Hansard Transcript 1985-Nov-04 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Gillies: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: On Friday morning after question period, in response to the revelation by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) that there was a hole in the floor near his seat, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) was heard to interject to me: "It is a rathole, Phil. Why do you not crawl into it?"

I know, Mr. Speaker, that it is not for you to judge whether it is appropriate for the first minister to address another member in that way, but I would ask you to consider whether any member should address another member in this chamber in that fashion -- in fact, whether it is parliamentary or not.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member. I will certainly take a look at it. However, I would like to inform the member, and it might be the appropriate time to inform all members, that this certainly is not a point of privilege. There is the possibility that it is close to a point of order.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: I am pleased to table the 10th annual report of the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped for the year ending March 31, 1985.

The government of Ontario welcomes the advice of the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped. I am particularly pleased to have been given special responsibilities for matters relating to disabled persons. It is important that the government continue to extend its efforts so that persons with disabilities can participate fully in all aspects of Ontario life.

In the short time I have been involved with the council, I have been impressed by the calibre of its recommendations. This annual report reflects the considerable amount of work that the 16 members of council, under the chairmanship of Ron McInnes, have done on a wide range of subjects.

I look forward to working with the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped to ensure that its views are shared with this government and that actions are taken that respond to the needs and abilities of our disabled citizens.

I wish at this time to thank Mr. McInnes, who is in the gallery, and the advisory council for its fine report.

PROPERTY TAX GRANTS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to inform the House that on October 25 the Ministry of Revenue commenced mailing the second instalment of the 1985 Ontario property tax grant cheques to eligible senior citizens throughout the province. I am very proud of this.

On August 23 my ministry mailed out more than 635,000 application forms for this instalment. By the middle of last week, with the mailing of applications to persons turning 65 in August and September, this total had risen to 654,000 applications. Seniors turning 65 in October, November and December of 1985 will receive applications in January 1986. As of October 30, 580,000 applications had been returned, of which 573,000 have been fully processed.

As honourable members will recall, the first instalment of up to $250 of the property tax grant was received by seniors in April of this year. These recent applications, therefore, determine the amount of the second and final payment owed to each applicant during 1985, which, in turn, will be the basis for the 1986 interim payments.

As this matter will be of great interest to their constituency offices and to the senior citizens in their ridings, may I remind the members that for seniors who turn 65 this year and who did not, therefore, receive the first instalment of the grant, the full year's entitlement to a maximum of $500 will be issued to them in the form of one cheque with my name on it.

I am pleased to report that as of last Friday we had mailed some 568,000 cheques totalling close to $142 million and that the average value of each cheque was approximately $250. Mailouts will continue on a regular basis until all applications are returned and processed.

As well, starting Friday, November 29, my ministry will be sending out the annual $50 sales tax grant to seniors who have turned 65 by September. Ontario residents turning 65 in the last three months of 1985 will receive their sales tax credit in January 1986.

I would like to thank the members for the assistance and co-operation of their constituency offices in the successful administration of this program.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. F. S. Miller: I would like to address a question to the Treasurer. I should point out first that we were very interested to notice the chief of staff of the Premier having breakfast at the Park Plaza with the Honourable Keith Davey this morning and wondered whether advice was being given by one to the other or just what.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Is that the first question?

Mr. Speaker: I presume so.

Mr. F. S. Miller: Just a comment.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I had breakfast with him once myself.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary. Place your question, please.

Mr. F. S. Miller: I will be glad to, but it was an interesting fête-à-fête.

JOB CREATION

Mr. F. S. Miller: I would like to ask the Treasurer just why he fell asleep in the budget he brought out recently and forgot all about the small-business job-creation tax credit his Premier (Mr. Peterson) talked so much about during the election campaign. It took a meeting of the young Liberals this weekend to bring it back to memory. He said: "That is a good idea. Perhaps I could do it some time in the future." Does the Treasurer really still consider it to be a good idea? What made him forget it this time?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member may be referring to the proposal put forward by the present Premier and others that a small-business tax credit associated with jobs created would be a good way to stimulate the business community. I thought it was a good idea when it was first proposed. I still think it is a good idea and I am giving it every careful consideration for inclusion the next time I have something specific to say about the fiscal policy of the province.

Mr. F. S. Miller: I have to say my impression during the election campaign was that it was not just a good idea of his Premier, it was the policy of this government and the voters could expect it to come in if his party was made the government.

Mr. Brandt: It was a commitment.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. F. S. Miller: Let me get back to a point the Treasurer avoided the other day because it ties in with the first question -- job creation. He predicts 2.5 per cent gross national product growth next year; we had 4.5 per cent this year. He predicts 108,000 new jobs next year and we had approximately 160,000 this year. There are 98,000 coming into the work force next year, for goodness' sake. For a change, the Treasurer will get a drop in unemployment, not through his efforts but through demographics.

