Hansard Transcript 1985-Nov-01 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: This is pursuant to standing order 27. Last Friday I asked the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) a question about the Toronto Apartment Buildings Co. Ltd. I asked for a report on whether he had been advised of allegations of an attempted extortion, whether he would initiate a police investigation and whether he would also report on the role of the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht), his cabinet colleague.

I am rising on this point of order to ask you to determine whether, pursuant to standing order 27(i), the minister is declining to answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The point of order raised reveals that the honourable member and I had a different view of the meaning of the question. The question was relatively long, and he obviously thinks he asked me about the substance. I understood him to be asking me whether I had heard a radio program in which certain things had been said. I indicated in response that I had not heard the program but would do so before making a response.

When the appropriate time comes, if the honourable member wants to ask the question that he now puts, I would be delighted to respond to it. I ask you not to deal with the question posed under standing order 27(i), Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That is a very interesting point. I am sure now that you have had your discussion, it is all settled.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1986, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, dated November 1, 1985, and signed by His Honour Lincoln Alexander.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I am sure all honourable members will be interested to know that next week is Crime Prevention Week in Ontario and will be marked by a number of special activities across the province.

It was only last year that the Ministry of the Solicitor General took the initiative and established Crime Prevention Week as a testimonial to police forces across Ontario and members of the public who have a common cause, that of making our province a safer place for all of us. The results of this initiative have been most heartening. An impressive dialogue has developed between the police and civilians who are dedicated to reducing the rate of crime in their communities.

Neighbourhood Watch programs are burgeoning everywhere across Ontario. More and more citizens' organizations devoted to portraying drinking and driving as the criminal act that it is, are springing up and thriving. Real estate agents and Ontario Hydro field workers are organizing to alert police about suspicious situations they encounter during their working days. Senior citizens are being taught how to avoid falling victim to criminals, and youngsters are learning how to steer clear of situations that could result in child abuse.

A great collective and co-operative effort is being made in the field of crime prevention. Next week I will be visiting 11 communities across the province to acknowledge the contributions of both the police and the public in this cause. More than 200 people and organizations will receive the Solicitor General's crime prevention awards, a gesture by this government that recognizes leadership and achievement in the field of crime prevention.

The awards will be presented at seminars on crime prevention in Kenora, London, North Bay, Peterborough, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, Windsor, Cornwall, Kingston, Brampton and Burlington. I believe that members of this House have already been invited to attend the seminars in their respective areas.

The success of this program is due in no small part to the work of the Solicitor General's Advisory Committee on Crime Prevention, whose chairman is my Deputy Solicitor General, John Takach, and which includes members from the private sector as well as representatives of the police community.

Our theme for Crime Prevention Week this year is "Get Involved -- It's a Way of Life." I am certain all members will join me in encouraging all citizens of Ontario to participate.

ONTARIO FILM DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I am pleased to inform the House of a major initiative to enhance the cultural and economic vitality of our province. The government is establishing the Ontario Film Development Corp. to consolidate existing programs and spearhead innovative support for this key sector.

The new corporation will be an agency of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture and will be headed by an independent board of directors drawn largely from the film industry. I am delighted to announce that Wayne Clarkson, for the past eight years director of the internationally acclaimed Festival of Festivals, will serve as the corporation's board chairman and chief executive officer.

Mr. Clarkson brings to this position exceptional commitment and understanding of the needs of our film and video producers. He is well known for both his artistic judgement and his management expertise. Under his guidance, the Festival of Festivals has tripled its audience and has become one of the most notable festivals in the world. The annual event has reflected a serious commitment to Canadian film, which culminated in the 1984 Retrospective of Canadian Film and the establishment of a permanent festival program devoted to the Canadian industry.

10:10 a.m.

The government will allocate $20 million over three years to the work of the new corporation. In the current fiscal climate, this allocation testifies to our confidence in the cultural and economic future of our dynamic film industry.

The Ontario Film Development Corp. will bring under one roof the film and video office now operating within the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and the various film-related activities of my ministry. It will build upon the current program base to respond forcefully and effectively to the challenges facing independent Ontario film producers.

As I indicated to the House during the budget debate, culture is at the leading edge of our developing service and information economy. In Ontario, culture and the arts generate revenues of $3.5 billion a year and employ more than 172,000 people.

The film industry is a key component of the commercial cultural sector. The industry's future is especially crucial to Ontario, which is the home of nearly half the 300 private film and video production companies in Canada. Recent statistics indicate that Ontario film makers generated revenues totalling some $77 million and employed an estimated 10,000 producers, performers, writers, musicians, editors and technicians.

Emerging new film and video technologies are expanding and diversifying markets and creating tremendous growth opportunities. But opportunity also stimulates competition. Canada borders the world's largest and most successful distributors of mass market entertainment. Largely because of the United States presence, Canadian films represent only 8.8 per cent of the total film market in this country.

As well, Ontario's position has slipped. While other jurisdictions, for instance Alberta and Quebec, have moved ahead with aggressive government support, we have stood still. It is a fact that while Ontario is still the centre of the Canadian film and video industry, our leadership has been eroded. Our share of Canadian production dropped from 60 per cent in 1979 to 35 per cent in 1982. This is estimated to have cost our province 5,000 jobs.

The mandate of the Ontario Film Development Corp. will be to deliver the support film makers need to flourish and thrive. We have the creative talent and the technical expertise to compete successfully in the international marketplace. What we need now is stronger financing and stronger marketing.

The new corporation will foster the development of Canadian-owned, Ontario-based film producers through specific initiatives. These include an investment fund to assist producers, writers and directors at all stages of production, from script development through post-production, as well as to help companies, through a variety of financial mechanisms, to maintain ongoing financial stability.

This support will enable Ontario producers to attract funds from federal agencies as well as the private sector, thereby raising overall investment levels in the Ontario film industry at relatively low cost to the government.

Exhibition and distribution incentives offered by the corporation will ensure that Ontario film productions are released and well publicized. We will develop incentives programs to assist the launching of Ontario films in major provincial markets.

Last year foreign producers spent $42 million in foreign funds in making films in Ontario, generating 2,000 direct jobs. Much of this resulted from the excellent promotional efforts of the film and video office in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. We plan to build on this base and aggressively to step up our campaign to attract foreign producers to shoot films and video in Ontario. Marketing and promotion assistance will also be expanded to co-ordinate our current efforts to promote Ontario films worldwide. This will include participation in major trade fairs and film and television festivals.

The creation of practical job opportunities will provide graduates of our colleges and universities with the hands-on experience they need to begin film careers. The corporation's financial support will be linked to the willingness of companies to offer practical learning opportunities to aspiring producers, artists and technicians.

A grants program will respond to funding requests from industry-related groups which reward and showcase excellence in films. A co-ordinated approach will reinforce the impact of government funding.

As his first priority, Mr. Clarkson will consult widely with the industry to determine how these initiatives should be implemented and to learn in general how the corporation can best respond to the industry's needs.

My ministry is actively developing initiatives for other cultural industries, including sound recording, book publishing, periodical publishers and commercial theatre, with a view to strengthening their development. The creation of the corporation opens a new era of partnership between the provincial government and Ontario-based independent producers. This is a partnership which has been convincingly advocated by the industry.

We share this goal of developing a nucleus of strong, stable and efficient production companies. We fully agree that by strengthening the industry, we will increase the volume of Ontario productions, expand employment in this key sector and broaden opportunities for cultural expression. In the Ontario Film Development Corp. we have the organizational structure to meet these objectives and in Wayne Clarkson the leadership to get the job done.

I would like to introduce Wayne Clarkson to the Legislature. I would also ask members to join me in welcoming back his father, Stewart Clarkson, and his wife. Many will remember Mr. Clarkson as a highly respected and long-time civil servant in this province.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am the Minister of Natural Resources right now.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, the Minister of Natural Resources, at the moment.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: As I announced on October 18, the government is undertaking a comprehensive audit of its forest management activities, the results of which will be shared fully with the people of Ontario.

We believe Ontarians can reach a reasonable consensus about how our forest resources are being managed only if they have accurate, up-to-date information. We believe the public should know as much as possible about the state of our forests and the outlook for the future. Consequently, we are taking a number of steps that should provide the basis for reaching such a consensus.

Today I would like to table the Provincial Auditor's report on the forest management activity of the Ministry of Natural Resources, which was completed this year, together with my ministry's response to items raised in the auditor's report.

Members know provincial audits of major government programs are undertaken regularly for the benefit of government managers. This report was initially sent to the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources for response back to the Provincial Auditor for follow-up action. It would not normally have become a public document unless the Provincial Auditor chose to include all or some of the material in his annual report to the Legislature.

This report comes at a most opportune time in the short history of Ontario's intensive forest management initiatives. With regard to growing techniques, silviculture, quality of seed and other factors, forest management is at a stage of development that has been practised for barely 25 years in northern Ontario.

My ministry's response to the auditor describes many steps being taken to correct inadequacies we have identified in the process. The auditor's report identifies a number of other areas in which our procedures can and will be improved.

We want this information to be made public. We believe the results of this audit will add substantially to the debate on how we manage forests in this province and will provide a valuable tool in the future refinement of our forest management programs. I am tabling this report for the public's information.

10:20 a.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACCESS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Premier this morning. In the light of the fact he has admitted the original Liberal Economic Advisory Forum letter created an unfavourable impression, will he now muzzle his pet fund-raiser, Donald Smith, who is busily writing to newspapers across the province justifying that first letter in most self-righteous tones? Will he muzzle him before he further aggravates the public's simmering doubts about the integrity of a party that resorts to influence peddling?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We do not muzzle anybody. We encourage free expression from everybody, from all sides. That is the kind of party we have and the kind of government we run. It is open. Everyone can speak his mind. That is the finest expression of the democratic system.

Mr. Gordon: As I read this letter from the October 26 issue of Northern Life, I find an even more fundamental problem. Mr. Smith says, "If the average voter would contribute $25 to the political party of his choice, this would solve a lot of our problems." I read that to be an admission that he is selling influence. When is the Premier going to stop this scandalous, elitist practice?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This honourable member has been known to try to drag this system into the gutter on more than one occasion. Today is just another example of that. He has a lot to learn about human relationships as well as about politics. I reject categorically his innuendo or suggestion, and so does anybody who can read properly.

Mr. Gordon: How can he possibly believe he is now exonerated from any charges of influence peddling simply because in a revised letter he informed the rich and chosen where their money was going? This in no way changes the intent or offensiveness of the letter, nor does it make this elitist club any more accessible to the man in the street; he still cannot afford to get his ear or to join his club. Does the Premier really believe the 15 per cent who are unemployed in Sudbury have an extra $25 to throw to the Liberal Party? Will he cancel this practice now?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: One of the things we are trying to do is to encourage people from all walks of life to be involved in the democratic process and in the support of their political party, because everyone has a stake in that. Getting back to the original question, if the member has any evidence of untoward influence, he should bring it forward in this House -- I challenge him -- rather than sleazy innuendo, which he constantly engages in. Facts and history prove he is mostly wrong anyway.

Mr. Gillies: I am beginning to think our party could have been in government for 100 years and not been as arrogant as this Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Gillies: My question is to the Treasurer. I wonder whether he is aware that following on his parsimonious budget, which some would even say was a niggardly one, the Ontario Hospital Association is desperately seeking a further $50 million just to meet its needs because of inflation, not including money for renovations, safety improvements, patient services, new equipment or new programs. Is the Treasurer aware that the OHA feels his budget shortchanges its immediate needs by $50 million?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The budget of the previous government last year allocated an increase of about 6.2 per cent overall. The budget I brought down last Thursday has an overall increase of 8.3 per cent. I wish it were more money. Obviously, the costs of medical services through hospitals are growing very rapidly. I was informed of the individual cases I have already referred to, particularly at the Hospital for Sick Children, where individual treatment can cost as much as $1 million for children with leukaemia.

