rate, it also improved its social programs.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Their gas tax is 8.9 cents per litre.
Mr. Warner: The Treasurer has a fixation. As my former colleague from Parkdale would say, "You have a fixation."
Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: Did you mention Parkdale?
Mr. Warner: Yes, I mentioned Parkdale, but I was referring to the high-quality former member for Parkdale. He would say the Treasurer had a fixation.
The Treasurer knows there is a link between the economic and social programs. As one develops industry, then one can develop one's social programs. Obviously, if one reduces unemployment, one has fewer payouts in social assistance, welfare and unemployment insurance, and the folks who are now working are paying the high tax. As that money comes in, it funds the social programs.
If the government is really serious about its election commitment to dental care, then it will stimulate the economy with respect to jobs. As it creates those jobs, it will get the money to fund the dental program, the programs for seniors, the health care extensions, all of those things. Maybe it will even remove the Ontario health insurance plan premiums, but it has to create jobs. That is the big gaping hole in the budget. There is nothing about job creation aside from this little plan about unemployed youth, which we have already poked holes in. Unfortunately, it just does not do the job.
I want to speak a bit about education. Education is of great importance to me, because I think that as one develops a civilized society, a society of which all of us can be proud, one wants to develop one's health and educational programs. I think one views education as a life experience from the time one is born to when one dies.
What I see happening at the federal government level disturbs me greatly. Earlier on I remarked to the Treasurer about the federal government's idea that one supplies a place in a college only if there is an actual job at the end. That is very scary. Do you know what the funny thing about it is? That is what they do in Russia.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: They all work.
Mr. Warner: They do not have any unemployment, but that is what they do in Russia. One goes to school for a particular job, and that is what the Tories in Ottawa want to do. Maybe there is an unholy alliance between Mulroney and Gorbachev. I do not know.
Mr. Callahan: That is the next scandal.
Mr. Warner: Tories supporting Communists? I guess that is what it is, but it is there.
Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: Is this what the former member for Parkdale said to you?
Mr. Warner: I am sorry. I should not have spoken so loudly. I have now awakened the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht).
Mr. Breaugh: I would not go that far.
Mr. Warner: At least he is conscious.
Mr. Breaugh: I would not go that far either.
Mr. Warner: I do not know if he is awake.
Mr. Breaugh: The farthest I would go is quasi-vertical.
Mr. Warner: Education is a far more important matter than simply giving someone the opportunity to acquire certain skills. Surely to goodness education means that one learns more about oneself and about the world in which one lives so that one can be a useful, productive member of society. It seems to me that is what education is all about. It is a very wide matter and it is one that I hope people of all ages will participate in.
Quite frankly, I am pleased to see an increasing number of senior citizens re-entering the educational system. I think that is a positive thing. I know it is one that is probably a personal interest of the Treasurer.
9 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am right here listening to every word.
Mr. Warner: I know he is. The Treasurer is never beyond the reach of my words, and I understand that.
It is absolutely essential that we do everything we can to make sure our education system does not become subject to particular economic winds, so there is an ebb and flow to education. Education is too important for that. Like health, it must remain a constant commitment.
We must not say: "Things are going a little better now, so we will put more money into education. If things were not going so good now, we would draw it out." That is what the Tories did. I hope this new government has a different attitude. That is what the Tories did to health care. They decided: "The economic times are not good. Let us punish the hospitals." The member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) went around and actually attempted to close hospitals. Health is too important for that, and education is too important for that.
I want to relate a sad story for the Treasurer. It is very real and is something for him to ponder. When I graduated from York University in 1972, I can recall that in my final year -- I majored in English in the arts program -- we had approximately 15 people per class. That was the average class size. It is my habit to go back to university every two or three years and take a course or two. The last course I took was two years ago, a fascinating course in Canadian drama that I really enjoyed. There were 30 people in the class, not 15. The class size had doubled.
I thought perhaps that was just the unfortunate circumstance I found myself in and did not apply to other universities. However, that is quite common. Class sizes have doubled. It is common in Ontario, but it is not common throughout the world. It is not just with arts programs, but also with science, engineering and technology. If one goes through them all, class sizes have grown. Why? It is because successive governments in this province have slashed budgets for universities.
This government has to repair the damage. This Treasurer has to repair the damage. If I am not mistaken, the Treasurer started with a four per cent increase in this budget. Four per cent is inadequate and it will not repair the damage. I am not suggesting for a moment that he can rectify things overnight, but I am suggesting that he should have taken a higher percentage for the first step and at the same time indicated that it was a first step and that there would be other steps, that in the spring budget and succeeding budgets there would be an increasing allotment so the universities could get back to world standards. We have fallen behind.
An hon. member: Is that not what he said? That is what the budget says as a start.
Mr. Warner: No, it does not. There are no promises.
Mr. Wildman: The member for Brampton is interjecting and he is not in his seat.
Mr. Warner: If he wants to debate with me, he has to go back to his seat and then I will not debate with him either.
The government has an obligation with regard to the universities, not only with respect to the number of students per class but also with respect to research and development. There is a very scary kind of development taking place in this country. More and more research is going into private hands and is not being done in the universities. If it is done in the universities, it is done with private funding and not with public funding.
It is important from this perspective: The moment one puts it into private hands, one runs the risk of losing objectivity. One runs the risk of it not being pure research, of it being loaded research, designed for a certain segment and for that segment only. It loses its importance with regard to objectivity. It is incumbent upon this government to put more money into the universities, specifically for research and development.
I noted the interest of the Treasurer in closing down the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education -- I will rephrase that -- in moving OISE over to the University of Toronto, where it can be closed down.
Mr. Callahan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere indicated there was no indication that the four per cent was going to increase, and I have to refer him to the budget. It says, "In keeping with the government's promise to gradually increase school board support, the 1986 general legislative grants will be increased by 5.4 per cent."
Mr. Warner: Which page is that?
Mr. Callahan: Page 9.
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. Please continue.
Mr. Warner: It was a point of misinformation. What the honourable member raises, found on page 9, relates to school boards and not to universities.