Is he going to give us the kinds of figures his staff gave him to tell him why that drop in job creation would happen next year as a result of his tax measures?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am sure members are aware that the policy of the government, as enunciated in this budget, is expansionary and designed to stimulate the economy. The downward trend is not a downward trend; it is simply a reduction in the rate of growth in the expanding economy. The member will know that in his last years as Treasurer the economy was not expanding at all; in fact, it was contracting. The turnaround, pretty much powered by the turnaround in the United States, has shown large growth percentages because the growths were based on a contracting economy, not an expanding one.

My economists tell me that the province can sustain a growth rate of three per cent over a prolonged period, and no more than that. The indication is that 2.4 to 2.5 is a good solid rate of real growth, which will expand the work force and see the rate of unemployment being reduced from about 8.1 per cent, where it is at present, to 7.7 per cent in the coming year.

Mr. F. S. Miller: It is an interesting Treasurer who thinks a reduction from 4.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent is not a drop in growth. It is also an interesting Treasurer who is satisfied to believe three per cent is enough growth when five per cent was the average for decades in this province. He should know that.

I asked him about government studies which detailed the drop in jobs created against his tax measures. Where is the open government he is talking about? Where are those reports?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The leading candidate to be the member's successor asked that question three times last week, and I gave him the same answer.

When the revenues from tax increases are directed towards economic growth, there is not a drop in jobs just because the tax increase takes place. It is when the revenues from tax increases are put into non-productive expenditures that one gets a loss in jobs.

The officials, in response to tax increases, in no way predicted a drop in the rate of employment. On the contrary, the prediction was what I have already put to the member in the answer to a previous question today, that is, that unemployment would drop from eight to 7.7 per cent.

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Davis: I would like the Minister of Education to assume his leadership role as minister responsible for the quality of education and for access to education, and to intervene personally in Wellington in the county teachers' strike. The minister, like all who are concerned about the quality of education, especially those immediately affected, has a great stake in a fair and swift conclusion of this situation. I suggest to the minister that the current situation is now too big to be left in the hands of a mediator. In this party we believe it is time for the minister to break the logjam

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Davis: It is coming, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister to assume his responsibility, to use his good office and to try to persuade the parties of the urgency of this situation and not just let it drag on.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I share the honourable member's concern about the impact of this secondary school dispute upon the 8,200 secondary school students in Wellington county. I feel very strongly, on the basis of 10 years' experience with Bill 100, that the best resolution of this difficulty is a locally negotiated settlement.

I would like to take this opportunity to encourage both local parties in Wellington county to return to the negotiating table and, in the interests of those 8,200 secondary school students, to arrive at a locally negotiated resolution.

Mr. Davis: I would like to point out to the minister that I was using the precise words uttered by his leader in a question to the then Minister of Colleges and Universities in October 1984 concerning a strike that had gone on for only three days. The Wellington strike has now gone on for 10 times that and we still have no action from the minister. When will the minister act? Can he give the parents and students of Wellington a timetable for the resolution of this strike?

Hon. Mr. Conway: It is interesting to have a question from the honourable member. His party, when in office, allowed secondary school disputes to go in communities such as Sudbury for 56 days and Renfrew for 45 days.

We have a process that in my view has worked well over the years -- not perfectly, but well. I am in regular contact with the Education Relations Commission, which is monitoring the situation in both Wellington and Grey. So there can be no confusion about this, I want to repeat that I believe very strongly that, in the interests of those 8,200 students in Wellington county, the best resolution of this difficulty, not just for today and tomorrow but for the longer term, is a locally negotiated settlement.

Both local parties have it within their power and their authority to return to the negotiating table and, in the interests of those 8,200 students, to work out a locally negotiated solution, which I strongly encourage and suggest is the best way in this difficulty.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Less than one third of the school trustees in Wellington county are seeking re-election. That means after November 12 Wellington county will have practically an entirely new school board that will not take office until December 1. The month of November will be lost through a lame-duck board of education. Will the minister not concur that there is an urgent need to take action now to resolve this strike because of that as well as other factors?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say I very much appreciate the advice and counsel the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel has tendered to me on almost a daily basis. I know of his concern and I agree there is urgency. I fully expect both local parties will recognize and respond to that urgency. I have had the experience of viewing one of these long secondary school disputes in my own county and I know of the difficulties and pressures.

I am very confident that the good people in Wellington county will, in the interests of local autonomy, put the pressure where it properly belongs at this time, and that is on both local parties so they will understand the community concerns in so far as getting the matter resolved at the local level is concerned.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier about free trade. The Premier has presumably given the politicians in Washington a clear indication of where he stands, and I presume, at some time he has given the government of Canada a clear idea of where he stands. Given the importance of this issue to the citizens of this province, I wonder whether he can tell us today precisely where the government of Ontario stands on the question of the free trade negotiations that are going to be started in 1986 between the government of Canada and the government of the United States.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In response to the honourable member, that is not a simple question to answer. As he knows, it does not lend itself to a 30-second response. Let me start in on it as I may. The federal government has chosen to send a formal request to the President of the United States to make a request to Congress to determine whether in fact any discussions can be held with respect to free trade.