We are prepared as a government and as a Legislature, I know, to support whatever is necessary to provide top-level hospital treatment. l am not going to spend a lot of time talking about how the hospitals were not supported over the past few years. The former minister knows, having been a part of the previous cabinet, the transfers to hospitals at the base were less than three per cent last year and additional moneys had to be announced by the former government, even after the election, in the dying days of that ministry.

We supported that and we went further. We have established funds that will enable the Ministry of Health to support those communities that are moving with initiatives to improve the hospital system in their own towns. I am aware we do not have enough money to meet the needs that the hospital boards are requesting, but we are making the kind of judicious judgements in this regard that we think will be fair and equitable across the province.

Mr. Gillies: The Treasurer's sentiments are all very well, but he will be well aware that the former government increased health care spending last year by $800 million. In his budget he had an increase of $600 million. How can he and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) self-righteously proclaim themselves as the champions of the weak and infirm when they are not willing to maintain the kind of increased commitment that the former government was?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member refers to the increases. Most members here will recall that, following the 2.9 per cent announcement in the budget when the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) was the Treasurer -- the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) had not yet taken over -- the then government was forced by the hospitals month after month to allocate additional funds.

When we looked at the estimates that were presented exactly the way we received them, we found there were many hospital programs already under way that were not even included in those estimates. In the part of my budget headed "A Clean Slate," there was a specific instance where we had to allocate additional funds to pay off the bills for programs that were under way in the hospitals and not funded in any way by the former administration.

Mr. Swart: It is my understanding that 4.3 per cent of the increase in the hospital budget is going to be used for special circumstances, whether they be additions or hospitals finding themselves in very serious situations.

I realize the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) makes the final decision, but will there be adequate money in this 4.3 per cent increase to fund a hospital such as the Welland County General Hospital, which is in a rather desperate financial situation and which has one of the lowest operating costs per bed of any hospital in this province?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Swart: Has the Treasurer discussed this matter with the Minister of Health?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have not discussed it with the Minister of Health. I can assure the honourable member that I believe there are a number of hospitals looking for improved support. I should make it clear that it is my job, with the consultation I have available to me from the ministry, to provide the funds in what I consider to be a just balance. It is for the Minister of Health and his advisers to decide how it is spent. I am not the one who is going to say, "I am going to give you this money if you spend it that way." That is his responsibility; mine is budgetary.

10:30 a.m.

Mr. Gillies: The Treasurer is very familiar with the contents of his budget. He knows full well the base budget increase overall to the Ministry of Health is only four per cent. Let us talk specifically about physical plant and capital expenditures.

Mr. Speaker: In question form.

Mr. Gillies: In question form. The Treasurer will know the increase in the capital budget for our hospitals last year was $340 million.

Mr. Breaugh: They told them to help themselves.

Mr. Gillies: If I need the help of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), I will ask for it.

The capital budget increase last year was $340 million. The capital budget increase in this year's budget is $300 million. Will the Treasurer explain how a 12 per cent cut in the capital budgets to our hospitals, allowing our physical plant to suffer and run down, is going to benefit the people of this province? Will he reverse what I consider to be a very irresponsible budget cut in a very critical area?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I simply say again that the overall allocation of moneys for hospital services has been established at approximately an 8.2 per cent increase over last year's budget. The increase last year was a bit over six per cent. I do not apologize in any way for the allocation. I am not prepared to say it is as big as I would like, but I believe it is the sort of allocation that will enable our hospitals to plan not only now but also for the future and not only to do what has to be done to look after our fellow citizens who find themselves in need of hospital care but also to improve that care.

I want to say also that the overall allocation for health services is just under $10 billion. One of the large increases this Legislature has paid year after year is an increase in the fee schedule for the doctors that has been far in excess of inflationary changes. There has been an allocation of many millions of dollars for health care to the doctors. We are not prepared to respond to that in any other way except to say the government of Canada has withheld $50 million a year from us because of the policies of the previous government which maintained the situation where extra billing is allowed.

There are many problems in the provision of health care, many of them financial and fiscal having to do with the government of Canada, that we as a new government want to iron out.

NATURAL GAS PRICING

Mr. Rae: Given the posture of the Liberal Party during the last election with respect to protecting the interests of Ontario consumers and the great "Bluff and huff and I will blow your house down" statement made last week by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) or the Minister of Energy, depending on which hat he is wearing, I am rather astonished today, when we know the announcement has been made in Ottawa with respect to the natural gas arrangements, that we have no statement from the government with respect to the pricing of natural gas.

With regard to what has happened, can the Premier confirm it is his understanding that many American consumers will be paying less than Canadian consumers in central and eastern Canada as a result of the deal that has been signed and that it does not amount to deregulation in favour of Canadian consumers? Is the Premier prepared to make a statement on the issue today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know the minister was looking at this very carefully last evening and this morning, and he does have a statement pointing out his view of the situation. I understood he was going to ask unanimous permission of the House to give that statement a little later, as it is in the process of being prepared in response to the announcement of yesterday. Perhaps I can refer the question to him if he is ready to go.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The ramifications and implications of the agreement with the western provinces are very involved. I do not like to speculate too much on where prices may go, but the fact is that basically the city-gate price in Toronto has been frozen for one year. They have folded in some of the costs to maintain that price. They are going to pick up the increase that was given to TransCanada PipeLines. All those things are taken into account for one year. There is no guarantee after that as to where gas prices will go.

Just speculating, if the competition is keen, with the ability of the consuming provinces to export into the United States, I hope it will have an impact on our markets. It is very difficult to decide at this time. We are examining it carefully. I am going to ask, if I may, to revert to statements to make a statement within the next 15 minutes.

Mr. Rae: The tiger has become a tabby cat. I am a little amazed at the transformation that has taken place. I will stand down my questions on this issue until the minister makes his statement.

Mr. Speaker: Is it agreeable to stand that down?

Mr. Rae: I will stand down my first leader's question, if I may, and the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) will go with the second question.

HOTLINE FOR BATTERED WOMEN

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question for the minister responsible for women's issues. Can he provide us with some information about the anticipated announcement of a $220,000 expenditure for a Metro hotline that women can call if they need assistance because they are battered and about the $400,000 in television advertisements being proposed that tell women to call and seek assistance?

Can the minister tell us in particular whether there will be regional spot announcements in these ads that will indicate, for example, if you call from Etobicoke, that you will not be able to get service at Ernestine's Women's Shelter or the Women's Habitat of Etobicoke because they are turning women and children away, and if you call from --

Mr. Speaker: It seems like an ample question.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am delighted to have this question, because it gives me the opportunity to tell the honourable member that we today announced this advertising program, which is directed at battered women and provides them with a number they can use across the province toll-free to make inquiries.

The member referred somewhat cynically, I thought, to the fact that there is a gap between the need for distress centres for battered women and the actualization. We are moving to try to deal with that. Budgetary allocations for this matter have moved from $2 million in 1981 to in excess of $15 million now. There is a gap; I regret to say that. We hope to be able to deal with it, but it is a major problem.

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to point out that one could be accused of false advertising by offering services that do not exist. Will the minister's ads tell women they had better be prepared after a certain period of time in an interval house or a shelter to go back to the people who are abusing them because we do not have affordable housing for women who have to leave the situation where they are suffering abuse, because we do not have child care so they can support themselves and their children and because we do not have adequate counselling or legal services for these women? What is he offering? Where's the beef?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am really distressed at the question. The problem of wife battering is a serious problem. This initiative is an effort to reach out to women who have this problem in their homes, to get them to come forward by telephone if necessary, if that is the only way, and we will attempt to deal with their problem. The fact that there is a gap in the availability of distress centres, which is not nearly as major as the member says, does not mean we should cancel the program. The program has to be undertaken as well, and I am proud of it.

Ms. Fish: In view of the fact that one of the major needs, identified previously and worked on by the former government, is in the area of third-language women, women who speak neither English nor French and who are particularly isolated in their homes with a concern on battering, and in view of the recent cutbacks in the budget for services to multicultural community groups and their language assistance for counselling, can the minister indicate to us how this hotline will in any way help those women isolated in their homes by virtue of speaking a third language?

10:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is true that the advertising program, though not the publicity and the pamphlets associated with it, are in the two official languages, and there is the problem that the honourable member has suggested. However, we are developing other initiatives to deal with people who speak only a third language.

It is fair enough to get this question from the New Democratic Party; it is a little much to get it from the government that essentially did nothing in this field for years.

[Later]

Ms. Gigantes: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am angry because I feel the Attorney General, who is the minister responsible for women's issues, has impugned my motives. He has suggested that in previous questions I was cynical and frivolous. I feel most angry about that accusation, that suggestion.

I wish you to convey to him the sense that he is in danger of misleading the women of Ontario about the services available for them when they are being battered, and I would suggest he be advised to review his advertising program until he can deliver the goods.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened very carefully to the point of personal privilege, and the member went on to ask me to advise the Attorney General.

Mr. Martel: Make him withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I notice the Attorney General wished to make a comment. I should briefly hear his comment.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to demean the motives of the honourable member, which are well known and are quite acceptable and distinguished. But I do think it is an unfair observation to suggest that one should not run an advertising program designed to alert women to the limited facilities that are available until all the maximum facilities are in place. I think that is unfair and is a suggestion that has no warrant. That is the point I was making.

I did not demean the member's motives. Her motives are well known.

Mr. Speaker: I have just received word that the statement is ready. Do members wish to revert to statements? May we revert to statements and then go back to the first supplementary question of the member for York South (Mr. Rae)?

Agreed to.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

NATURAL GAS PRICING

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Honourable Pat Carney, announced a new agreement for the pricing of natural gas in Canada. The agreement was signed by Pat Carney on behalf of the government of Canada, with the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I want to hear the minister but I also want to see the clock stopped while he is making the presentation.

Mr. Speaker: It is stopped.

Mr. Cousens: But it is still running.

Mr. Speaker: Carry on, Minister.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: As members know, even though Ontario was not at the negotiating table, I made strong representation on behalf of the consumers in Ontario, both large and small. The agreement announced yesterday is very complex and we are studying its implications carefully.

The immediate effect of this agreement is to freeze the wholesale price of natural gas for one year. The wholesale price in southern Ontario will remain at $4.07 per 1,000 cubic feet. The potential price increase of 12 cents per 1,000 cubic feet, which would have resulted from higher tolls on TransCanada PipeLines, will be absorbed during that year by natural gas producers in western Canada.

Also during that year, large natural gas consumers in Ontario will have the opportunity to negotiate direct purchases from producers in Alberta which could result in some lower prices for those customers.

By November 1, 1986, the price of natural gas in Canada will no longer be set by government but will be determined by negotiation between buyers and sellers. The province will monitor the practical implementation of this agreement very closely because we are the major market and we are very concerned that our industries remain competitive.

We will look at all the options and watch very closely, price developments in the United States market where our industries have to compete. There is no doubt that during the transition year, this agreement will have major implications for natural gas distributed in Ontario, and we will be reviewing those effects with the distributors.

The impact of this agreement on the distributors' long-term contract is not all that clear. Our officials will be in touch with major natural gas consumer associations in Ontario, and we will also be working closely with Quebec officials as many of these implications will apply in that market.

I will be making representations to my federal counterpart on any concerns which arise during the coming months.

ORAL QUESTIONS (CONTINUED)

NATURAL GAS PRICING

Mr. Rae: I am really astonished at this statement. It has less with regard to information that is actually in the agreement than what we read in this morning's Globe and Mail.