Still addressing the question of education, there is something that has disturbed me for some time about how the government functions; I refer to adult education. Responsibilities for it are scattered across almost a dozen ministries, but there is not one individual who has the responsibility to pull adult education together; therefore, it just flounders. There is no coherent strategy. There is no one who is personally responsible. That has to be changed.
One reason it has to be changed is that, whether we wish to admit it or not, we have a literacy problem in Ontario. A sizeable portion of our population is illiterate. We like to hide it. It is like trying to hide poverty; we want to pretend it does not exist. Literacy is a problem in our province. Thousands of adults in Ontario are illiterate, and we do not have adequate answers for them in our educational system. That bothers me, but what bothers me more is that the government does not have an individual who is responsible for alleviating that problem. I understand the government is inheriting a system. The challenge is to show leadership. I hope it can turn that around.
I also want to tell the Treasurer there is a difference between job training and skills training. If we are simply content to do job training, we miss the boat. Our citizens should have the opportunity to acquire skills that give them a ticket through their lives. If they go to a college and acquire a skill, they should be able to apply it. If they wish to re-enter the labour force and acquire a different skill, they should have that opportunity. The federal programs are threatening in that respect.
9:10 p.m.
I started to mention the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. The Treasurer wants it amalgamated with the University of Toronto and I suggest, quite respectfully, that is a mistake. It is a unique institution. It is the only one in the province where the specific mandate is to do studies into education, and it should be left to function on its own. If it gets melded into the University of Toronto, it will lose its independence. That is my opinion on the matter.
Here is a little bouquet that is being thrown out. Apparently, the government has increased the grants to the arts community through the Ontario Arts Council. That is a welcome initiative. The funding level is up. I hope the government philosophy on this is that our culture is something which should be stable.
Mr. Callahan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I may be misinterpreting what the honourable member said, but I believe he indicated this government --
Mr. McClellan: That point of order is not permissible.
Mr. Callahan: I just want to clarify it.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Callahan: The member made a statement which I believe to be incorrect.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The member will sit down. When you address the chair you can correct your own mistakes, but you cannot correct other members' mistakes. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere will please continue.
Mr. Warner: Thank you. May I construe that I have not made any mistakes yet? I am not suggesting I am infallible. If I make a mistake, I will appreciate hearing from the member for Brampton --
The Acting Speaker: Please address the chair.
Mr. Warner: -- and I am fully prepared to correct any errors which may become apparent. I hope the government's policy with respect to the arts is that our cultural identity is not something to be tampered with in response to economic ups and downs. We struggle hard in this country to carve out our own Canadian cultural identity. That means there has to be some support from the government. I do not mean just the Ontario government. The municipal and federal governments must also support the arts community. It is extremely important. This government has taken a first step by increasing the amount of money to the arts community. I like that. I hope the philosophy will stay.
I want to speak for a moment about poverty. It is something many members of the House are very reluctant to speak about because in some cases they do not believe it exists.
Before I do, it would be appropriate to recognize the real contribution made by the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) on this issue. Over a number of years, that member has been the foremost spokesman in this House on the question of poverty. More than any other member, he has delved into the issue, made it real and made it apparent to us. It is there. We do not like to admit it, but there are people in our province who are homeless. There are people who do not have adequate food, clothing or shelter.
I want to relate one little story which says it all as far as I am concerned. There is a gentleman in my riding who is blind. Although he is blind, he takes an incredible interest in politics. He phones me every once in a while to have a little chat. He is not a member of any party. He has decided he likes a little bit of the Conservative, a little bit of the New Democrats and a little bit of the Liberal, but he phones me about issues that bother him.
He phoned me recently because his mother had read to him an article in the Toronto Star stating that there were 6,000 people in Metropolitan Toronto who were destitute. He said: "Mr. Warner, how is this possible? I understand famine in Africa, in Ethiopia, but I do not understand it in Toronto. We have a very rich country." I had to say, "I do not understand how that is possible." We do have a rich country. With all our riches, why do we have people starving or without proper shelter or proper clothing? We have failed somewhere.
His next question was, "How can you consider spending public money on a dome?" I said, "The answer is that we should not." How can we contrast the thousands of people in our city who are destitute with wanting to put public money into something frivolous? There is something wrong with our priorities. We have to examine our priorities very carefully.
This young blind man is right. What is interesting about his perspective is that because of his disability he is in a certain respect removed from the world as we know it. He has a very honest and fresh approach. His conscience is absolutely right. We have made a mistake.
I will stay on the priorities for a moment, because it brings me to a very interesting point. I have been active for some time with the legal aid clinics. I had the privilege of being the chairperson of the Scarborough Community Legal Services for some three years. For two years prior to that, I was on the steering committee that set it up.
As we deliberated our budget in front of the powerful people downtown who control the purse-strings, although this was under a different regime, we were asked at one stage if we knew that $10 million was spent on all the legal aid clinics across the province. We were told that was a huge sum of money. I sat there and waited until the august official had finished his remarks. Then I asked him very politely if this was the same sum of money required to build an executive jet.
The Tories were prepared to spend $10 million so Mr. Davis could get to his condominium in Florida a little more easily, but they were not prepared to expand the legal aid clinic system, which is of a very real nature to thousands of Ontarians. Priorities, that is what it is about.
I am going to put in a pitch here that in the next budget there should be a little more allocation for legal aid clinics. The Treasurer knows there are four major responsibilities for clinics: public education --
Hon. Mr. Nixon: What about the fee-for-service lawyers?
Mr. Warner: I am going to get to that. The Treasurer mentions fee-for-service lawyers, the private bar; I am going to get to that in a moment. It is a fascinating case. The Treasurer's views about the bar are well known on this side of the House.
Public education, individual case work, law reform and organizing are the four mandates of the legal aid clinics. If they do not live up to those mandates, they lose their money. It is as simple as that. Those mandates are extremely important to the clinics in the communities they serve.
9:20 p.m.
I do not understand where this comes from, but it is not a threat to the private bar. The people who come into legal aid clinics are people who cannot afford to go to the private bar. In Scarborough, we refer people who cannot be served because of their income guidelines from the legal aid clinic to the private bar. We have a reference list of lawyers and what type of law they specialize in, and we refer people to them. It is a nice co-operative level. What happened in Peterborough with respect to the Ontario Bar Association should not happen anywhere else.