We are expecting a formal request to go to Congress and, at this point, we do not know how that will come back from Congress, i.e., will the administration be given a free hand to negotiate or will there be certain provisos on the other hand?

2:20 p.m.

One of the big frustrations is that it is not clear where the federal government stands on this matter at this time. It is its prerogative, as the member knows, to enter into these kinds of discussions. It is also no secret that I have been more cautious or far more reserved than have been a number of the other spokesmen in this country, as I am concerned about a number of questions. The auto pact is an example. When I talked to some of the people in the United States, I found they would like to see the auto pact on the table. I have a fundamental disagreement with them on that point.

I am sure the member appreciates that the decision-making process in the United States is infinitely more complicated than ours in this country. I had the opportunity to talk to about 12 senators, each with a different point of view on the subject. Some are very concerned about certain Canadian practices, such as those with timber. The administration tends to have a different view of the situation. At this point, it is not clear how that will sort itself out in the United States and what will be on the table.

I personally, and this government, have very strong reservations about jeopardizing our industrial base in Ontario. Those strong reservations have been conveyed to the Prime Minister, to the federal government and to certain people in the United States as well. I could go on at length, but perhaps the member has a more precise question.

Mr. Rae: I do have a more precise question. The free trade train is leaving the station and the Premier of Ontario has reservations. That is the extent of what he is saying: he says he has reservations. I believe Ontario has the ability, the power and the clout to have far more to say with respect to what the position of the government of Canada is going to be.

The Canadian ambassador to the United States is apparently advocating the sellout of our publishing industry to the Americans, saying that has to be part of the parcel. The Premier's good friend and Liberal colleague Donald Macdonald is saying all social policy programs are going to be put on the table. That is part of the parcel. That is part of the package of free trade.

It is clear the time has come for the Premier to state very clearly what the position of Ontario is; not concerns, not questions, not reservations, not problems and not worries, but precisely what the Premier is going to do to make sure that Ontario's interests are protected and that we do not enter into a free trade agreement with the United States.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I assume the member's point of view is to use whatever power we have to put the kibosh on any discussions. That is beyond the power of this government. As the member knows, we have been saying to the Prime Minister it is fundamental that the provinces have a strong voice at those discussions and be informed all along the way. I was concerned when I read in the newspaper that there have been secret strategies at various points to suppress any ill effects of this potential agreement.

We have been very forceful in putting forward to the federal Minister of International Trade, as well as to the Prime Minister, what the potential dislocation in Ontario would be. We have some figures that say 270,000 jobs would be dislocated in Ontario; in certain sectors it would be more serious than others. I want to be very frank about this. I do not have the power to say, "This is in and that is out." I am sure if the member talked to anyone in Ottawa he would agree with me that Ontario has been the most forceful organ in this country against walking prematurely into some kind of trap we do not fully understand.

I probably do not have the same ideological bias the member has on this situation. I tend to be very practical. I am not prepared to walk into a deal that is not better for Ontario. Those are the reasons I have been so reserved about this situation and will continue to press the matter.

We have hired a person who is internationally respected for his ability in these matters, Robert Latimer, as a trade adviser. We are widening our own contacts.

When I assumed the leadership of this province, I was somewhat disturbed by the lack of substantive information this government had with respect to any effects of free trade on this province. We are working hard now to develop that intellectual base, clearly knowing all the pitfalls.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I think you can sleep well tonight knowing this province is in very good hands with respect to its protection.

Mr. Brandt: I am pleased to hear the Premier is showing leadership on this issue. What he has been doing until now is following the example set by my leader, the then Premier (Mr. F. S. Miller), as the policy of this party when we were the government. If he continues to follow that, he will be safe.

The Premier has indicated to the leader of the third party that the auto pact would not be on the table. Surely, in response to either the question from the leader of the third party or mine, he could give some indication to the people of Ontario as to which other sectors of the economy he has indicated and/or identified are simply not negotiable. Is he prepared to share that information with this House now, and has he shared his concerns with respect to specific sectors of the economy with either Washington or our federal colleagues?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is yes, I have. First of all, we are not sure at this point what the federal government wants on the table. It is not easy dealing with this situation because the federal agenda has been so tentative. They have indicated they want to negotiate, but no one knows for sure what they want to negotiate; so we are going to be there shaping those answers.

The auto pact is as important a document to this province as any other. We feel extremely strongly about our cultural industries, as we do about our regional economic development programs. I have put forward questions to my colleagues, such as former Premier Lougheed and others. I asked, "What are you going to do, Mr. Lougheed, if, for example, there is criticism of your preferential pricing for oil in Alberta?" I asked, "What about the interests of the Newfoundland fisherman with respect to unemployment insurance?"