The minister will be aware that on June 1, the government of Canada eliminated the Canadian ownership special charge which should have resulted in a so-called saving to the people of Ontario of $92 million since June 1. Consumers' Gas went before the Ontario Energy Board in September and the effect of the elimination of that charge was not passed on in any way, shape or form to Ontario's consumers.

As the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Natural Resources responsible for protecting Ontario consumers, what is he doing to make sure that the changes in tax arrangements and the changes in price arrangements are going to end up in lower gas bills for the consumers of Ontario? Just what is he doing about it?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The leader of the third party accused me of being a tabby cat. The time for that kind of rhetoric was when I was running trying to make an agreement. It is too late now; the agreement has been signed. I wish he had come on like that when I was trying to get those people down there to make a deal with us. I know that does not sit very well with the member but he knows it is true.

Mr. Rae: It is all my fault. I am sorry, it is all my fault.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the House wish to listen to the reply or not?

Mr. Andrewes: I know the minister is not a tabby cat. He is a tiger with his tail clipped, and it was his Premier who clipped it.

I am really very interested in the statement. It arrived halfway through question period, but the minister managed to get a press release out to the public and to the press gallery prior to question period.

Will the minister move in an expeditious way to implement transportation tolls and direct purchase arrangements through the Ontario Energy Board, and to make sure that the OEB, in its rate review, passes through that Canadian ownership special charge of $92 million that has been accumulating since last July?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have been relating to the media all along. Nothing has changed. I have said everything that had to be said up to the point when that agreement was signed. The member was privy to that. It is not all that easy. I will read one thing into the record that we were not privy to and now we are subject to. This is referring to the consuming provinces in the agreement that was signed.

"It is anticipated that the governments of the consuming provinces who are not signatories to this agreement will make changes to ensure the effectiveness of the market-sensitive pricing regime, including legislative changes."

Those kinds of implications are hard to deal with. We are going to have to make legislative changes determined by other jurisdictions. When the member talks about my leader becoming involved, he had better believe he was, because we did not have the full support of the federal government. Those people in Ottawa sold us out.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Swart: It is obvious the minister is a failure in having any influence on the recent agreement which was made but there is an area where he and his cabinet do have power. He has an appeal before him from the New Democratic Party caucus here against the massive profit which has been allowed to Consumers' Gas. Will the minister allow the appeal we have put before him and his cabinet and save some $20 million to $25 million for the consumers of this province?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: When the member is relating to the Canadian ownership special charge, that is one of the issues at stake. That money has not been passed through. It was passed through in northern Ontario to some of the major consumers. It was not passed through here. It has been taken into account because of the increase put through by the National Energy Board on the TransCanada PipeLines. They all have to be dealt with by the NEB and it will be dealt with here by the Ontario Energy Board when the matter comes before it.

10:50 a.m.

SENIOR CITIZENS' SERVICES

Mr. Cousens: I have a question of the Treasurer and Minister of Economics. It has its background in the promises and intentions that were displayed not only in the mini-throne speech by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) but also in the way they as members of the opposition condemned our government for a failure to provide services for seniors.

In the Treasurer's budget on page 58, where he describes the transfers to local governments and agencies, there is a significant decrease in the amount of money allocated for the running of senior citizens' residences from that allocated in the previous government's administration.

I have a very simple question, which will require a very difficult answer on the basis of the information I have, but I am asking the question because I --

Mr. Speaker: Please go ahead.

Mr. Cousens: Why will homes for the aged run by government and local agencies receive an increase in the new budget year that is only half as much as our government gave last year?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The overall increases, we feel, are adequate. I want to point out to the honourable member there was a special section in the budget that really reflects the initiative taken by the Premier in appointing the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) Minister without Portfolio with responsibility for seniors' affairs.

This section of the budget maintains a special payment for this year, which will be ongoing, of an additional $11 million for special programs for seniors. We feel that while we have to fund the ongoing programs -- and we have undertaken that -- we have to take new initiatives because problems and challenges of programs for seniors have not been met in the past. We feel that with this special fund we can do so.

Mr. Cousens: This is really a two-part supplementary. First, why does the money for these specific areas not even keep up with inflation? Second, how much new money is the government really putting in for seniors?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The $11 million that I have been talking about is for new programs. The other allocation is for the maintenance of the seniors' facilities, and there is money in there for their upkeep and expansion.

MILK PRICES

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food in regard to this government's commitment to northern Ontario. In the light of the promise that the Liberals would "move towards equalized fluid milk prices throughout Ontario" in the document entitled The Ontario Liberal Party and the North: A Fair Share in Ontario Prosperity -- the Liberal campaign platform in last spring's election -- how does he explain his statement in his letter to me, dated October 10, in which he said: "I do not think it would be in the best interests of consumers or the entire dairy industry to establish a system of controls on the wholesale and retail prices of fluid milk. Therefore, I will not be proposing any changes of this nature to the Milk Act."

Hon. Mr. Riddell: First of all, let me tell the honourable member that this government and I have nothing to do with the pricing of milk. That was the intent of the letter. It is done by the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, a duly elected board. We could perhaps move as a government to try to equalize the price of milk by doing something by way of transportation assistance. These are things we are taking into consideration, but the reason we have not done anything to this point is that we have been concentrating our efforts on trying to keep farmers on the land.

As the member well knows, farmers are going through a very difficult period. He has heard me announce some programs to try to help them cope with some of their debts. We consider this a priority. It is a case of not being able to do everything at once, so we are concentrating on keeping farmers in farming. I hope to make an announcement on Thursday about new initiatives we are taking to help them more. That is where we are concentrating our efforts, and some time in the near future we hope we can address the concerns of the members.

Mr. Wildman: Surely the minister understands the farmers in the northern and northwestern pool are hurt as much by high milk prices in the north as other consumers.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Wildman: Yes. Does the minister not know that, according to the food price monitoring program, as stated by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations in September 1985, the average price for four litres of milk in southern Ontario, including Toronto, is $2.52, in northeastern Ontario it is $3.55 and in northwestern Ontario it is $4.07? We range from a low of $1.99 for four litres of milk in Ottawa to a high of $5 for the same thing in Moosonee.

What is this government going to do to keep its promise to northern Ontario that it was going to move towards equalizing milk prices?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I would certainly invite the member to join me and we will set up an appointment with the Ontario Milk Marketing Board to sit down and talk to the chairman, Ken McKinnon, as I have done in the past. I intend to pursue our endeavours, but I would certainly invite him to join me, we will set up a meeting and see what can be done.

Mr. Stevenson: When the minister is making his announcements on the new programs for farmers, in particular for northern Ontario -- they have not heard anything in the north yet from him -- would he please announce at the same time what programs he will be cutting to help fund those new ones when he announces the money?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: A very simple answer is, we are not cutting any programs to fund these. We have picked up an additional $70 million or $80 million for new programs. When he considers programs through other ministries, such as AgriNorth, that should address his concerns about what we are doing for northern Ontario. We have the AgriNorth program administered through the Ministry of Northern Affairs and Mines. When he considers these other programs, we have increased the agricultural budget substantially. It is up to about $500 million compared with about $330 million when his party was in power.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question has been dealt with.

MUNICIPAL ROADS

Mr. Barlow: I have a question to my friend the Treasurer. It relates to this government's lack of commitment to the roads and transit system.

11 a.m.

Expenditures in the Ministry of Transportation and Communications for 1985-86 have been cut by $34 million from 1984-85. I want to ask the Treasurer about the transfers to municipalities for roads and transit in the province. The government has committed a total of $523 million in transfers for roads, and I know the previous government committed $531.5 million for 1985-86 for transfer payments. That is a total of --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Barlow: It is coming. That is a difference of $8.5 million from the amount the previous government approved for transfers. Why is the Treasurer trying to use smoke and mirrors on this whole transfer payment question by flowing less money to the municipalities than he says he is?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Once again, I ask the member to think back to the budget statement or to his careful reading of the budget itself. Our transfers to the municipalities were based on a four per cent growth, but we recognized that over the past number of years the former government had not provided sufficient money for municipal roads and that the municipalities had to cut deeply into their unconditional grants in order to maintain the roads.

In response to that, we raised the amount that was available for the municipalities and also established a special fund of $60 million through the Ministry of Transportation and Communications allocated specifically for municipal roads and urban transportation.

On examination of the books of the province, we found that rolling stock and other material for urban transportation, including buses in Ottawa, the new special transportation system in Scarborough, and also other rolling stock for Toronto, had been ordered and delivered with no money made available to pay the bill.

It was necessary for us to scrape up $90 million extra to pay for these things that had been ordered and delivered. It was almost as if one sent away to Eaton's catalogue and then forgot about having sent the letter. The stuff was delivered and it had to be paid for, so there is an additional $90 million in there.

Besides the money the member is talking about, therefore, there is an additional $60 million specifically for urban and municipal transportation and an additional $90 million to pay for the rolling stock that has been delivered this year.

Mr. Barlow: As far as the $60 million for roads is concerned, in my reading of the budget for the coming fiscal year, that is, the 1985-86 year, the $60 million is not even in this budget.

With regard to the $90 million for transit, the total budget for transit transfer payments is $260 million, which is $62 million less than was paid last year. I guess the Treasurer takes the $62 million off the $90 million.

Mr. Mackenzie: Question.

Mr. Martel: They still think they are reading statements over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is just a typical example. If you ask a long question, you might happen to get a long answer. I suggest you ask a brief supplementary, and we will see if we can get a brief supplementary answer.

Mr. Barlow: Is the $62 million that is not going to the municipalities for transit this year being taken off the $90 million the Treasurer promised to give?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No. The money that is available to the municipalities at present is based on the estimates tabled in the House by my colleague the Chairman of Management Board (Ms. Caplan) a day or two after this government took office. They are the estimates we inherited.

The member is correct in saying that the statement I made contains amounts that will be available to municipalities during the next fiscal year. We wanted to give them ample notice, plus the notice of an additional four per cent the following year, so they could make their plans in advance rather than financing on a month-to-month basis.

ZOO LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: In view of the picket line set up by Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1600 at the Metro Zoo, will the Premier tell us whether he has decided against sending a representative for the closing of the Chinese pandas exhibit? Can he clarify if it is the policy of his government to cross picket lines?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is not the policy of this government to cross picket lines. I am not aware of anyone going, but it may be something I am not aware of. If there is someone I should convey that message to, who is not aware of it, then please let me know.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am sure the Premier realizes the problem at the Metro Zoo is justice for part-time workers and the refusal of the society to deal with them in the same way the zoo management board has dealt with its part-time workers. We understand the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) was going to be attending, and I would ask the Premier to look into the matter.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I thank the member for his advice. I was not aware of that. I will certainly discuss it with the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, but that is the policy of this government. We have certainly applied that in other instances and places in this province.

RED MEAT PLAN

Mr. Lane: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In reply to questions in the House and in statements outside it, he has indicated he believes the tripartite agreement for the national red meat stabilization program would be signed by the end of October. Can he tell the House today whether that has occurred? If so, what help will it provide for the cow-calf operators in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: No, the agreement has not been signed. We are still waiting for a call from the federal Minister of Agriculture, and we hope it will come today, about how he intends to apply the national stabilization payments to the retroactive payments which we have indicated would go back to January 1, 1985.

If he has made up his mind how he is going to apply the Agricultural Stabilization Act 90 per cent payments, then there is no reason we should not be ready to sign the agreement, either next week or certainly by November 15, depending on how long it will take him to get the order in council through his cabinet. I trust it will not take that long, but Ontario is ready to sign. Alberta is ready to sign a pork plan, as are the other two provinces, according to my understanding. The prairie provinces, Ontario and two or three of the Atlantic provinces are ready to sign a beef tripartite stabilization plan. We are hoping we might hear from Mr. Wise today. We are ready to go ahead.