Interjections.
Mr. Warner: I was told to go on at length. I wish to make a few more remarks and then I will conclude.
Mr. Haggerty: It is about time.
Mr. Warner: I note the disappointment in the chamber that I am concluding. I hope the Treasurer understands the issue of equal pay for work of equal value should not be seen as an individual issue; it is part and parcel of the struggle for equality. That legislation cannot be viewed as simply standing by itself. It is part and parcel with family law reform, with child care provisions, with equal opportunity for jobs and equal opportunity for advancement.
It is a package of reforms which will bring us fully into the 20th century where women will actually have equality for the first time in the history of the world. I look forward to that day. I hope the members of the House, the majority of whom are men, will appreciate that if women are liberated, so are men. Reflect on that. If we can provide equality so women are liberated, then we ourselves are liberated.
I have two items left. One is South Africa. I want to record my deep disappointment at the phoney ban the government put on the sale of South African wines and spirits on August 14. It obviously had very little intention of really doing anything, because a couple of days ago an additional 26,280 bottles arrived at a Liquor Licence Board of Ontario warehouse from South Africa. It is arguable whether or not it was ordered after the ban was in place. I suggest it was, because the Norwegian ship Thorscate left a South African port on or about September 15, one full month after the ban was announced.
Given that the turnaround, according to the LLBO office, is approximately 60 days, on an average it is six weeks, it appears logical that the order was placed after the ban. Even if it was placed before the ban, the government had a moral responsibility to cancel the order. It may respond that it had a contract. The moral responsibility in the struggle for freedom is a heck of a lot more important than a contract with a racist government. This government does not rate any marks on this. It missed the boat. There was one thing we could do, because almost everything is left up to the federal government, and we failed. I am saddened by that.
I wanted to mention to the Treasurer, in case he thinks my remarks about home care for seniors are just simply individual remarks, that based on approximately 600 replies from my riding to the question, "Should the government expand services such as home care, Meals on Wheels and day care to keep seniors living independently?" 82.7 per cent answered "Yes." That is a very strong indication of what people in Scarborough-Ellesmere, and I suspect throughout the province, feel about home care for seniors.
Asked whether extra billing by doctors should be banned, 72.7 per cent said "Yes" and 9.3 per cent were "not sure." "Should a voluntary retirement age of 60 with full pension be established?" "Yes" was 73.4 per cent. "Should all private companies be required to set up pension plans that follow the workers from job to job, i.e., total portability?" It was 79.7 per cent, almost 80 per cent, in favour. These were people who were responding to a lack of government programs, saying: "Here is what we want done. Do it." When asked, "Should companies have to publicly justify closing down a plant?" 65.3 per cent said "Yes."
I asked people to rank the following six items in order of importance to create jobs: housing construction, tax breaks for small business, tax breaks for big business, joint ventures between government and business, environmental protection projects and energy conservation projects. The number one item, far and away, that the public sees as a way to create employment is housing construction. The others were not even close. The second was tax breaks for small business. That is the public view and the government should take heed of that.
This budget does some good things, but it is not imaginative and does not address the major concern the people of Ontario have, and that is the creation of jobs. I will continue to support this government through our agreement, provided there continues to be concern about the issues I put forward and about the other ones that time, unfortunately, does not allow me to elaborate on.
9:30 p.m.
M. Poirier: À titre de nouveau libéral du nouveau gouvernement Peterson, je peux vous assurer, Monsieur le Président, que c'est un honneur d'être membre au moment où l'honorable trésorier a présenté le premier budget libéral depuis 43 ans.
It is with great pleasure that I rise in support of this fine budget put forward by the Treasurer, the first Peterson budget. I look at the overall balance of this budget and it makes quite a lot of sense considering the heritage we have from the previous administration and considering what we still have to do to correct the situation. I looked for proper management in the budget because one cannot correct that long a period of mismanagement with one budget. It is a great start for tomorrow.
This budget will also start to respect all the regions of Ontario, not just one region, with neglect for both the north and the east. I refer to the great riding of Prescott-Russell, sometimes perceived as the Maritimes of Ontario because it is somewhere east of Ottawa. That is how we have been treated in the past, and I think this budget will start to address the corrections that were badly needed.
I appreciated the work the Treasurer and his team put in to address the accounting of the budget, all the cleaning up that had to be done. As the honourable member preceding me mentioned many hours ago, the language is clear so that all Ontarians can understand what that budget means and can relate to it, rather than its being a budget that goes above and beyond everybody's comprehension. One does not need to have a chartered accountant's degree to understand the budget my government put forward.
Je suis bien content que le trésorier de mon gouvernement ait finalement pris l'initiative de faire le grand ménage qui s'imposait avant l'hiver, d'enlever les toiles d'araignée dans le budget, de se débarrasser de Suncor, cet embarras qui était pour ce gouvernement provincial.
Je regarde aussi les programmes que ce gouvernement offre pour l'emploi et la formation de la jeunesse. J'ai déjà été agent de développement communautaire dans Prescott-Russell. J'ai souvent vu des organismes communautaires, des organismes à but non lucratif, des petites et des moyennes entreprises qui étaient désireuses d'embaucher des jeunes pour des programmes d'emploi. J'étais souvent découragé par la complexité de tous les beaux programmes gouvernementaux qu'on nous lançait par la tête, des miettes à gauche, des miettes à droite, des programmes de maquillage que, lorsqu'on levait la couverture, on y voyait très peu de choses. Cela décourageait tellement ces gens-là que souvent je les ai vus de mes propres yeux refuser de jouer avec des programmes trop complexes.
Thank goodness this government consolidated all this maze of different programs that it had for youth into one: $175 million for this fiscal year. People who are interested in the education of youth and jobs for youth can better understand one major program than a series of makeup programs that, once one scratches the surface, do not reveal much underneath. I have seen them; I was there. A lot of small companies refused to play with these programs, because one almost needed to be a magician to understand which program was for what. It seemed more to confuse people than to help them.