At stake, potentially, is our entire social welfare system and our regional economic development programs. Those should not be on the table. That is why we are developing the expertise to discuss this not only in general philosophical terms, but also in very specific terms as to the impact on Ontario as well as on the rest of the our country. I can assure the member that we will be there protecting the interests of our auto producers, our farmers, our cultural industries and our factories here in Ontario.

Mr. Rae: Let us be practical for moment, and very specific. What is the Premier going to do when the federal negotiators go down and he finds that all those things are on the table? The Premier and I both know it is in the American interest to see they are there. That is precisely what he was told by the Americans, the spokesmen for the administration whom he met. At least, that is what they told the press.

Surely it is at this stage that Ontario has to state categorically and unequivocally to the federal government, "If those items are on the table, Canada should not be there." We should not be entering into discussions when the Americans are saying they want to discuss water, our publishing industry, our cultural industries or the auto pact.

Surely it is at this point that Ontario should not just be stating concerns. Talk about a battle for who can be the most tentative; it is a close contest between the Premier and Brian Mulroney. Why does Ontario not say specifically now there should be no discussion on that kind of basis? On a free trade basis there should be no discussions. That should be the extent of the mandate given to our negotiators going down to Washington.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I want to caution the member about oversimplifying the situation. Just because he reads one quotation from Bill Brock, the Secretary of Labour, does not mean that is the administration's view. Just because the United States Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter says one thing does not necessarily mean that is the administration's view, or one other congressman or senator.

Let us be very frank about this. There is a very strong mood of protectionism in the United States at the moment, and it is extremely worrisome in a number of industries. I made the point continually with the decision-makers there -- and we talked to a good number of them -- about the importance of our trading relationship. With the United States, we have the greatest trading relationship in the world today. Ontario alone is the largest trading partner.

With respect to the reservations the member has suggested in this House, those have been put forward extremely clearly to the federal minister, the Prime Minister and everyone here who is in a position to listen. I warned them about the toughness of the US side, the fact that they will want everything on the table and that this is not my view.

I am trying at this moment to prepare the federal government for the difficulty of the discussions they will have if they develop. Let me make one other point in conclusion. It is not yet clear if they will develop, and if so under what terms and conditions, that is very much up in the air at this point; but I can tell the member we are protecting Ontario's interests in the most thoughtful way possible in the circumstances.

Mr. Rae: We will stand down our second question, as we understand the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) is coming into the House. We will stand that down until he arrives.

2:30 p.m.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP.

Mr. Baetz: I have a question for the Treasurer. I would like him to shed some light on the budgeted figures under the rubric of revenue inflow from the Ontario Lottery Corp. Why is the Treasurer budgeting only $132 million for the year 1985-86, whereas it is generally assumed that revenue from the Ontario Lottery Corp. in 1985-86 should be about twice that amount, namely, upwards of $250 million?

Is this another example of poor budget forecasting; or does it mean that the Treasurer, who, when he was a very distinguished and respected member of the opposition, gave many great moralistic homilies against the evils of gambling, is now planning to put a severe damper on the promotion, sales and profits of the Ontario Lottery Corp., guided by his moral structure?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If the honourable member is implying that the numbers given to me were somehow incorrect, all I can say is that I have never known the Treasury to give either me or my predecessors numbers that were incorrect. There is no way I even thought of checking them out personally or independently, and the numbers that are there are those officially put to the Treasurer by the appropriate authorities in the Treasury. I have no doubt that they would consult with the people in Wintario, Lottario, "Pick Your Winner," "Scratch Your Winner" and all those things the previous government brought in.

However, we are very glad that the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins), who has direct responsibility in that regard, has amended many of the processes that seemed to be standard in Lottario and Wintario under our predecessors whereby jobs for distribution and so on were handed out without being properly advertised and without a proper competition. We feel the corporation, while it has been working very efficiently, can be made to be fairer and to be seen to be fairer, and we trust we will be able to accomplish this as a new government.

Mr. Baetz: All of us have heard a rather remarkable admission by the Treasurer, that he does not seem to feel responsible for any of the figures that appear in his budget and that somebody just throws figures at him and he believes them. If that is the way he established his budget, we will have real problems coming up here.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your supplementary?

Mr. Baetz: I would like to ask the Treasurer, within earshot of the Premier, whether this kind of budgeting is simply some kind of ruse and whether a big chunk of the lottery funds are going to go into a slush fund to help the Premier along whenever he needs a little money for Christmas time. This seems to me to be very shoddy budgeting, and I would like to have an explanation from the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Of course, I want to reject the allegations and the implications in the member's comments. For him to bring into doubt the veracity and the goodwill of the Treasury officials must be as unacceptable to me as it is to the people sitting close to him, particularly his leader, a former Treasurer, who would never think of questioning these numbers. I believe they are professionally arrived at and are correct. The officials at Treasury have no reason whatsoever to give anything other than correct numbers. They have in the past, they do now and they will in the future.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Ramsay: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Health. The people of Ontario are paying $1 million a week to doctors who are extra billing and, as the minister knows, his government is losing $50 million a year in federal transfer payments. My constituents are postponing operations because they cannot afford them, while the minister is out consulting with the doctors about what we are going to do about extra billing.