As for the cow-calf situation, this red meat plan for pork and beef will set the framework for tripartite on what we call backgrounders, that is, the cow and calf operation, which is a one-year thing. The calves are sold once a year, in contrast to hogs and slaughter cattle which are sold throughout the year. There would not be a payment until probably some time in the spring of next year anyway, but we will be working immediately on a cow-calf plan as soon as we get the red meat plan signed for beef and pork.

Mr. Lane: I am sure the minister is aware that many farmers in northern Ontario are farming on marginal land and for that reason grow little grain and produce few slaughter cattle. Those farmers are going to have to continue to operate mainly on the cow-calf program. Can the minister tell the House if he is going to provide any subsidies for them? He has indicated it will not be before spring. Will it be for the 1985 production?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We are hoping it will be, but the payment probably would not go out until next year, because some of those calves may not be sold this fall. Some may be held until next spring. We would have to wait until the calves or the feeder cattle were sold before we could make any kind of determination about who would be eligible for payment. I am striving to have the tripartite signed for cow-calves, hoping there will be payments for the 1985 crop year.

However, the member should bear in mind I represent only one province. The others have to participate in this as well. I do not see any reason the prairie provinces, for example, would not go along with such a tripartite plan, since most of the cows and calves are produced either in Ontario or the western provinces.

11:10 a.m.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning the Provincial Auditor's report on forest management in the province, tabled this morning.

Has the minister noticed, on the section regarding the selection of greenhouses, who would build the greenhouses and grow the stock, the statement by the auditor, "In one case a grower who constructed a greenhouse costing approximately $800,000 was selected without obtaining proposals/bids from other interested parties and the other four qualified applicants were not given the opportunity to submit their proposals"? When the Ministry of Natural Resources was asked to respond to this, the response from the ministry, arrogant as always, was "This was a decision of the minister of the day."

Would the present minister conduct a thorough investigation into every single grant of taxpayers' money for the purposes of building these greenhouses that was not done in an open, competitive bidding process?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is very well understood that starting tomorrow afternoon when I meet with the new auditor, I have invited the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) to participate in our forest audit. That is the start in that direction.

Specifically to answer the question he raised, it is very precise when it says it was the decision of the minister of the day. I have had a fair amount of experience in construction and contracting and I am very anxious to pursue and investigate how any of those contracts were put out and to ensure that they will be fair and equitable. I would be happy to look into any specific ones he might mention.

Mr. Laughren: I do not know how the auditor, who is coming in to town today, is going to get into past bidding practices. I did not think that was the role of an auditor of our forests.

Has the minister also noticed in that report that the Ministry of Natural Resources had the unmitigated gall to tell the Provincial Auditor, who was investigating regeneration numbers, which we have been so concerned about for so long, that they could not tell whether it was going to be successful until a tree was 20 years old? Does the minister fully understand why we are unhappy with the way he has constructed the provincial audit of the forests that Dr. Baskerville is going to start doing as of today? Dr. Baskerville has been given a mandate to take the figures of the Ministry of Natural Resources, which have been suspect for many years, rather than going out and doing an audit of the forest itself.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The initial response about the auditor coming in was only to show my good faith in sharing where we are going with the New Democratic Party. The fact of the matter is that one of the very important involvements of the auditor is to tell us what we should do in the future about the numbers that are put before him. He should very properly tell us whether we should continue with that kind of auditing or whether we should expand the kind of independent audit Dr. Baskerville is going to share with us. Within a week the member and the critic for the Conservative patty should meet Dr. Baskerville.

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. Rowe: My question is to the Premier. This week municipal officials from the devastated tornado areas met with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Is the Premier now prepared to honour the commitment of three-to-one funding to the people of this province? Will the Premier give this House today the assurance the tornado fund will cover the millions of dollars that the municipalities have lost during that time?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer has been very actively involved in this question. I will refer it to him.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member has posed previous questions to me on this matter and I was glad to answer them because I was in the same position in a previous tornado disaster in the Oxford-Brant area. Without going over all this again, the policy of the previous government was to provide funding on a three-to-one basis up to the point where all of the damages approved by the local committee were paid for. It was the basic decision that it would not pay for second homes or cottages, nor would it pay for recreational facilities, nor for the loss of a boat or a trailer.

As I understand it, precisely the same rules apply in the matter that the member, glowering at me at this moment, is referring to. In response to the comments made by people in the community, who perhaps have been misdirected in some small degree because the procedure in this province, which is fairly well laid down in disasters of this type but not been well understood, it is the feeling of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), who is not in his place at this moment, that any additional funds, not paid out on the basis of three to one, will be set aside for disaster relief in Ontario. It will not be used for ordinary purposes; it will be allocated for that purpose. He has indicated to me that, on careful review of the expenditures, we are going to be very close to the three-to-one ratio at least.

I want to state to the honourable member frankly that the government is living up to its commitments, just as the predecessor government did in the previous disaster, when it did not really come even near the allocation and payment of $3 for $1. The basis of this real problem is the generosity of the good people in the member's community, and in mine, who shelled out from their own bank accounts to help their neighbours when they were in need. We must remember that the dollars we are talking about are dollars that belong to all of the people and are administered by this government.

Mr. Rowe: The Treasurer's government during the past few months has constantly told this House how many wonderful things it has accomplished. Today it has just established another first. By not honouring the three-to-one funding commitment, saying yes or no, for the first time in the history of this great province the Treasurer has not only managed to break the trust that existed between the government and the people of this province, he has not only misled the House, but he has misled all the people in Ontario who gave money.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was waiting for a question, but I did not get one.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: But you have another duty. He said I misled the House.

Mr. Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I cannot mislead this House, as that government can.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member withdraw the words indicating that another member misled this House.

Mr. Rowe: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot.

Mr. Speaker: I have no alternative but to name the member. You will remove yourself from the House for the balance of the sitting.

Mr. Rowe left the chamber.

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION

Mr. Allen: I have a question of the Treasurer. Would he please tell this House what consultation with the parties involved preceded his decision to merge the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education with the University of Toronto; what hard, up-to-date evidence he has of duplication of programs, services and research; and why he made that decision at a time when the principals were satisfactorily engaged in renegotiating their own future relations?

11:20 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I cannot quote the words in the budget exactly, but there was an indication that in the public interest we were reducing duplication wherever we could find it and correct it. We mentioned the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp., the Ontario Economic Council and OISE.

There was no indication of any reduction of funding, but the board of OISE and the board of the University of Toronto did indicate, in my view, a duplication. Both of these facilities, I think, could be strengthened by having them work together under one board. It was my view that the board of the University of Toronto should take that responsibility.

There was no consultation other than a review of previous reports made to this Legislature, one of them by a committee chaired by the former Treasurer, Darcy McKeough, the Special Program Review, which is available in the library. In it they reviewed the position of OISE and recommended that part of its duties, at least, become part of the University of Toronto. It was in response to the views on that matter that the inclusion in the budget was made.

Ms. Bryden: Why would the Treasurer make such an arbitrary decision about a world-renowned educational research institute such as OISE without consulting all the parties affected, including faculty, administration, unions and the women's centre, which is a very important part of it, and without giving us some documentation on the duplication he is talking about? Will the minister undertake full consultation with these groups before any changes are implemented?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The position taken in the budget is going to be implemented by the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) and the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara). The negotiations between the two parties have been going on. My own view is that this would facilitate it. It is our view that administration of OISE under the board of the University of Toronto is not such a bad thing and it should be seen to the benefit of both organizations; I hope that eventually it will.

Mr. McFadden: OISE has a world reputation with respect to the quality of its teaching, the studies it has undertaken and the quality of its graduates. I notice it is mentioned in the budget as a matter to eliminate duplication. From this, I assume the Treasurer must consider that the elimination of OISE and putting it in with the faculty of education at U of T is going to lead to some major saving that would in some way explain the disappearance of OISE as an independent institution with the quality of work it does. Can the Treasurer indicate exactly what the saving is?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The OISE board has a number of appointees on it who are the responsibility of this government, as does the board of the University of Toronto. Both are world-class institutions. They are on each side of Bloor Street. They both have very important educational research components. It was my view that they would work very well together.

SENIOR CITIZENS' SERVICES

Mr. Cousens: I would like to go back to my earlier question. We have only a few moments, but the Treasurer can take all the time in the world to answer it, if he can. My question has to do with the $11 million allocated for seniors. He has two pots; in one pot he has transfer payments, which are going down and not even keeping pace with inflation, and in a separate pot he has another $11 million. What is the Treasurer going to do with the $11 million?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The wording in the budget, which I cannot recall precisely, has to do with beginning innovative programs for seniors, expanding those programs that are seen to be successful and stimulating the utilization of volunteers in our communities right across the province. The improvement on the base is four per cent. Unfortunately, inflation may be 4.1 per cent or 3.9 per cent. We are not going to have it variable. We feel this transfer basis is a fair and judicious one that can be defended by any reasonable person.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I want to bring to your attention that holes are appearing in the floor of the chamber. Maybe it is because of large termites, or perhaps the Ministry of Government Services has a new leghold trap design, but there is a hole here covered up by a little bit of red carpeting. I would like you to make sure we are at least safe from falling through the floor over here.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: My point is not about holes, but I am sure many honourable members were as distressed as I was to read in the London Free Press of Friday last that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said in a speech in London that the most important thing to happen at Queen's Park last week was the budget of his Treasurer, Richard Nixon.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot see where that is a point of order.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on resources development be authorized to present a report to the House based on its consideration of the 1984 annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that in the committee of supply, the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs and Mines be considered following the estimates of the Management Board of Cabinet and that in the standing committee on administration of justice, the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations be considered following the estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wish to table the answer to question 18, the interim answers to questions 19 to 45 inclusive and the response to a petition presented to the House, sessional paper 189 [see appendix, page 1325].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Allen: Last evening I was in the midst of remarks in the budget debate elaborating on my major proposition that while there were some substantial advances in the course of this budget, partly as a result of the accord between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, none the less the budget itself had an overall Conservative cast. The proportions within it reflected the proportions that had prevailed in budgets in recent years.

I want to go on to make some remarks with respect to the area of educational budgeting, both in the elementary and secondary area and in the post-secondary area, to illustrate that fact and to remind us that at this time, when a new government is undertaking responsibility in the educational sector, it is very important that we do not lose sight of where we have been with respect to educational finance in this province.

The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has made much, for example, of the fact that he is providing a 5.4 per cent increase in the general legislative grants being transferred to boards of education in this province. I want to remind him that while it would appear that figure runs slightly above the current rate of inflation, the experience on the receiving end is not always that grant levels that appear to be somewhat above the inflation rate end up being so at the other end.

I want to read to the Treasurer an observation to this effect from the response of the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario to last year's budget, which promised almost the same percentage, namely, five per cent. The statement is this:

"The Treasurer's contention that school boards received a five per cent increase in grants in 1984 leaves the impression that each school board has five per cent more in grants than in 1983 with which to cover staff salaries, supplies and the myriad other fixed costs associated with the operation of a school system.

"In fact, only three of the 13 largest school boards in Ontario actually received a grant increase of five per cent or more last year. School boards, out of necessity, must ask local residents and commercial taxpayers to pay more so that the same level of educational programs and services they received in 1983 can be maintained."

The first point I want to make, therefore, is that it does not necessarily follow that 5.4 per cent at this end is received as 5.4 per cent at the other end.

11:30 a.m.

I want to remind the Treasurer and all of us in this Legislature that grants at this time lie against a certain background of educational funding in this province which has not been altogether propitious for the promotion of the education of our children.