La circonscription de Prescott-Russell est en grande partie une circonscription agricole. Évidemment, de plus en plus, la circonscription, avec le grand secteur d'Orléans et du canton de Cumberland, prend une part de plus en plus large. Mais pour le moment, il y a encore une bonne proportion de la circonsciption qui vit d'agriculture.
Il n'y a pas de solution magique à la situation de l'agriculture en Ontario en ce moment-ci. Mais je peux dire que le gouvernement précédent n'a pas vraiment aidé, et si on a une situation agricole comme on la connaît aujourd'hui, ce n'est pas la chose que j'aurais voulue, étant moi-même fils de producteur agricole depuis quatre générations dans Prescott-Russell.
J'ai eu l'avis d'un grand nombre de producteurs agricoles et de gens intéressés de près ou de loin au secteur agricole. Et tous et toutes, sans exception, ont fortement louangé le programme d'aide à la réduction du taux d'intérêt pour les exploitations agricoles familiales - - pas l'industrie agricole, mais les fermes familiales.
C'est un excellent début. Évidemment, ce n'est pas au cours de l'année fiscale actuelle que l'on peut remédier à tous les problèmes, les maux en agriculture. Le problème est beaucoup trop profond pour être résolu durant une année fiscale. Mais quand même, ça m'a fait chaud au coeur de voir tous ces producteurs et ces productrices agricoles être fiers de voir que le gouvernement libéral n'a pas lambiné, n'a pas attendu à la semaine des quatre jeudis avant d'avoir un programme agricole qui a su répondre aux besoins de l'heure.
I also appreciate the participation of the Ontario government in the tripartite stabilization program for red meat producers. At last that is getting off the ground. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell), the members of the agricultural caucus and all the members of this government are solidly behind this proposal to correct the situation at a national level.
Furthermore, the $6 million to help farmers who would like to get out of agriculture and into another line of work addresses particular needs that were brought to my attention about a month ago in my own riding.
En ce qui a trait au logement, je sais très bien qu'à l'échelle de toute l'Ontario, les logements pour l'Ontarien moyen et l'Ontarienne moyenne c'est un problème très particulier. J'étais vraiment fier de voir que mon trésorier et mon gouvernement se sont adressés à créer plus de 10,000 logements nouveaux dans les trois prochaines années avec l'aide de subsides. Cela ne sert pas au luxe, mais c'est une necessité de base. J'étais fier de voir aussi comme mon gouvernement est prêt avec des prêts aux promoteurs pour des intérêts subventionnés pour stimuler la construction de 5,000 nouveaux logements locatifs. L'heure ne va sûrement pas être au luxe. Quand j'ai fait mon porte à porte à l'échelle de la circonscription, j'ai compris qu'on avait été oublié, qu'on avait été négligé.
All of us during the past provincial election, and some of us during the past general election and by-election in December, went door to door canvassing and trying to solicit the help of Ontarians in those campaigns. We have seen the state of housing in Ontario. I am very proud that this government in its initial budget, considering the restraint and the fiscal responsibility it has to show, has addressed this matter in a very significant way.
9:40 p.m.
Je considère également la situation dans les garderies. On entend souvent parler, à l'échelle de l'Ontario, que le problème des garderies, quand on nous en donne un exemple, c'est souvent un exemple urbain. Mais par contre j'ai mentionné tantôt que la circonscription de Prescott-Russell, surtout en ce qui a trait à sa superficie, est fortement majoritaire dans un sens rural et agricole.
Je veux bien souligner que cela n'enlève rien au besoin de garderies dans les sections urbaines et péri-urbaines de toute circonscription, dont Prescott-Russell. Je considère qu'avec la situation économique aujourd'hui c'est une nécessité dans bien des cas, dans bien des ménages, que les deux parents soient obligés d'aller travailler à l'extérieur du foyer, ou même un. Et nous parlerons également des familles monoparentales. Les besoins économiques exigent un système de garderies à la hauteur des attentes et des besoins des Ontariens et des Ontariennes.
Et je vous dis encore une fois, Monsieur le Président, la fierté que j'ai d'être membre d'un gouvernement qui dès son premier budget n'a pas eu peur de créer 10,000 places additionnelles pour des enfants, avec la priorité dans les régions rurales et pour les enfants avec des besoins spéciaux. J'en suis vraiment fier.
Même chose pour les personnes âgées. Comme mon gouvernement a mis $11 millions additionnels pour accroître les services d'aide aux personnes âgées à un moment où la population moyenne de l'Ontario vieillit de plus en plus, là également c'est une raison d'être fier.
When I look at what this government wants to do for northern and eastern Ontario, I say, "Thank goodness." Finally, these parts of Ontario are going to get their fair share of the taxation money that each and every Ontarian brings forward to Queen's Park.
I worked before as a community development officer to help create better conditions for regional economic development in Prescott-Russell. I helped to create the Prescott-Russell economic development council and the Prescott-Russell tourism association. I was one of the people who started getting input for the creation of the Alfred College of Agriculture and Food Technology.
I know how important it is to develop regional economy. When I see what this government wants to do, what it can do and what it will do fiscally for small and middle-sized industry, I am proud to be part of such a government.
When I worked as an economic and community development officer, I realized it was not a top priority for the previous government to support the quality and quantity of education in Ontario. I saw the degradation of the entire education dossier across Ontario. That is not only my personal opinion; I have had many people mention this to me who feel this way and who have felt this way in the past.
How could Ontario have allowed the education system that was once the envy of the world to deteriorate this way? I am proud to see that this government is reversing this trend and will add substantial amounts so that our colleges and universities, our grade and high schools will get enough money as a start to better the situation so that the Ontario education system can again be the envy of the world, which it should be.
Je regarde également à l'engagement de mon gouvernement envers le financement des écoles catholiques pour redresser cette injustice, cette inégalité, vieille de quelque 140 ans en Ontario. Je suis vraiment fier d'être membre de ce gouvernement. Je suis vraiment fier de mon trésorier, d'avoir mis les montants nécessaires pour bien démarrer ce programme d'appui, le parachèvement des écoles secondaires catholiques, d'avoir aussi rétabli les avances consenties aux conseils scolaires à l'ancien niveau de sept pour cent, voilà quelque chose qui est très sérieux.