Why does the minister not ban extra billing immediately and establish a one-price health care system in this province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable member is mistaken when he says we are losing $50 million a year. The situation is that the $50 million will be returned to us as long as we ban extra billing by April 1, 1987. That is the situation. Currently, about $4.4 million per month is being withheld from us. That money will be returned to this province as soon as we end extra billing; and extra billing in this province will be ended by this government.

Mr. Ramsay: Let us look at more than just the fiscal responsibilities of it. While the government is dilly-dallying around consulting, there are people in Ontario who are suffering because of this. I have a constituent who had an operation this morning just a few blocks down the street from here, and it is costing $3,000. If that patient does not come up with the $3,000 in a month, he is going to be charged two per cent interest per month, and if he does not cough up the money within 90 days, the doctor's letter says a collection agency may be involved. The Ontario health insurance plan is going to pay $1,700 of that.

What is the minister going to do to stop this suffering by the people of Ontario and let us have a one-cost system?

Hon. Mr. Elston: There is a concern on this side of the House that this sort of billing should not continue. We are moving to eliminate extra billing.

For those people who would like to listen to the answer and who have expressed their concerns to me before, it would be very helpful if they would provide me with the information as to where they stand on the style of the legislation that would be appropriate for all the citizens of the province. I requested that information previously from the member who is the critic of that party. He has not provided me with any input in that respect to this point.

If the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay) will send me the details of that case, I will undertake to look into the question of whether those charges are a violation of the legislation of the province, because it may be in the nature of overcharging. That is a remedy we can take a look at, and I am prepared to do that if the member will provide me with the information.

Mr. Brandt: Will the minister clarify for me the position of his party on this very important matter? He may recall an event that was held prior to May 2 in which he and spokesmen from his party stated very clearly, on each and every occasion they had the opportunity, that $1 million per week was lost to the taxpayers of Ontario. Now he is suggesting that money is not lost, that he can negotiate with the federal government to bring about some kind of new deal -- perhaps drop extra billing -- and, as a result, recover the money. That was the position we took during the election; the minister said that was incorrect. What is the minister's position?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable member is confusing me with somebody over there who might be running for leadership. We as a party have always indicated, during the election and since, that we will be moving to end extra billing. The honourable gentleman who hails from Sarnia knows full well that a ban on extra billing in this province will provide us with the money that is currently being held back by the federal government. He should understand that and I think he does understand that, but sometimes we have to clarify his clouded thinking as a result of several conflicting views that are being put by various people who are trying to lead that party -- to where, we are not sure.

ARTISTS' TAX EXEMPTION

Mr. Leluk: I have a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. In last Friday's Globe and Mail, I noticed the minister was practising a pirouette in her office, which I might say --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is that the question? "Will the minister give me a lesson?"

Mr. Leluk: No.

Mr. Speaker: But you do have a question.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Leluk: Yes, I have a question. I noticed the minister's office looks as though it has been redecorated to her taste since I left it in June. When will the minister stop dancing, get on with her job and let this Legislature know why the recent budget did not contain an exemption from the provincial sales tax for all artists' materials and their works, as promised in her party's alliance with the New Democratic Party?

Hon. Ms. Munro: At the culture ministers' conference in Halifax, the Ontario government put forward that proposal and a fairly comprehensive document on tax and the artist. I will have to get back with additional information about when we are likely to see that in our programs.

Mr. Leluk: I want to congratulate the minister on her nomination for tonight's Juno awards under the category of the most promising female with bafflegab.

When does the minister plan to implement this policy change and how much will it cost the taxpayers of this province?

Hon. Ms. Munro: I am sorry. The member's cultural sensitivity ended in my missing the question. Perhaps if he could ask the question again and quit deriding me on my sensitivity to all kinds of questions, in addition to the way his office was previously decorated, I will answer it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr. Leluk: Since the first minister did not hear the supplementary question, I will be pleased to repeat it. I said I would like to know when the minister plans to implement this policy change.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I made an error calling for a final supplementary question. The minister has requested that the question be put again. Go ahead.

Mr. Leluk: I was attempting to do that. When does the minister plan to implement this policy change and how much will it cost the taxpayers of this province?

Hon. Ms. Munro: I thought I indicated the first time the member asked the question, that I will get the information for him at the earliest possible time.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources regarding the report of the audit of forest management activity of his ministry that he tabled in the House on Friday. I wonder whether the minister could clarify a couple of points, particularly the ministry's response to two things in the auditor's criticisms.