If one looks at a complete analysis of educational finance in Ontario from 1970-71 to 1980-81, which provides a base reference point, one notices that spending on education as a percentage of gross provincial product has declined rather dramatically in every sector of our education spending. Not only that, but it stands significantly below the national average of the other provinces.

In total spending during that decade there was a total decline of something like 20 per cent in the proportion of the gross provincial product devoted to education as a whole. Of that, 16 percentage points lie in the elementary and secondary level, there was a whole 35 per cent decline in the proportion of the gross provincial product devoted to post-secondary education and a whopping 40 per cent decline of the proportion of gross provincial product devoted to vocational and occupational training.

That is the background against which we will have to measure what a Liberal government is doing at this point. Clearly, there have been major losses. Clearly also, those losses have been sustained in the context of a government that believed transfers in education had to be reduced and the province had to adopt a lesser responsibility for that field.

This shows up during the period from 1975-76 to 1984-85 when one looks at the proportion of the provincial budget devoted to education. In 1975-76, this province devoted 16.5 per cent of its provincial revenues to general legislative grants; in 1984-85, the immediate last year, that had dropped to 12.1 per cent. In other words, there was a loss of 25 per cent in the percentage of the provincial budget devoted to education.

It is not surprising that the boards and the teachers of this province continually barraged the ears of the previous Ministers of Education with respect to that decline. When one looks at what has happened to the decline from 1975-76 to 1984-85 in various parts of the province, one sees how dramatic it has been in terms of the proportion of the provincial share of local expenditures in education.

For example, in the Carleton Board of Education there was a decline of 12.7 per cent in the provincial share during that decade; in the Cochrane-Iroquois Falls Board of Education, a decline of 15.5 per cent; in the Fort Frances-Rainy River Board of Education, a decline of 10.6 per cent; in my own board in Hamilton, a decline of 18.4 per cent; and in the Lake Superior Board of Education, a decline of about 14 per cent. This is not to mention the decline in the very large school boards, such as the Toronto boards, where the decline has been even more dramatic.

With regard to the Treasurer's transfers, when one looks at the 5.4 per cent increase and takes away from that the anticipated capital expenditures and the approximately $107 million that is devoted in the course of that budget period to the extension of separate school funding, one finds, as the Treasurer's own officials told our representative in the lockup, that there was no money left to increase the provincial proportion of the cost of education in Ontario.

Perhaps that is because the Treasurer himself was under a major misapprehension about how much that might cost, because there is a report of an interview between the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario and the Treasurer, which was held on August 26, 1985, in which the Treasurer told the assembled boards the estimated cost of returning the provincial contribution to education to the 60 per cent level would be $9 million a year.

I am not sure on what span of years that figure was calculated, but it would take a great many years to make up the difference and loss and move this province back to the 60 per cent share of funding. We estimate that if the promise made in the last election to move back to that figure over the life of this government were to be honoured, increases would specifically have to be earmarked at the level of 2.48 percentage points per year. That would mean the Treasurer would have to move somewhere in the order of $150 million.

It may well be that the Treasurer, the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) do not wish to honour that commitment. There may be reasons they do not want to do that. However, that was not the message that has been given time and time again in response to educational groups in this province. If the Treasurer is not prepared to begin the march back in some significant way then he should tell us so we can reorient our thinking and perhaps approach him on some other proposition.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member means the march back to 60 per cent.

Mr. Allen: Yes. That admittedly entails significant funding, and the Treasurer knows that. However, I think we need to hear from him and the Minister of Education, as we have not heard to date what the policy is in that respect.

Mr. Nixon: The member understands the difficulties in trying to hit a moving target.

Mr. Allen: Yes. I also understand there are problems in educational finance in a number of other areas -- commercial and industrial assessments, board autonomies and all sorts of issues. I concede it is not easy to solve those, but I simply submit that a lot of ground has been lost and that it would be appropriate and even politically wise for the present government to make a more significant move in that direction, even if it were not prepared to commit 60 per cent against the moving target. That is the point I want to make.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It would take an extra $1 billion to go to 60 per cent now.

Mr. Allen: To go to 60 per cent in one jump would be a major disaster. I do not think that could be asked of the Treasurer in any responsible way. I certainly would not do that. However, even to have hit 50 per cent this year, and then to have worked out the other problems of the moving target, etc., would be a very sensible proposition.

I want to go on to refer to the field of post-secondary educational finance. I think the minister has not met the responsibilities incumbent on him by virtue of any number of studies that have been made of this issue and the actual circumstances that now prevail in the post-secondary system, and in particular in the universities.

It is simply not adequate, and I suggest it is following an established Tory tradition to move broad increases in operational grants at the level of inflation and then to add some additional goodies into the package on a one-shot basis. That has been the pattern year after year in this province under recent ministers. It is unfortunate the Treasurer has begun in precisely the same fashion.

A four per cent increase is simply not adequate for the university needs in this province by anybody's standards, including the very restrained ones exercised by the Bovey commission which recently reported to this province and this House.

11:40 a.m.

I am not going to say a $50-million enrichment is not good for the universities, because any additional money is good for them. I am not even specifically concerned that it is targeted in some respects, which sometimes makes for problems of fluidity and flexibility in university governance. At the same time, I want to point out that by taking the components of the $50 million, for example, and assessing them against the accumulated needs, one begins to get a sense of perspective.

The $10 million is the first step in faculty renewal programming. The total faculty renewal program outlined by Bovey amounted to $152 million. That was to be spread over a period of time. It was to be applied during the first five years, but through 10 years of cash flows and so on. Bovey went into an elaborate discussion of all that. As I recall, in the Bovey commission, the minimum cash flow required in order to meet a well worked out program of faculty renewal in the universities was somewhere in the order of $20 million rising to $30 million, $35 million, and $39 million in the fourth year of the exercise.

In this budget one really has only one half committed for one year, with no clear indication of whether this is going to be repeated or whether the universities can begin a program and expect this to be supplemented in the years ahead.

There is $15 million for university research, including special equipment, experimental facilities, technical and professional research and support staff. The major concern in the Bovey commission with regard to research was the element of research overhead. There it indicated that to solve the cumulative problem of research overhead for the universities, both at the federal and provincial levels, required about $100 million of input. There is a major problem. The Treasurer, in directing this money to research in a very diffuse series of objectives as distinct from a major concern such as research overhead, may well have missed a significant opportunity.

Again, the money is at a low level and there is not any commitment to repetition. There is $25 million for library collection, scientific laboratory, computing, library and other instructional equipment.

Two years ago when the universities of this province, through the Council of Ontario Universities, undertook a fairly comprehensive review of their needs in the library acquisitions field and in the field of equipment replacement, they came to the conclusion that in order simply to get back to the level of funding of library acquisitions of 1971-72, it would be necessary to infuse a whole $20 million into that alone and at the equipment replacement level I think the words were "a rational replacement program at the equipment level would require $31 million."

We are talking of $25 million on a one-shot basis as against a minimum requirement to get back to earlier levels of spending of some $51 million. Again, the amount is a one-shot-only item. Universities are not, apparently, able to count on that being repeated.

The Treasurer, in the course of his proposal, which I praised last night, when asked to give some indication to those receiving transfers from the government about what the level of support would be a further year down the road, suggested that level of support ought to continue at four per cent for a subsequent year. The universities see themselves still treading that water.

I would remind the Treasurer that if at an earlier period he was very influenced by the work of Darcy McKeough in this province and some of his concerns for duplication and expensive programming in a number of areas where transfers were paid, much has happened since then. In the five years after Darcy McKeough sponsored the so-called Report of the Special Program Review the Treasurer referred to a few minutes ago in question period, the university sector budget declined to the point in this province that if it had been maintained at the 1977-78 level through until 1983, the universities would have had $500 million more to spend than they otherwise had.

In the interval there have been major cutbacks and major declines. I think for the Treasurer in effect to still be running the universities on what amounts to basically austerity level or inflation level increases, is indeed a major problem for those institutions.

One always asks where the money comes from and that is never an easy question to answer. But if one looks at government finance in Ontario, one discovers some significant problems in comparison with other provinces. For example, if one asks, "What is the relationship in the various provinces with respect to the amount of money they take in provincial revenues as a proportion of the wealth of the province as measured by the gross provincial product?" one discovers that the average for the nine provinces outside of Ontario is 25.3 per cent. Ontario takes in revenue as a percentage of the gross provincial product of 15.8 per cent, 40 per cent less than the average of the other nine provinces.

One may argue that perhaps that is a sign of good housekeeping, but equally one might well argue that the province has reached the point where it substantially underfunds major social services, educational enterprises, etc., in this province.

If one looks at the question with respect to the provincial personal income that individuals have to devote to the services that are important to them through government expenditure, one finds the average for the provinces outside of Ontario is 30.1 per cent. In Ontario, 18 per cent of the gross provincial personal income is devoted to government revenue. That is exactly the same gap again, a 40 per cent gap. I want to bring that to the attention of the Treasurer who, as I indicated last night, has to be viewed as a Progressive Conservative Treasurer in the perspectives of this budget.

The progressive items, I have noted. The conservative side, however, does concern me. If we are going to continue in the future with a budgetary style and content in this province which simply perpetuates the same proportions and the same priorities, then we are in trouble. I do not think the new Liberal government will offer those new opportunities that the province expected when it assumed power, and which to date it has shown itself to be reasonably satisfied with. I think there are problems down the road if those priorities and that style persist.

I would simply encourage the Treasurer to look very closely at the whole question of whether he is perpetuating an existing, outdated and irrelevant set of priorities to the needs of this province.

Let me conclude by making one or two remarks on the question I asked him earlier in question period; namely, the matter of the status of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. I am rather concerned that the Treasurer's approach to this issue is based on what is now a rather dated document, the Report of the Special Program Review done by Maxwell Henderson, the noted federal Auditor General, in 1975.

That is 10 years behind us and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. The relationship between the University of Toronto and OISE has changed substantially. They are not only much better, but institutions, joint committees and programs are in place which have enabled those two institutions to adjust their problems.

11:50 a.m.

Five years ago, for example, the two institutions adjusted their responsibilities by moving the higher education group from the University of Toronto into OISE itself and rationalized their offerings. The two institutions do not duplicate. The faculty of education at the University of Toronto is an undergraduate educational institution offering undergraduate training and bachelor degrees to prospective teachers.

OISE, as a provincial and, indeed, even a national institution, offers graduate degrees, graduate studies and research not only by individual members but also in response to a whole host of requests that come to it from educational institutions in this province. It has eight field centres across the province, which are very close and on-the-ground operations working hand in glove with local education authorities and providing unique programs of instruction and research to facilitate local educational activity.

The reputation of the institution in many of its offerings is worldwide. It has a distinctive character. There may be some duplication at the board level, and it may well be that some new adjustment of relationships between the two parties will yield some savings. That is not to be gainsaid. Whether the amount is very great is questionable. The Treasurer has not demonstrated that it will be large, but I do not think anyone has an objection in principle to the adjustment of those relationships or to a closer relationship between the two institutions.

But I hope the Treasurer will bear in mind the need of the institute to maintain an identity and to be able to protect itself and its own resources in the context of the struggle for priorities that takes place within a major institution like the University of Toronto. One would have to observe, without wishing to criticize the faculty of education in its attempt to maintain a quality program in the University of Toronto, that this faculty has suffered over the years in that struggle for priorities inside that mammoth university.

What OISE does preserve and protect with a separate and distinct budget is the priority of education research and graduate studies in a way that cannot lead to the diminution or dispersal of moneys that might otherwise be intended for education but find themselves in other budgets for other purposes within the play of forces that happens when a university does its internal budgeting. It must concern us that the uniqueness of this undertaking not be lost in whatever comes out of what the Treasurer has suggested. That is the main point I want to make.