I also look at the rate of illiteracy in a lot of regions of Ontario, in spite of the billions of dollars that have been put into education. Some studies have mentioned a 38 per cent illiteracy rate for Prescott-Russell. To me that has never been satisfactory. I do not think any government should allow this to happen in the 1980s in Ontario. It is a shame that any government would have allowed that to happen.
I am very proud that this government is going to put added emphasis on programs to correct such a situation in Ontario. The announcement by the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) of a close-to-$77,000 program to develop further the library literacy pilot projects is a good indication this government is moving in the right direction.
En ce qui a trait aux hôpitaux, ma mère a fait une carrière de 37 ans à l'hôpital général d'Ottawa et à travers elle, ses amis et mes amis qui ont travaillé dans les soins hospitaliers, je peux vous dire quelle honte cela a été dans le passé, de voir des anciens trésoriers prêts à faire des coupures dans le nombre de lits disponibles à la population générale de l'Ontario afin de réduire le budget au nom du saint dollar.
I do not think one can balance, as has been done in the past, the accessibility of hospital beds when needs arise, especially when life is concerned, against a principle to reduce the budget of Ontario and save a couple of dollars here and there on people's lives. One cannot do that. My government has started to correct this situation, and I am very proud of that. There is 8.3 per cent more for hospitals. I am glad to see this come along.
Mr. Callahan: That is for Brampton, is it not?
Mr. D. R. Cooke: Kitchener.
Mr. Poirier: It is for all across Ontario because the needs are all across Ontario. One does not play around with people's lives.
I do not think Ontarians today, tomorrow or at any point in their history should have tolerated a situation such as the previous government allowed to happen. The Liberal Party would receive letters from people describing situations where their loved ones in the past could not have easy and rapid access to hospital beds because they had been closed down by previous Treasurers.
L'assistance sociale, maintenant. L'Est de l'Ontario, comme le Nord puis comme d'autres régions de l'Ontario, à cause de politiques gouvernementales antérieures, c'est devenu un refuge pour l'assistance sociale parce que le gouvernement précédent n'a pas voulu développer les régions éloignées du centre de l'Ontario, pour que ces régions puissent se prendre en main et que les gens qui y demeuraient, que ce soit dans le Nord ou dans l'Est, puissent trouver chez eux les occasions d'emploi qu'ils méritaient.
I have never been pleased that the previous administration had taken for granted eastern and northern Ontario economic development, thus creating havens for social assistance because there was no way out of it. I was not proud of that policy. I think this current budget is a great start to help correct an incredible injustice where the people of northern and eastern Ontario have had to rely on social welfare because the previous administration did not care about economic development in those regions.
9:50 p.m.
Je regarde à l'impôt; il y a un mot-clé qui me vient à l'esprit, toute forme d'impôt doit être juste envers tout le monde d'une façon globale sachant très bien qu'on ne pourra jamais plaire à tout le monde, à tout moment. Mais par contre, l'impôt sur le revenu permet à ceux qui travaillent et qui ont des gains imposables de payer leur juste part de leur impôt sur le revenu pour aider à la caisse centrale de l'Ontario.
Je crois qu'en 1985 c'est évident que les Ontariens et les Ontariennes ont cette maturité, une responsabilité financière et fiscale et par leur choix lors du 2 mai ils ont démontré qu'ils voulaient élire un gouvernement qui avait ce sens de la responsabilité fiscale. Je crois que le gouvernement actuel a justement cette responsabilité fiscale qu'il faut en Ontario. La taxe de vente enlevée sur les repas préparés à un dollar et moins, voilà encore un excellent début dans la bonne direction et je félicite le trésorier d'avoir pris cette initiative.
Je regarde également aussi en conclusion qu'un budget de ce genre-là doit être regardé d'une façon globale. Il faut peser honnêtement et justement dans la même balance tous les points d'un budget, globalement. Et je peux vous dire en toute sincérité que je suis extrêmement fier d'être membre du nouveau gouvernement libéral.
In all fairness, the people of Ontario will see when they weigh on the same weigh scales all the points of this budget, whether methods of expenditures or receipts, that globally this budget is fair for all of Ontario. Being a member at the time of this very first budget, I am extremely proud of the work done by my government and I salute the work my Treasurer has done in preparing this budget. I am very proud to go across my riding, and all of Ontario if need be, to face the people and say: "I am proud of this budget. I think it is finally working in the proper direction. This government, globally and in the long term, will address a lot more of the needs of Ontariens than the previous administration did."
Mr. Dean: It is also a pleasure for me to take part in this budget debate. I trust I will not be quite as lengthy in my remarks as some of the other members have been this evening, partly because I do not see quite so much either to praise or to condemn in the budget as the previous two members have, and I am not noted for being long-winded anyway.
[Applause]
Mr. Dean: Thank you. In case the members do not applaud me later, I appreciate that. I will take it while it is there.
It is not my temperament to be negative about things; so I will start off by being positive about a few of the things that one could be positive about in the budget. I know the Treasurer has toiled in the fields of the Legislature for many years without having a chance to bring forth something like this. I want to say that for a first attempt it is not bad.
In a positive sense, the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program is needed in agriculture and it does carry on, in a slightly different emphasis, some of the programs our government had over the last few years. The decision, which seems to be confirmed by the Treasurer, to set aside something for the tripartite stabilization program is a welcome continuance of the commitment that was made by the former government through its Ministers of Agriculture and Food, that if the federal government continued to drag its feet on being one of the three parties of the tripartite, then we as a province were prepared to go on a bipartite basis. I congratulate the Treasurer for carrying on that good determination, because I believe from my contacts with the farming community that it is greatly needed.
I also commend the Treasurer for making a start on the absolutely necessary development of seniors' independence with more home care, which was a concern we had in government. I am pleased to see that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Van Horne), who is in charge of this particular aspect, recognizes the importance of that too. It is a comment I made when I spoke on the speech from the throne.
I believe it is a very important focus for our government over the next decade, whatever stripe it happens to be, to find a way to include more home care so that our seniors can be increasingly independent. I was accused during the throne speech debate of having a conflict of interest here because some people would like to see me in that category.
Hon. Mr. Van Horne: We are all going to be there some day.