First, there were his criticisms of the ministry approving the greenhouse costing $800,000 without first obtaining proposals and bids from interested parties, the decision to locate this nursery in an area that had a need of only two per cent of the total of the region and the fact that it went to the lowest-ranked proposer. Second, on another occasion there was a tremendous range in the cost per foot of the facilities and the higher-cost facilities were not required.

Can the minister explain why his ministry's only response was that it was a decision of the minister of the day? Can he identify the principals involved, the communities involved, who the minister of the day was, and explain why the ministry could not produce any further response than that statement?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: My first response was that my undertaking in the future will be that all those contracts will be properly advertised and will be properly bid for. The member can rest assured there will be enough publicity involved that he will have all the facts beforehand.

I cannot point at the minister who made this decision. I think he should properly be in his place before I suggest it is one of the aspirants to the high office over there and that the determination was made in a personal way. The decision was taken. I want to assure the House it shall not be done that way again.

Mr. Wildman: Can the minister assure this House that he is taking measures, and explain the measures, to ensure that in future no minister of the crown will be able to use the taxpayers' money as a way of building up political IOUs for his future political ambitions?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I will go a step further than that. Having started with the openness of putting this report on the table, bringing in an independent auditor and asking all parties to participate in the determinations that were going to be made by the auditor, yes, I will give my assurance that never again will any contracts of the size that were given out there, be given out without tendering.

Mr. Brandt: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: That question was completely distasteful and completely out of order. In the absence of my colleague, I would suggest you call for the recall of those remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pierce: Can the Minister of Natural Resources tell us what tendering process was used to construct the greenhouse in the district of Rainy River? Why did he rescind that decision and withdraw the tenders?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: This gives me an opportunity to reflect on one other question that was raised during this questioning, and that is that I will bring back to this House all the information pertaining to that tendering and put it on the table. The reason we stopped that issue from going forward is that I wanted to apprise myself of how the tendering was being done and give this House the assurance that it would be done in a very public way.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I have a statement. May we revert to statements, if it is agreeable?

Mr. Speaker: We have had a request from the Minister of the Environment to revert to statements. Agreed?

Agreed to.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Our leader still does not have the statement. Can we go on with question period? When the minister is ready, we will be glad to revert to statements.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the member for Nipissing that the standing orders say two copies should be delivered to either the critic or the leader. I do not know whether they have been delivered or not. Have the two copies been delivered?

Mr. Harris: We have one copy, Mr. Speaker, and I would suggest --

An hon. member: There is a second one up here.

2:50 p.m.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ST. CLAIR RIVER

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Recent tests of substances found in the St. Clair River greatly concern me. These test results showing the presence of dioxin, and other scattered indicators during the past few months tell us that the situation in the St. Clair is nowhere near as rosy as certain of my predecessors have suggested. I would like to take a few moments to bring the House up to date on this matter and to sketch out the approach my ministry will take in dealing with this problem.

The most recent testing stems from a mid-September federal report indicating the presence of dioxins in sludge taken from the river in August 1984. Among the actions I took upon receipt of these results was to order two ships from my ministry to the area to undertake additional tests to determine the extent of contamination of the bottom of the river in the Sarnia Chemical Valley region.

I am pleased today to table the preliminary results that we completed. Our ministry laboratory found low levels of dioxin in sludge samples taken between September 23 and September 28 of this year. The toxic tetradioxins were found at levels ranging from 10 to 21 parts per billion. The much less toxic octadioxin was found in levels between 11 and 20 parts per billion.

The most deadly form of dioxin, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, was not detected by my ministry. However, I will not rule out its presence and I have instructed my ministry to take all precautions as if the 2,3,7,8 isomer were present.

Last month I instructed my ministry officials to develop a task force plan that would, first, result in the cleanup of the current contaminants in the St. Clair River, and second, strengthen our enforcement and containment program regarding discharges in the region.

I am not satisfied with the level of environmental protection in Sarnia. As the new Minister of the Environment, I plan to reverse this problem. Following the Dow Chemical spill of toxic contaminants in the St. Clair River in August, my ministry laid six charges.

On September 13, I met with my counterparts in Michigan to discuss the establishment of a joint task force for cleaning up the St. Clair and Detroit rivers. On October 7, I met with officials of the Great Lakes Institute at the University of Windsor to discuss the whole matter and find ways to employ the institute's expertise, given that it was the institute's work that led to the discovery of dioxins off Dow's property, in the St. Clair.

On the basis of both recent testing and past experience, there is no reason to believe that drinking water has been affected.

When my ministry received laboratory reports indicating the presence of dioxin in the St. Clair River blob in September, I immediately ordered tests on downstream drinking water for this highly toxic substance.

Results from Wallaceburg, Windsor and Amherstburg showed no dioxins or furans in treated drinking water. Drinking water at Walpole Island will be sampled on Wednesday and tested for dioxin. Further dioxin testing is scheduled at all these sites and at Sarnia over the next six months.