Finally, it concerns me that the Treasurer took this step without any real attempt to consult with the parties in question at this time to see where they were in their negotiations, because there are new negotiations under way between those two parties. They have been proceeding satisfactorily and looked as though they were resolving themselves in a closer relationship. I would have hoped the Treasurer would find a way to endorse that process and help it along rather than to impose a preordained priority of his on that relationship.

With those remarks, I conclude my contribution to this debate. I hope the Treasurer has in this instance given us what might be viewed as an interim budget, and that we will see new perspectives and new hope for this province in new ways in a budget that will arrive in this House in May. I appreciate the Treasurer's complete honesty with us in this budget, the new processes of the budget, the estimates, etc., that he is going to set in play. I look forward to his future in this House as a Treasurer leading us down that road. But, of course, it will not be without criticism from this side or this member.

Mr. Ferraro: It is with pride and gratitude that I rise today to speak briefly on the budget presented by my colleague the Treasurer, the first budget of this new Liberal government.

Originally I had not intended to speak on the budget, but two things changed my mind. First, when I listened to the comments coming from the other side of this House, in particular from the opposition party, I knew I could not sit still and not contribute my two cents' worth. Second, last night when I listened to the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), I knew if I got up I could not do any worse.

I mentioned I was proud to speak today and, indeed, I am. I am proud not only to be a part of the first Liberal government in 42 years but also to be the member for Wellington South, knowing full well that the previous member, Mr. Worton, sat in opposition for 30 years. To some degree, I might add, it is unfortunate that he never had this opportunity.

Nevertheless, I am proud to be a part of this government and to be a part of this debate on the budget speech. It is an honour. I am grateful to my colleague the Treasurer and his entire staff for preparing what I believe is a sound first budget for this government. It is a sensitive and fiscally responsible document worthy of consideration by all members, and indeed by all the people in this province.

I will be brief, but I will also be speaking in general terms, the reason being that I wish to avoid regurgitation of points already made and to try to stem the tide of boredom that sets in to such debates, particularly on Friday afternoons.

The budget is a new beginning for the Liberal Party and for the province. The Treasurer has, as he indicated, wiped the slate clean of the last vestiges of inadequacy and confusion that remained from the previous government. Not only has he wiped the slate clean from the standpoint of good accounting procedures, but also from the standpoint of policy formulation.

The budget is a sensitive and honest first approach to dealing with many of the issues that affect the nine million people in this province, from unemployment to health care, the social service aspect, the transfer payments to the municipalities and boards. Having been on a number of such boards, I wish to reiterate a point made by the member for London South (Ms. E. J. Smith) last night. For the first time in a long time the boards are going to be able to plan in advance. That is a tremendous asset and I wish to emphasize that point.

The budget revenue recommendations, although unpalatable to many, particularly the opposition, are necessary. The Treasurer could have taken the easy route. He could have increased retail sales tax, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. F. S. Miller) indicated on a previous occasion, one, two or possibly three per cent. Everybody in this House knows that such an action would generate significantly greater amounts of money, thereby negating the smaller amounts that were added to the various other programs. He did not take the easy route. The Treasurer wanted the income to be generated from the programs that cost the taxpayer.

He did so knowing full well that he was laying himself wide open to more criticism. It may be more difficult to justify but we Liberals are prepared to defend it. We are committed to fair, equal and sensitive taxation for all. In that regard, one thing is very evident from this budget. Those who can afford to pay, the rich and the corporations, are paying more. Those who cannot afford to pay are paying less, 390,000 of them. That is reasonable, logical and justifiable. No one likes to pay taxes, but everyone understands the need to pay taxes, some more than others.

12 noon

I noted with some interest that yesterday the Treasurer was presented with half a hamburger by the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis). Unfortunately, the member is not here today. There is some suspicion and innuendo going around the hallways that it was not a hamburger, but a tuna sandwich. It is typical of the former Conservative government to present half a hamburger. They presented half a policy for the last 42 years. No doubt the hamburger had sour pickles on it, indicative of the fact the former government left the people of this province in such a pickle. There must have been onions on this hamburger.

Mr. Leluk: It is the citizens of this province who are upset.

Mr. Ferraro: I understand why they are upset. It is difficult to pay for taxicabs now.

There must have been onions on this hamburger because it would make sense. When we look at the record of the previous government over the last 42 years, when we look at Minaki Lodge, Ontario Hydro, Deerhurst, and certainly the daddy of them all, Suncor, just as onions do, it has to bring a tear to the eyes of all the taxpayers of this province.

The most notable thing was that the presentation of the hamburger or tuna sandwich was wrapped. One could not really tell what it was. This is indicative of the policies and attitudes of the previous government. It concealed everything. It is not indicative of the policies and attitudes of this Liberal government. We are open. We have already seen that with the freedom of information legislation. We are prepared to present the facts to the people of this province and let them decide. We do not wrap them in anything. We have nothing to hide.

Before one can run, one must walk. Before one can smell the flowers, one must plant the seeds. Indeed, if one is going to take off the old underwear, one better make sure there is a new pair to put on.

The Treasurer and this government have done just that. We are proudly walking, smelling, with a new and fresh look. It is a good beginning, although it is not as good as we would have liked. We would have liked to put a lot more money into it, but that would not have been fiscally responsible. I can say this with all the certainty I can muster. It is not as good as we would like for the people of this province, but it is certainly the best budget they have had in over 42 years.

Mr. McLean: Now we will hear some facts of the budget. We have now had an opportunity to digest the first budget of the Ontario Liberal government. Judging from the reaction I have heard and seen, we can sum up in one word who is going to benefit. The one word is nobody.

It is tough to know where to start on such a budget. I can share the Treasurer's dilemma. He has the enormous task of making four decades of good government and good management look bad. He has to appease his socialist friends. He has to pay some lipservice to some of those very elaborate campaign promises that were made. He was even short on the lipservice end of it.

He failed to mention a word about abolishing Ontario health insurance plan premiums and providing denticare for the needy. Retail operators and labour people were tough with their criticism. The retailers feel they are now in double jeopardy. The consumer has less money to spend because of Liberal fiscal follies. There is an increase in the tax burden on corporations. That impact will be felt in years to come. Cliff Pilkey, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, says there is nothing for labour and the unemployed.

The Liberals dangled a $375-million program to help youth employment. However, this scheme had been given thumbs-down treatment earlier in the budget week. This program merely lumps together six existing youth programs and adds $25 million to those programs put in place by the previous government.

Stimulating the housing market is something the Liberals have to take another look at. They have increased the land transfer tax. This means that if one is buying a $40,000 home, the transfer tax is now $200; that is up from $160 under the previous government. On a $200,000 house, the tax is now $1,725; that is up from $1,420.

That is the transfer tax. Excluded from that is the single-family residence located on agricultural land subject to farm tax rates. Members should pay special attention to this aspect of the Treasurer's budget. It is the only thing he has done for the farmer. He has helped him to get off the land. I guess in the business of farming one has to be grateful for small blessings.

The New Democratic Party will stick with the coalition even though the member for York South (Mr. Rae), the NDP leader, gives the budget only a C minus and has warned that the NDP may vote against some of the tax-raising aspects in it.

The Leader of the Opposition says this budget will put the brakes on the economic recovery of this province, and it will. Ontario has been coming out of the recession at a much better rate than that of any other province in Canada. The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), at one time Treasurer, has criticized the budget write-off of some government assets. However, he does not intend to call for the Treasurer's resignation.

The Premier has acknowledged there is a shortfall between campaign promises made when the Liberals were trying to get elected and what has turned up in the budget. He adds that he would have liked to have had all of those promises included in the budget, "but" -- and it is a big but -- "we have to do this in a responsible fiscal way."

This would indicate to me that one does not have to make those election promises in a responsible fiscal way; just make them in an appealing way and get elected. Then one can tell one's constituents that one must act responsibly. That is just so much political chicanery. If one is going to be responsible, one should start acting that way during the election campaign, not when one is faced with the facts and has to act on those promises.

To add to the financial woes of this province, the Premier wants to bail out of Suncor regardless of the costs to the taxpayers of this province. This may be an ideal time to bail out, but at what price? Any fool can give money away. The Premier wants to give our money away, handing over this resource that cost $650 million for $160 million.

The leader of the Progressive Conservative Party could have sold those 13 million shares for $450 million, but here we have the Premier giving away $290 million for pure spite, just because the stock was bought by the Conservative government of Bill Davis. The Leader of the Opposition and Tories could have saved us that much in one transaction.

It does not matter who bought the Suncor shares. It is up to the government either to sell the stock for the best price possible in the interest of saving the people of Ontario $290 million or to hang on to it without downgrading the stock in the eyes of all the people of this province. The Premier's approach reminds me of the man who buys a car, has a little trouble with it, immediately puts a big lemon sign on it and then tries to sell it.

This budget can be considered a direct hit on Mr. and Mrs. Average Citizen of this province. The provincial budget gouges what amounts to a four per cent increase in income taxes. This can also amount to a drop of 10 percentage points in disposable income for the middle-income wage earner in this province. We must not lose sight of the fact that such taxation measures, when they outstrip the rate of inflation, lower the standard of living.

This is where we appear to be on this issue today. The present government is increasing its spending and its debt. It has tightened taxes on corporations and will do nothing to help the unemployed. Our provincial debt will climb this year by 30 per cent, from $1.7 billion to $2.2 billion.

12:10 p.m.

The highlight of the Treasurer's budget, as it is rendered for farmers, amounts to the main emphasis being on leaving the farming industry. Within the next few weeks, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) is to announce details of a $6-million transition fund to assist farmers leaving the agricultural industry.

This program is designed to confront the particular difficulties faced by tobacco-growing farmers. Not by a long shot does every farmer in this province grow tobacco. What about the rest of us? The Treasurer should realize lower cash receipts and heavy debts are forcing families off farms.

The Liberal government mentioned job creation was a major thrust of the party's election campaign. Then the Treasurer came out with a budget and increased the corporate income tax by 3.6 per cent. Is this job creation? I do not believe so. This will take $200 million out of the economy in corporate income tax. Consider the job loss, rather than job creation, through this manoeuvre. It is common knowledge that every tax increase results in job loss and some harm to the economy. However, the Treasurer tells us his budgetary strategy will improve the economy and create 180,000 jobs.

The Treasurer can take this as notice. We will be following the progress of this job creation scheme with interest. We will be requesting a status report from time to time on the number of jobs created.

Every budget since 1979 has had a program or programs very specifically designed to train, retrain or employ the unemployed over the age of 24, but not this one. Of course, these people do not qualify for the youth employment program. I would like to know what the Treasurer plans to do for the 386,000 people in this category. What is he going to do for them in a tangible way? I do not mean just making some other course available to them in a continuing education program. These people want to work and earn their keep; many of them do not want to return to school.

Let us reflect on the feeble job creation rendered in this budget. The government has not really come to the aid of the unemployed youth with its Futures scheme. It has, however, come to the aid of the fast-food chains, giving them cheap labour for four months at a time. This will not in any way amount to a skills training program. It amounts to subsidized labour and will short-circuit people seriously considering careers in a fast-food outlet.

They will not have much chance of tenure or permanency, no matter how good they are at their jobs. They will be treated just like one of the Colonel's chickens. However, they become mature for employment purposes at 16 weeks.

We do not have enough McDonald's, Burger King and Colonel Sanders outlets in my riding of Simcoe East really to get anything out of this scheme, although we do have a great many young people who have the desire to find worthwhile employment and become responsible members of society.