Mr. Dean: I hope I do not age so quickly that this government or the next one of bluer hue does not have a chance to put this sort of program into more operative formation.
The development commitment in northern Ontario is a continued commitment of the general nature our government had, which was to pay particular attention to northern Ontario. I welcome that for whatever value it has.
Mr. Wildman: That is a back-handed compliment.
Mr. Dean: I am referring to the attempt they are making for whatever value, not the principle, but if the member prefers it that way, fine.
The attempt by the Treasurer to make transfer payments to municipal and other bodies more predictable is a worthwhile one. I will not list them. They have been mentioned before.
The commitment to separate school funding to the tune of $34 million in this fiscal year and $107 million in the next is important for the principle all parties have agreed to. I am glad it is put out there in public so people know exactly what the cost of the move is.
The increase in operating costs to hospitals is also a positive aspect of the budget. I do not see a lot said about capital to hospitals in the budget, but I trust the Treasurer has provided the ministry with enough funding so that the commitments in that regard will continue.
To be parochial for a moment, I want to be sure the Treasurer knows -- perhaps he would stop gossiping with his neighbours -- that there is a particular health care centre in the riding of Hamilton East that will serve Wentworth and that needs attention during the next year, St. Joseph's Ambulatory Care Centre. Will the Treasurer please take note of that? Perhaps he will read Hansard.
I also welcome the repetition of some of the features of our government's excellent youth employment programs. There is a question as to whether there really is any increase, but if the Treasurer has at least maintained them that is excellent, because they are certainly needed.
There may be a few more positive things, but I did not have my magnifying glass when I was looking through the budget, so I am going to leave it there. I will be equally short about it and will probably miss some of the negative things in it.
One negative thing I see that is really sort of a mote rather than a gleam in somebody's eye is the land transfer tax increase. On a $100,000 house purchase there is an increase of $105; on a $150,000 house it is an increase of $205. Some people, I think even those who take the stance that they are not capitalistic by nature, will say, "What is an increase of $105 on a $100,000 house price?" It looks as though it is small, but when people are buying a house any amount of money that is extra and apparently nonproductive is a deterrent. I do not think we need deterrents in the housing industry.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have heard of people mixing it up with the legal fees.
Mr. Dean: I hope the lawyers have not mixed it up.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: They will call it disbursements.
Mr. Dean: I am surprised to hear the Treasurer suggest, even in jest, that perhaps nobody will notice it. That is beneath the Treasurer. He really wants them to notice everything there is so they realize they are paying for whatever it is they are paying for.
I note in passing that residences on farm properties which are bona fide farms are exempt, and that is a good thing. Rental buildings are exempt; maybe there is logic to that. I also note the yield of this increased tax will amount to an estimated $30 million in a full year. I suppose one has to find money wherever it is when one is trying to live up to unknown amounts of commitments in a quasi-legal accord.
10 p.m.
I would like to suggest to the Treasurer that this may be a further small straw on the camel's back that sometimes discourages home buyers. Perhaps he could consider an exemption for homes of $100,000 or less if he wants to make it truly progressive. That is just a suggestion so we do not discourage those with limited means.
Mr. Gillies: If the Treasurer wants to know how to make this budget truly progressive, he should be making notes.
Mr. Dean: Yes, I note the Treasurer has been referred to by some pundits as a truly progressive conservative, so I think this would be a truly progressive step for him. It would be a privilege for him to belong to the Progressive Conservative Party, would it not?
The second item on which I wish to comment briefly is the matter of fuel tax. The changes in the regulations, I am sorry to say, look like cynical window dressing. I regret having to use that kind of phraseology in reference to the Treasurer, because whatever other good qualities he has I do not think cynicism is one of them. However, at a time when it seems the prices of gasoline and other fuels are likely to go down, to remove an ad valorem tax which fluctuates with those prices, and at the same time to add insult to injury by slapping a 10 per cent increase on the tax, is an attempt to --
Mr. Wildman: You are not defending the ad valorem, are you?
Mr. Dean: Certainly. When the price is going to go down, is the member not also in favour?
Mr. Wildman: That is when you froze it, when the price was going to go down, because your revenue was less.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Brandt: At least we did not increase it; there is a difference.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to see anybody vote against the removal of ad valorem.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Wentworth has the floor.
Mr. Dean: There is a certain amount of doubletalk going on by people who say ad valorem is bad in principle. Nobody is arguing about the principle of the sales tax, and if it is not ad valorem it is not anything.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is not progressive.
Mr. Dean: Nevertheless, it is ad valorem. I think those who are hooting so much about ad valorem should take another look at what it means before they display that they are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
The Treasurer would do well not to think the increase in the tax on fuel may become confused with something else, such as the land transfer tax that could become confused with legal fees. I do not think he should operate that way, if I may state an opinion.
Mr. Gillies: What about the $1 meals?
Mr. Dean: The $1 meals I am leaving to those who like the hole in the doughnut, because that is what is being suggested: all one gets is the hole in the doughnut.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: The cost of that concession is $36 million. Do not say it is negligible.
Mr. Dean: Returning to my real subject, which is not the hole in the doughnut, I would like to mention that the yield of the increased fuel tax, which I hope the Treasurer may decide to abandon, is estimated at $79 million in a full taxation year. From what I can glean from the budget papers, the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, which should benefit from taxes on gasoline if any area does, have not been increased by $79 million but have been reduced by $34 million from last year's figures. Therefore, no one can anticipate the extra yield from this bad change in the tax is going to benefit anybody.
The next item I would like to comment on briefly concerns a specific retraining program. I know there are many facets to some of the retraining and skills development projects that are supposed to be funded as a continuation of some of our good programs; however, something seems to have gone haywire about one particular one.
At Stelco in Hamilton, Local 1005 of the United Steelworkers of America has operated a workers' retraining program for some time. Starting about 1981, it has run a very successful series of courses for people who have been displaced by technological change or by change in the marketplace. In the past they have had considerable dollars from the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario and from the federal government.
Now they have started a new series of courses, still for these same kinds of people who are being displaced by technological change, and they have been assisted considerably by Mohawk College of Applied Arts and Technology through its retraining programs and by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission of the federal Progressive Conservative government. However, in spite of having asked and asked for assistance from this government, so far the result, again, is the hole in the doughnut; it is zero.