We are fortunate, indeed, that simple filtration methods appear to be effective in screening dioxin from drinking water supplies. This appears to be because dioxin has the propensity to adhere to large particles that are easily caught by standard water treatment methods. However, my ministry is currently investigating the use of more sophisticated techniques.

The task force I will have under way by the end of this month will provide for measures to clean up the St. Clair. Part of this program may include a major vacuuming of the remaining blobs on the bottom of the St. Clair. However, before this is undertaken I want to be assured that the vacuuming will not unduly disturb the bottom sediments, sending more dioxins into the water downstream.

Additionally, I have ordered a reorganization and expansion of the Sarnia office with a mind to cleaning up the situation in the St. Clair River.

Highly skilled investigative personnel will be instructed and assigned to survey the industrial polluters, tighten up monitoring procedures and recommend a specific case-by-case reduction in allowable effluents. I expect to see dramatic and positive results reflected in the quality of St. Clair River water in years to come.

ORAL QUESTIONS (CONTINUED)

ST. CLAIR RIVER

Mrs. Grier: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. I might say how pleased I am to learn that he is taking this matter as seriously as he is and that at last some investigation and action is presumably about to be taken.

I would be grateful if the minister would perhaps expand on his statement that he has ordered a reorganization and expansion of the Sarnia office. Can the minister tell us more about that? Will the minister explain what form of investigation of that office has been undertaken and whether any outside agencies have been involved in that investigation?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: A full and complete investigation by a number of agencies has taken place surrounding a number of matters related to the St. Clair River. With respect to reorganization and expansion, first, more people are required. It is obvious the problem is a significant one, as I indicated to this member and the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) when they questioned me about two or three weeks ago on a similar matter and as I indicated to the federal member, Mr. Langdon, when I discussed this with him in September.

On the utilization of personnel, our investigation and enforcement branch can play a significant role in this specific area. I also believe we must look at all options, not excluding any. As the member is aware, I am not one of those who believe we can exclude any possibility of how this material came to rest on the bottom of the St. Clair River. I do not rule out the possibility of the old pressure wells coming up underneath, nor some continuing problems existing with plants along the river, nor the historical problem which has existed for some time. I do not want to rule out any of those, so I have instructed my officials to investigate all those possibilities.

Mrs. Grier: Can the minister tell the House whether statements made by some officials of his ministry to the effect that this problem has been known about since 1975 are correct? Can he assure us the new investigations he is suggesting will include independent sampling on the property of the chemical companies rather than self-sampling by the companies?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member makes a very good point. The investigation will be widespread. We want to involve the Great Lakes Institute, any of those groups and the federal government, for instance. The member will have read the stories stating the federal minister indicated he wants a major team there working with the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario. It is essential to have the officials from Michigan involved in this investigation. In my meeting with them, they were very co-operative. I met them in Detroit. They were from the Attorney General's office and the office of the governor --

Mr. McClellan: Answer the question. Was it known in 1975?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: To go back to the question, I cannot tell the member whether it was known back in 1975 or not.

Mr. Rae: Oh come on.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Whoever knew back in 1975 should have told the ministers, including this minister, that it had been known since 1975. I would say to the leader of the third party that I do not know whether that person knew; I read that in the newspaper. If anyone knew, it was his responsibility to inform the Minister of the Environment and I can certainly agree with that.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Brandt: Over the course of the last long number of years, the Lambton Industrial Society has been working co-operatively on testing and sampling with the scientists from his ministry to determine the quality of the water in the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair areas as well as the Detroit River. More recently, within the last year or year and a half, the St. Clair River study team has been established in the Sarnia area.

With respect to the report the minister is tabling in the Legislature today, is he indicating that the information which was put together co-operatively by the Lambton Industrial Society and his ministry was incorrect? Is he also saying the St. Clair River study team was operating ineffectively in that area in determining the quality of the water over the past year or so?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I fail to follow the member's question. The information I am providing today, and there will be more complete information following, is a result of testing we did in late September this year, as a result of it coming to my attention there had been tests done in August 1984. I am revealing the results of those tests. The federal minister today has revealed his tests. He was with the news media at 12:30 p.m., with the officials of Environment Canada. These are the most up-to-date tests, the latest figures we have.

Whether it is parts per billion, parts per trillion or whatever it is, when we find materials of this kind in the St. Clair River, it has to be a matter of some concern and it has to be addressed, which is why we have been upgrading and increasing our testing.

Our first concern was to determine whether the drinking water was safe. Our concern now is to establish the best method of cleanup that will not cause further problems. For instance, when Dow puts forward to us a plan for cleanup, I want to know what that company is going to do with the material, I want to know what the impact can be down river and I want to know what the safety of undertaking this kind of activity is. It is my concern that we get it cleaned up as soon as possible, but as safely as possible.