Both the Treasurer and the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) seem to agree motorists should be tackled and wrestled to a standstill. The Liberals have added an increase of 0.04 per cent per litre of gasoline.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is very small.

Mr. McLean: It is about 3.5 to four cents a gallon. According to the calculations I have, this could result in an increase of up to 30 per cent for drivers in northern Ontario. This is an added and harsh burden for our northern neighbours. They have considerably greater distances to travel than is often the case in southern portions of this province. They also have fewer employment opportunities.

In my own riding of Simcoe East, we have a tremendous number of daily commuters to Toronto and other bigger centres. I feel this is a direct hit on them.

We are an industrial community in Simcoe East. It is a wonderful place to live and raise a family, but because of the nature of the area many of us must commute to our jobs. This added tax on gasoline is just adding to the financial burden faced by these hard-working people. Surely the Liberal government does not want to encourage them to give up their jobs and collect public assistance? I am not saying this added tax burden would result in this action by the residents of my riding, but somewhere along the line comes the straw that will break the camel's back.

As I mentioned earlier, the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines appears not to object to this tax burden for his constituents. I want to make it abundantly clear that I do object to it. If my memory serves me right, the Treasurer and the Premier last spring made a commitment, for what it was worth, to freeze the ad valorem gasoline tax. They gave no hint of replacing it with a higher tax.

Is this another one of those vapour-thin promises made with more election fever than ever? I have to wonder whether the Treasurer is trying to sneak up on Ontario motorists while world gasoline prices are coming down. He sneaks in an increase in the tax, hoping nobody will notice, hoping the world price reduction will coincide with the tax increase and everybody will be content that the final price will not rise. About the only hope we have in this regard is that the gasoline tax increase will help to drive out the Liberal government.

We have a rental unit crisis in my area. In many areas in Toronto it is a classic situation, with a nil vacancy rate. I have not seen anything in this most recent budget from the Treasurer to show he is aware of this crisis, which could well become a disaster unless some very quick action is taken by the government. The Treasurer continues to blame our government for the situation he says he has inherited. He has been saying this since his party became the government and appears to be content to let the housing shortage get worse.

His budget provided for 10,000 new low-rental units for construction over the next three years. He says the private sector will come up with another 5,000 units over the same period. Figures from the Treasurer's own government show there is an immediate need for almost 40,000 units by the end of 1986. The budget figures for rental units will cover the cost of little more than 20,000 homes, a shortfall of 50 per cent.

There is more discouraging news. We understand a major builder, Bramalea, is cancelling its projects for 1986 because of Liberal government policies now in effect in this province. I have to wonder if the Treasurer's policy is not to have any commitment to enough new rental housing.

I would like to conclude my remarks by simply saying I will be voting against the budget.

12:20 p.m.

Mr. Martel: I am sure that last comment came as a surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, as it did to me. After having been here for 18 years, listening to the rantings of the Tories drives me around the bend. I have listened to many budget speeches and when I hear, for example, the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce) saying there is nothing in the budget, I have only to look at the speeches over the years of the Tory cabinet ministers as we tried to talk about problems that had to be resolved in the north.

We had people such as the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) getting up to say, "You people are just gloomers." What was his famous line about gloom and doom? When we talked about one-industry towns, we could not even penetrate their impervious skulls. They would say: "That is not really the case. There are no towns in northern Ontario like that." There is a litany of ghost towns in northern Ontario. We tried to talk to them, but they would not listen or could not hear; they knew better than anybody. They ran this province by the divine right of kings and ignored anyone else.

I hope to get through to my friend the Treasurer this morning on gasoline, if nothing else. Governments have never understood northern Ontario. They cannot even comprehend its size. I sometimes have difficulty with my own party on this. I recall getting a call one day from the provincial office. Somebody asked me, "Would you slide up to Wawa?" The slide was 330 miles one way. They wanted me to go to see one person in that one slide.

Governments have never understood the magnitude of northern Ontario. Most of their members come in by plane. They fly in because they do not want to ride on the roads. Since they fly in, distance does not seem to be that relevant. One could never get them to understand the size of northern Ontario.

That can be related to layoffs in a one-industry town. It is not like southern Ontario where one can drive to the next town and find a job, because in the north the next town could well be 75, 80, 85 or 100 miles away. When there is a layoff in Sudbury, it is not like a layoff in Cambridge. I am not saying that layoffs in Cambridge do not cause problems, but how long does it take one to go from Cambridge to Kitchener or Guelph? When one has a layoff in Sudbury, a one-industry town, and there is no government involvement to act as a catalyst to create a new industry, one is in trouble.

That is why we are in trouble in Sudbury and in many towns in northern Ontario.

Mr. Haggerty: If Sudbury is in trouble, so is Port Colborne.

Mr. Martel: So is Port Colborne. Government members do not understand size. They fly around in their planes. They might look out the window now and then, or they might say we have nice scenery in northern Ontario. However, we are talking about size, distance and lack of service. If an industry is going into southern Ontario, one has natural gas and other things. In northern Ontario, there is no natural gas; so a specific type of industry cannot develop.

A number of years ago I recommended a heritage fund or a tomorrow fund --

Mr. Haggerty: Lougheed picked that one up.

Mr. Martel: Yes, he picked that one up, and we moved it in 1977. The Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines is almost on that now. I did not want to name it the tomorrow fund, but there is a fund.

I want to tell my friend the Treasurer what else has to be done. His government has to become a catalyst. I am not saying the government should move in and start a crown corporation in the manufacturing sector. I am saying government has to become a catalyst to make things happen in northern Ontario. We have been extracting resources out of Sudbury for 100 years now, as we have in Timmins or Cobalt, but there is no secondary industry and no manufacturing.

When people come to northern Ontario and tell me what they are going to do for the north, I think they are crazy. They keep saying somebody is going to move north and do something. That is a lot of baloney. Unless government becomes a catalyst to attract industry and help in the planning, then development in the north is not going to occur.

The Treasurer might ask, "What does all this have to do with gasoline?" I say to the Treasurer that transportation is a problem; the cost of gasoline is a problem. Even if one has a job, if one lives in Valley East, for example, and travels to Copper Cliff to work, that is roughly 30 miles each way per day. When the Treasurer slaps another little tax on gasoline, it proves very difficult for workers. Unlike in southern Ontario -- if one is in the mines, for example -- workers do not all start their shifts at the same time. Somebody starts at 1:30 p.m., somebody else at 2 p.m. and others at 2:30 p.m., 3 p.m. and 3:30 p.m.; so one has difficulty even getting into a car pool.

The other thing people do not understand about northern Ontario is that many communities have no type of municipal transportation service. One can travel in parts of my riding where there is no public transit; I have a whole string of little towns between Highway 69 south and Highway 17 east, and each of those towns is at least 30 miles from Sudbury.

We have a lot of old folks who cannot get on a bus to go to Sudbury, and every time the price of gasoline goes up -- it is at least 15 cents a gallon more expensive than in southern Ontario -- they really feel the effects, because they need their cars. They cannot go down to the corner and get on a subway or a bus; they have to use their cars.

These problems are all unique. For example, I know people who travel daily from Sturgeon Falls to Inco at Copper Cliff, and it has to be 70 miles one way. When the Treasurer jacks the tax up a bit, with that type of distance it really hurts. With the layoffs at Inco and Falconbridge, people who settled in Garson now, let us say, find themselves working not in Garson any longer but maybe in Levack, and they have to travel 40 or 50 miles one way each day.

I hope the Treasurer will find a solution to the gasoline problem in the north. He has a number of things he could do. He could have a price differential in the tax collected so the gasoline price would be nearly the same in the north as it is in the south. As we said in the accord, we could freeze it prebudget, not post-budget; I thought that was what we were talking about. Or perhaps he could average it out more evenly. However, he should not collect more as he is getting away from or eliminating that ad valorem tax.

That is the monster the Tories talk about. They abhor what is going on. I can understand their reluctance to see it jacked up, but the Tories never really opposed increased gasoline prices with any sincerity, because every time the price of gasoline went up, the ad valorem tax meant the Tories profited from it since it increased the amount that went into the budget.

The Treasurer has two or three options. I hope he will use one or two or three of them to ensure that he does not increase the price of gasoline in northern Ontario. There are just too many factors that cause northerners to spend a lot more on gasoline than people in southern Ontario do. We are now paying 15 cents more, and in many parts it is much higher than that.

12:30 p.m.

I want to turn to a subject that is not in the budget, but I want to talk about it anyway. I want to talk about sports. I am going to put this to my friend in writing in the next week, but I want to tell him here today that in Quebec last year the government spent $60 million -- a very conservative estimate, I must say -- in treating kids who had sustained injuries from sports, and roughly the same the year before. Can we imagine spending $60 million on accidents in sports? There is something wrong with where we are going.

I am going to talk about hockey, which interestingly ranks third in the number of serious sports accidents, I am told. I am waiting for the report that shows the other two. I have been raising this matter with the Tories for a long time; the first time was, along with the former member for Rainy River, when the Bill McMurtry study was done.

I also raised the matter when the McPherson study was done; and again last year when we learned that in Canada a survey done by Dr. Tator identified 48 spinal injuries in hockey during a period of seven and a half years between 1976 and 1983. The median age of those injured was 17 and the average age was 20. Of the total injuries, 29 were in Ontario and 37 were in organized games; 25 of the players struck the boards and 18 were pushed or checked from behind.

That was only 18 months ago across Canada. Now, 18 months later, the most recent study shows 88 spinal injuries, an increase of 40. Ontario has 44 of the 88; half of them are in Ontario. We have four times as many as Quebec, which has only 11. It is an interesting statistic that to treat and look after one quadriplegic costs $1 million at a minimum. Not only are lives virtually ruined, but also treatment costs $1 million over a lifetime -- and Ontario has 44 of those injuries.

We know that 16 of these injuries were sustained when they slid into some object, 13 were checked or pushed and 22 were hit from behind. Let me tell members how many are permanently and totally injured. Of the 88, 53 have permanent damage, 24 complete motor loss and 24 complete sensory loss; 19 incomplete motor loss and incomplete sensory loss, and eight complete motor loss and incomplete sensory loss. This means 53 are partially or totally paralysed or left with some crippling, disabling injury. Of those confined by total loss, we are looking at a cost of more than $1 million to look after a youngster who is seriously injured.

I used to talk to the ministers of the former government about this, and I might as well have talked to the wall. I might have made more progress trying to get the former government to do something if the government had been a stone wall.

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: It became obscene, because they even did a poll on that to see if they should move. I have the poll here for my friend, a former minister who is now interjecting.

In this poll, 55 per cent felt we had to enforce the rules and get rid of the violent behaviour in the game, 43 per cent said there should be stricter enforcement, 39 per cent said there should be better training of coaches and two per cent said the government should be involved. What did the government do? Nothing. They sat on their hands. I say it is criminal.

In the past 18 months, the number of spinal injuries in Ontario alone has increased by 15. There is something sick about a government and a society that will tolerate sports in which kids end up quadriplegic or paraplegic. The government did not have the guts to do a thing about it. The members sat on their hands.

The government did a poll, which said the government should not do anything. The government in its wisdom organized a sports medicine board. There are good people on the board. Unfortunately, when I said to the then minister, the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz), "Let us make sure every accident in an arena is reported to the board; make it mandatory at least to give the material to the sports medicine board," he said we could not do that.

Mr. Leluk: What does the new minister say?

Mr. Martel: I am coming to that.

I wrote the various hockey associations to find out how many accidents each of them was reporting. If one is going to have a board to look at accidents, one has to have the statistics. We have never maintained a list of accidents that have occurred to hockey players, nor do we foresee the need to do so. We do not even have to report the accidents.