This union is not just talking about retraining older workers, as I have heard from the other side a few times already this session; it is doing something about it and it has been doing something about it.
Mr. Gillies: There is nothing in the budget about retraining.
Mr. Dean: Nothing in the budget. The critic for the Ministry of Skills Development reminds me that maybe the union is going to have to go whistle for this; I hope not.
This is an extremely worthwhile program. It deserves our full support and the full support of the government through the budget. Why is the government not doing something? Is it waiting for providence to intervene?
Mr. Gillies: They are waiting for us to come back.
Mr. Dean: Waiting for us to come back. I am sure we will be very pleased to do that when we get back, but I do not think Local 1005 can wait for a month or two. They need this money now.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Who is the member's candidate?
Mr. Dean: Who is my candidate? I am my candidate.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Wentworth has the floor.
Mr. Dean: I do not think it is appropriate to discuss partisan things in this chamber when we are talking about a serious budget.
The next item I would like to discuss briefly is the GO Transit extension. As most people know, there has been a great deal of co-operation among the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, the Urban Transportation Development Corp. and GO Transit during the last many years to provide a good commuter service along the lakeshore route from Hamilton to Oshawa, with Toronto as its focus.
At least 40,000 trips are made twice a day on this line, and since I am more familiar with the west end of it, I will confine the rest of my remarks to the section between Hamilton and Toronto. This is really a very good operation that the previous government started and continued to fund, and I know the present government intends to keep it going. For one thing, it relieves a lot of congestion on the highways. A lot of expenditure would have to be made if we were going to try to get everybody in here by automobile.
Long studies have been made on the technology and the route for continuing more rail service as far west as Hamilton.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: What about Brantford?
Mr. Dean: Brantford will be fine. Once we get it to Hamilton, that will be the natural extension. It will just slide down the escarpment. There are problems in the Burlington-Hamilton section of it because of the topography, which, as most members know, goes around the end of Hamilton harbour and up and down the many ravines. In fact, we may need a new right of way. Those things can probably be salvaged, but during much of the recent discussions there have been problems with Canadian National about the rail route and the improvements.
According to GO Transit, until the very recent past, CN was anything but co-operative. It said: "Okay, GO Transit. If you wish to have your trains on this track, we will gladly accept your millions in improving the track, the roadbed and other things; but do not forget that when you are through spending it, it belongs to us." In short, they were not being co-operative at all.
10:10 p.m.
During the tenure of the former, arrogant, federal Liberal government, nothing was done with CN to help that attitude. Strangely enough, shortly after September 4, 1984, a new wind seemed to blow through the mind of CN. What happened, anyway? A new government came in on September 4, 1984, and when it became aware of the problem CN was creating with respect to negotiations with GO Transit, the word went out to get down to business and have some real negotiation. At that point, the continuation of heavy rail service, which we already had with GO Transit, became a realistic alternative.
The immediate result of that on the provincial government was quite noticeable. The then Premier, the member for Muskoka committed the government to the extension of GO and said we would review the way in which the system would be implemented.
The then Minister of Transportation and Communications, the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague), agreed and specified that Ontario would review the system and discuss the best way to provide a service to meet the requirements with Hamilton and Hamilton-Wentworth.
The then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), guaranteed that the province would listen if the local governments in the area wanted regular GO service instead of a more up-to-date system.
The cost of the regular system is shown to be about $300 million less than the cost of light rail transit. It would be completed more quickly. About six months ago, our ministry said it could be finished by 1988 or 1989 in the Hamilton-Oshawa corridor. It all sounded like encouraging and steady progress, but that was before June 26. Now the whole program is in limbo. No action has taken place since June 26 on this program. What is happening to it?
Some members will recall that the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), representing the east end, and I, representing the west end, asked this question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) a couple of weeks ago. The only answer we got was that he was waiting for an answer from CN in Ottawa. I hope this is an active period of waiting, sort of a "Call them up and speed them up" kind of waiting, and not just ho-hum waiting while twiddling one's fingers, because we have already lost a year in the construction and planning period. I cannot see that there is anything committed to this in the budget; so I fear we will lose more than that.
Every year that goes past without these additions being constructed and put in use means further problems on the highway system. I hope the government will not dither about it. Will the Treasurer tell me that he has it safely lodged in one corner of these figures where I cannot uncover it? People of the GO Transit route will bless him all the days of their lives.
A last brief comment I want to make is on an aspect that has to do with agriculture. I note, not in the main budget book we have but in the little handbook, there is a $6-million fund earmarked. It is cute wording, but it is a "$6-million transition fund for tobacco growers and other farmers leaving the agriculture industry." Is that not sweet? It is sort of a going-away present or something of that sort. I checked to see what "leaving the industry" means
Interjection.
Mr. Dean: It was hard to find out. The best information I could find was that this is some kind of subsidy to help me if I am really a bankrupt farmer or tobacco grower and I need to do something to get away from this farm and do something else. It is to buy groceries or something while I am taking retraining to get off the farm.
Mr. Gillies: What else can you grow in that soil?
Mr. Dean: That is a good question. A better place to spend the $6 million would be to study further what can grow, to provide incentives for the people who are now growing tobacco to put the land into more productive and more appropriately acceptable crops. For example, peanuts have been tried.
Mr. Gillies: That is what the Liberals gave them -- peanuts.
Mr. Dean: We need a few more peanuts or maybe more nutrient is needed. Maybe the Treasurer could provide some of that good fertilizer from his farmyard. Maybe a miracle would do.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: It can grow hair.
Mr. Dean: Okay, the Treasurer is on. If it will do that, he can get me a little bit of that.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will send the member a poultice.
Mr. Dean: I hope I put it on the right place. I am sure that with proper treatment, if nothing else, that land would grow trees very well. I am sure there were trees on it years ago. To say we are providing something to farmers to get them out of farming has a very backward ring to it.
Mr. Gillies: They will not buy it at Earl's Shell Service Station.
Mr. Dean: No, I do not think they will.
The sort of thing I have in mind, although I recognize circumstances are different, is something that our government had a few years ago when some peach growers discovered that the kind of peaches they grew were no longer in demand by the canning industry. They needed the so-called clingstone peaches. Our ministry and government responded with an incentive to aid farmers to plant clingstone peach trees.
Mr. Brandt: A fantastic program.
Mr. Dean: Yes, it has worked out well. If one buys a can of peaches now, one will find they are clingstone peaches. I defy anyone to find a freestone peach among them. In any case, it was very successful. I have even heard the opposition say, "Boy, that program was the pits."
Those same kinds of innovative ideas could assist other farmers rather than just saying: "Goodbye, boys. We are going to send you off the farm and back to the ghettos in the towns. You are a failure, and we do not have any innovative ideas for helping you."
The Treasurer should not take that personally. I do not think he needs this kind of assistance.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have not failed since the member was marking my physics labs.
Mr. Dean: Would I had marked them harder, to show him what the real world is like.
The same kind of program suggested in there could be turned around to assist some of the grape growers of Ontario who need assistance. I note in passing that our colleague the member for Brock (Mr. Partington) has a private member's resolution that could, if adopted by this Legislature, assist those grape growers without having to call on a $6-million farewell gift fund.
I could list many other farm needs, but many of them were covered earlier by my colleagues the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) and the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard).
I have a last plea to the Treasurer regarding agriculture: If he really wants to help farmers, he should not wait until they are bankrupt.
In conclusion, although the budget is flawed, it could be redeemed by the sensitive intervention of the Treasurer. Trained and experienced in common sense, as I believe he has been up to the present at least, he knows my proposals would enhance the quality of his first budget.
10:20 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I cannot pass up this opportunity to congratulate our Treasurer; he is the opposition's as well as ours, but he belongs to us.
Mr. Brandt: You can have him. The member speaks for himself.
Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Okay, very good. I would like to congratulate our Treasurer on his first budget. I might be accused of not knowing better because it is the first budget I have experienced and I have not heard anything else, but I can guarantee the Treasurer that I was very impressed. I spent the weekend in the Ottawa area, and the municipalities in the Ottawa-Carleton area are very satisfied with the municipal transfers.
This year, municipalities throughout the province will be enjoying a 4.2 per cent increase in transfer payments and a four per cent increase for the following year. This is a first in the province. Municipalities have complained in the past to a number of Treasurers about being handcuffed on municipal transfers. They did not know how to budget for services, especially social services. Municipalities would find out, possibly in April or May, what their transfers would be and they would have already completed their budgets. This innovation thought up by the Treasurer is a great step in the right direction.
Especially because 74 per cent of the voters in Ottawa East and the Ottawa area are tenants, I was pleased to hear in the budget that 10,000 additional units will be constructed in the near future. This is another move in the right direction.
The Treasurer can be accused of increasing taxes, but considering the total budget, these tax increases were worth it. We are planning for the future, and we did have to correct some anomalies we inherited. We are on the right way to recovery. The Treasurer or the Premier (Mr. Peterson) can be accused of not keeping the promises, but we have not only reasonable but good reasons for this. We are planning for a better future in this province. The Treasurer has the right idea. Any budget can be criticized, but we have to look at both sides of the coin.
I was very pleased to see that our hospitals will be enjoying an 8.3 per cent transfer. Most hospitals in Ontario have been waiting for this for a number of years. At last, our promise that we would help hospitals in this province has come through. Also, our senior citizens will be receiving an additional $11 million per year to take care of their needs.
Alors, Monsieur le Président, je crois qu'il est très évident que le budget présenté par le trésorier, tant attendu, 42 années, tout près de 43 ans, démontre la sincérité du gouvernement et la sincérité et la profondeur avec lesquelles le trésorier voit le progrès de la province de l'Ontario. Je crois qu'il est très évident que plusieurs d'entre nous, plusieurs municipalités surtout, seront ravis des projets présentés par le trésorier tels que les paiements, les transferts faits aux municipalités. Je crois que les commissions scolaires doivent se réjouir à travers notre province et qu'elles vont maintenant jouir d'une augmentation de 5.4 pour cent. Je crois qu'il est très évident que nous voulons que notre système d'éducation dans la province de l'Ontario soit le meilleur.
I must congratulate the Treasurer and the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway). They have done a great job in the preparation of the transfers to school boards, to the tune of 5.4 per cent. This will prove to the opposition that we are sincere when we say we need to improve our education system. This is only the beginning. We are all committed to separate school funding, and additional dollars will be needed in the future, but this is a start. This afternoon an additional $25 million for programs was introduced by the Minister of Education. I think we are on the way to producing an even better education system.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: So much to do.
Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: "So much to do" is right. Do not forget we have been here only a short while, but we have done great things.
Mr. Brandt: That is a personal opinion.
Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Yes, it is. I might be accused of having a conflict of interest, but I was quite pleased to hear the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) announcing an additional $9 million for completion of the Queensway. This long-awaited project, the Queensway, has been under construction for the past 27 years, lacking moneys from the provincial government. I think our commitment of $9 million to speed up the construction is great.
Mr. Brandt: How much has been spent on it so far?
Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I invite members to visit Ottawa; they will never recognize it. I can assure members that people in Ottawa-Carleton will be very grateful. I invite everybody to take advantage of this great Queensway.
Generally speaking, I think this first budget was a very responsible budget which demonstrated great fiscal responsibility. I am sure our second one, our third one, our fourth one and our fifth one will be even greater. That is a long time. The member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) will be retired. We do not have a hidden agenda, but we have great things in store, not only for the opposition but also for the people of Ontario.
Mr. Brandt: The hour is late, and I know the tremendous level of anticipation with which this House is awaiting what I have to say, the remarks I want to share with the Treasurer and the good advice I want to give him.
I can recall many occasions when we were serving on the other side of the House, looking after the needs of the people of Ontario. When the present Treasurer was on this side of the House, I can recall his making a number of constructive remarks with respect to the budgetary process. In the fullness of time, I want to share some of those remarks.
However, I note that we are very close to 10:30. With the consent of the House, I would move that we adjourn the debate.
On motion by Mr. Brandt, the debate was adjourned.
The House adjourned at 10:29 p.m.