To the many letters I wrote, I got three replies. This is an indication, I say to the Treasurer, of what we can expect from these birds. We are infringing on the turf of the people who run hockey, and they do not think anyone should infringe or get involved. It does not matter that we have had 44 spinal injuries in Ontario in nine years. That is none of our business.

Mr. Leluk: Wait until the girls start playing on the boys' hockey teams. The member supports that, does he not?

Mr. Martel: I know. There are four girls already.

Mr. Cousens: He just got the member.

Mr. Martel: He did not get me. I know where I stand. I do not support it, quite frankly.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: I am sorry. I am an individual, and I do not support it.

Mr. Mancini: The member for Sudbury East is a party man.

Mr. Martel: We will see on that one.

We have a poll which the Tories did and which shows people do not think government should be involved. The government established a board and then did not make it mandatory to report accidents to it. The member talked about window-dressing. I say it is criminal that those kids' lives have been ruined because the former government did not have the guts to do a thing about it.

Now my friends over there will do something.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: Obviously, the members feel exercised about their unwillingness to do anything. The member for York West (Mr. Leluk) was in the cabinet, as well as the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) and the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens). Why did they not do something? They knew what was going on.

Interjections.

12:40 p.m.

Mr. Martel: I know. Do not do anything. I have already spoken to the minister responsible, and we will have a meeting with the whole committee. I asked the present minister if he would meet with the group who did a study called, Play It Safe, and he is prepared to meet, unlike the former ministers who would not meet with us.

The Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) says he will meet with us. The Tories would not even meet with us. They refused categorically. Neither the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) nor his friend the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) would meet with our group. But we have a meeting coming with this minister. The Tories would not meet with us.

Mr. Cousens: When?

Mr. Martel: We had one set up for October 17, which could not be met; but the date has been set.

I want to talk about the Sudbury economy for a few minutes with my friend the Treasurer --

Mr. Cousens: Finish the subject you are on.

Mr. Martel: I have for the time being. There are things coming, I guarantee it. There was the time the Tories watched 44 spinal injuries in Ontario and did not have the courage to do a thing about it. They should be proud of themselves, the whole bunch of them.

Mr. Leluk: That is why you are supporting having girls in boys' hockey.

Mr. Martel: I am not supporting it.

Mr. Cousens: Sucking and blowing at the same time.

Mr. Mancini: The member for York West sat on his hands and did nothing. He was in the cabinet. He could have made a difference and he did nothing.

Mr. Martel: They sat on their hands and did nothing. They did not have the courage to do anything.

Let me say to the Treasurer, the Sudbury region has some very serious problems. The Treasurer will recall that I met with the regional chairman in his office. We went over the statistics for Sudbury. Unlike the rest of the province, the Sudbury area's problem in terms of jobs, the age group we are having difficulty with, is those aged 25 to 46. The people who are drawing welfare and are employable are in that age group. It is not youth, because we learned a long time ago in the north that our youth has to leave to find jobs since the Tories did nothing to get secondary industry.

If one looks at the last 15-year pattern, we knew that youth was leaving the north because there were no jobs.

Interjections

Mr. Martel: I am talking about that. They set the stage with 42 years of budgets in which they did nothing for the north except exploit us.

We know where our kids are. The kids in the north have to leave the north to get jobs. That is why it is such a problem in Sudbury; they have already left.

Interjections

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member for Sudbury East would direct his comments to the chair and there would be fewer interjections.

Mr. Martel: I am trying very hard, Mr. Speaker.

I was simply saying that after 42 years of Tory budgets our young people know they have to leave the north to get jobs because outside of extraction, there are no jobs in the north for young people since there is no secondary industry. They allowed the exploitation because they are the ones who allowed, even in mining, section 104 of the Mining Act that gave one company after the other the exemptions to take the resource out of the north and process it in Europe or in the United States.

In 1969 we put an amendment to the Mining Act which said, "When you extract resources in Canada or Ontario, you process them here." Every year this motley group gave concessions from the act so they could process somewhere else. Consequently, we do not have processing in the north.

If one looks at Falconbridge Ltd., in the year 1985, Falconbridge has yet to refine a pound of nickel in Canada. They ship it to Norway. Inco is processing a substantial amount of its nickel in Clydach. They also process the precious metals, the platinum group, abroad.

The Tories had a study done in 1976. It is interesting. In 1976-77 there was a very excellent report done by Tom Mohide for the Ministry of Natural Resources. It recommended a whole series. It was called Towards a Nickel Policy for the Province of Ontario. The Ontario government totally ignored it. It just went on blithely giving yet another 10-year exemption to Falconbridge against processing here in Canada. It was the same with Inco and the platinum group, which is gold, silver and everything else. They are all processed somewhere else.

We wonder why we do not have jobs in the north. There are 26 or 30 exemptions to the mining industry. All they had to say was, "We cannot do it; we are going to have to close down," and they got another exemption. They picked up resources from northern Ontario, took them to some other country and then sent them back to us as a finished commodity.

Let me give an example of what they do with nickel. We send all our nickel out. Let me give the value of nickel products a couple of years ago. In 1981 we imported $21-million worth of stainless steel cutlery, $40-million worth of stainless steel surgical instruments, $241-million worth of nickel valves, $33-million worth of heat exchangers, $22-million worth of dairy and milk product plant machinery, $92-million worth of X-ray equipment and $83-million worth of gas turbines and parts. The list goes on and on of nickel products made somewhere else from nickel extracted from the ground in Sudbury. We continue to give mining exemption after mining exemption to process the nickel abroad. No jobs and no tax.

We looked at Inco in 1978 at the time of the first big layoff. In 1971, Inco paid $1 million provincial tax and $500,000 federal tax on a profit of more than $100 million. It had at least 19,000 people working then. Now they are down to 7,000. Falconbridge will be down from 3,600 to about 1,700.

What is the value of the material we are taking out of the ground if we are not going to get tax dollars and jobs? We do not even demand the completion of the processing and we allow it to be sent out of Canada to be processed. What is the sense of even taking it out of the ground?

I used to say that many years ago and the government of the day would say, "It is nice to get a bunch of jobs." Sudbury dropped from fifth to 76th on the economic totem pole with respect to wages under the Tory regime. There has been nothing put in by the private sector in Sudbury except an occasional expansion.

Let me tell the members what has just happened. The Tories will enjoy this one. A small company that produces mining equipment was going to move part of its operation to Sudbury. Sinclair Stevens -- some members know that clown -- offered that company $8 million to locate in Glace Bay. This industry that was coming to Sudbury to create jobs has now been offered $8 million and rail subsidies for three years.

Mr. Cousens: The member should get his facts right.

Mr. Martel: I have my facts right.

Mr. Cousens: The member has no proof or knowledge that it was coming to his little town of Sudbury.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East has the floor.

12:50 p.m.

Mr. Martel: The member is wrong. I have met with these people. I will put it in his ear.

They have been offered $8 million. Sinclair Stevens needs some industry to go to --

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: Yes. I met with the regional people; I have met with the staff from the ministry since. But $8 million was offered to go to Nova Scotia because the Tories closed down the heavy water plant.

We thought we were establishing the basis -- I have always taken the position in the north that one has to use the products that are in the north to create industry in the north for the young people in the north. I am not saying we should make silk stockings with silk imported from Japan. I am saying we should provide the mining equipment in the north, because that is where it is necessary.

Canada is the third largest producer of mineral wealth in the world. In 1981 we imported $727 million worth of mining equipment, and that was a 229 per cent increase over six years. We had a trade deficit of $590 million in mining equipment. We are the largest importer of mining equipment in the world. Is that not wonderful? We are the third largest producer of mineral wealth, and the single largest importer of mining equipment in the world is Canada, and Ontario primarily.

The province has to become the catalyst. I am not saying it should start a mining company; I am saying it can become involved through economic planning to attract industry to areas using what is there for the benefit of the people who are there. Mining equipment is one area that would help to resolve the problem. When the company from Toronto wanted to come to Sudbury, Sinclair Stevens offered it $8 million to go to Glace Bay. That is a great way to run a country, is it not? They close down the heavy water plant and then they need jobs.

Here is another example of what the Treasurer and his government could do. There is a phosphate deposit in the riding of his colleague the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine). I am going to make only two points just to show members how silly things have been. I attempted to get the government to look at this, as did my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), because if one took the phosphates from Cargill township and combined them with sulphuric acid, one would get fertilizer.

I tried to get Pope interested in it. He and Piché made a --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Does the member mean Alan Pope, the candidate for leadership --

Mr. Martel: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: -- or the one in the Vatican?

Mr. Martel: No. "Alan Pope Assures Piché Jobs Won't be Exported." When we raised it in the House, Piché jumped up and got into it and said, "They are going to steal jobs from the Kapuskasing area." They are not mining it yet, by the way. What the member for Nickel Belt and I were suggesting is that you take the phosphates from there and the sulphuric acid from Inco, which is going up the stack in the form of gas, and combine the two.

The company said no. The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) was not interested; he was not going to export jobs. The company phones the member for Nickel Belt and says, "No, we cannot do that." The reason they could not combine the two products was that they wanted to take it to the United States. But there was an even better reason they could not do it: they could not get a guaranteed supply of sulphuric acid, Mr. Topp said. Can the members imagine?

In fact, Inco could produce another third more sulphuric acid today than it produces. It will not, because it would glut the market for sulphuric acid. So instead of taking it out of the stack and converting it to sulphuric acid, it goes up the stack and we have some more acid rain.

Sherritt Gordon cannot do anything about this. They say, "We cannot get involved because we cannot get a guaranteed supply of sulphuric acid." I am quoting from the business magazine in northern Ontario. They do not have a guaranteed supply of sulphuric acid. That is nonsense. We have got more sulphuric acid than we know what to do with and we cannot produce it any more because we cannot sell it, so we let it go up the stack.

Another thing the province should be looking at is the possibility of taking the stuff from Cargill in the north, the sulphuric acid from Inco, reducing the emissions, converting to sulphuric acid and producing fertilizer right in the north. It makes a little sense, but we could not get the last government to look at it nor could we get the federal government to look at it.

We sent these things off to both the federal and provincial governments in a report my colleague the member for Nickel Belt and I wrote called A Challenge to Sudbury. Most of the ideas in A Challenge to Sudbury came from federal and provincial government documents. My colleague and I stayed away from talking about nationalization of resources, because we knew the government might not look at it if we called for it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: When did that start?

Mr. Martel: No, in this document. I wanted a possibility of succeeding, but they would not even review the possibilities. There are things we can do in the north with resources utilized in the north, but we have to have the will.

We have to get a government that becomes a catalyst. I would say to my friend the Treasurer, start a committee to put proposals such as this, using the studies that have already been done, making suggestions that governments will look at seriously to try to resolve the dilemma of northern Ontario, which is to pay high taxes, to see all the kids get educated at high cost and leave the north to find jobs because they cannot get jobs in the north.

Every time a new mine is opened up, the first shovelful is the beginning of the end. This ever-continuing extraction of raw materials and putting nothing back is what makes the north somewhat hostile to the southern part of Ontario. We want our share of the good things that are in Ontario for our kids and for what we do. There is a way of doing it without government. I know this government would worry, although not as much as the Tories, about government getting involved.

We have to plan and government has to become part of that planning; not ad hoc, but very systematically, sector by sector in the north, utilizing what we have there for the benefit of our people and the overall benefit of Ontario. We have the resources and we are asking for a government that is prepared to look at the north and give us a share of some of the amenities that come from secondary industry and security in terms of jobs for our kids.

I am now looking at the clock, as my friend points at it. I will sit down.

On motion by Mr. Martel, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.