Mr. Hayes: Since it is quite obvious that Dow Chemical and the other polluters along the St. Clair River cannot be trusted to stop the dumping or leaking of dangerous chemicals into our lakes and rivers, is the minister prepared, in order to protect the people who depend on these sources for their drinking water, to finance the town of Wallaceburg and the other communities between Windsor and the blob; to finance the necessary carbon filtration systems to protect our drinking water from the malpractice of these chemical companies that have been allowed to get away with this for so many years?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am not a lawyer, but because of ongoing court cases, it would probably be unwise of me to comment one way or the other on the member's specific discussion of the sources. I think the member will understand that.

In answer to his question, I indicated in my statement that we are examining that possibility, because I think the town of Wallaceburg has been reasonable in its approach. It understands there is a potential problem, and I think the reaction it has taken is a very reasonable one.

I can say to the member I would not exclude that. I will be discussing it with the mayor of Wallaceburg this afternoon. I am going to call him to bring him up to date and discuss that. I do not think that should be ruled out if it is required, and it might well be required. That is fair.

REPORT ON PROPERTY TAX

Mr. Gregory: My question is for the Minister of Revenue. I think he is hiding behind your throne, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I could ask the question of his parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the standing orders say you can ask only the minister. The Treasurer.

Mr. Gregory: I knew that would flush him out.

I would like to express to the Minister of Revenue both my pleasure and relief at his statement in the House. The pleasure was that he repeated a statement I made last fall, virtually word for word, and the relief was that he did not find a way to screw up that excellent program when he was tinkering with his budget. That is not the question, however.

A report entitled Taxing Matters, more commonly known as Epp's baby, has been prepared for the Minister of Revenue. Contained in this report are 53 specific recommendations for changes to the property tax system. Since this matter is of great importance to all property owners in Ontario, will the minister table a copy of the report in this House immediately?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I had a chance to read the report for the first time over this weekend. We expect the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue will begin on November 18. I hope to have a statement to the House on Friday of this week, tabling the report, along with certain ancillary matters pertaining to assessment.

If the member can wait until then, that is the time that would be appropriate for my officials and others. At the same time, we expect to send a copy of the report to the clerk of every municipality and make one available to every member of the House.

Mr. Gregory: Given that this document has been paid for with public money, and in view of the often-quoted open government style of the Liberal Party, will the minister immediately table this document?

I am surprised to see that on Friday of last week a Toronto Star columnist was able to write about the report in some detail, purporting to be speculative, but he did know it was 190 pages long, he did know it had a blue cover and he did know it had 53 recommendations. If a member of the press is allowed to have this information, is it not important that this House be allowed to have the same information? Or would it be accurate to say that it would be better left alone until after the municipal election?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I suggested to the member that it would be tabled on Friday of this week, which is before the municipal election.

I suppose the columnist for the Star got it in the same way columnists for newspapers have been getting government documents all along. I read during this weekend that I am preparing a statement and I would be glad to table it. I intend to do it on Friday. I hope that is not going to be a serious dislocation for the members.

ST. CLAIR RIVER

Mr. Rae: I want to go back to the Minister of the Environment with respect to the statement he made today and in particular to the answer he gave about what information was known to his ministry and to governments prior to 1984.

Can the minister confirm that information with respect to dioxin has been in the ministry and available to the ministry since 1975? He should know this by now, coming into the House today. Can he confirm that information has been suppressed by the ministry, that it has not been made public and that the public has not been informed about the presence of dioxin in the St. Clair River for as long as the ministry has known about it? What is the minister doing about those officials who have known for this length of time and have not had the decency to tell the public of Ontario about it?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In answer to the member's question as to whether I can confirm it or not, I read many newspaper reports about an official from the Sarnia area who said this was the case. I have no reason to doubt that was the case and that it has been known since 1975. I would have to confirm that with other ministry officials. That individual stated it publicly and I have no reason to assume that was not the case.

When officials of any ministry have information available, in particular information of such importance to the public, it is my view that it is the responsibility of those individuals to bring it to the attention of the minister. Then the minister must bring it to the attention of the House and public. I would assume there is a pipeline through the ministry where one official tells another about something. It is a very legitimate question.

The second part was about what we are doing about it. I indicated to the member that I see a need for expansion and reorganization of the Sarnia office. That will be proceeding quickly. There has been a movement in this direction for some time.

Mrs. Grier: The minister mentioned, in response to the question from the member for York South (Mr. Rae) and to me, that other agencies had been involved in this investigation. Would the minister tell the House whether he would include the police force of any jurisdiction under the heading of other agencies?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is my understanding there have been investigations by both police authorities and non-police authorities of a number of activities in and around the St. Clair River area. Those agencies would be from both sides of the border.

Mr. Brandt: The minister is well aware there were announcements with respect to the location and discovery of dioxin in two sites in the Niagara region. I believe the minister is also aware -- and he mentioned this in his press release -- that the dioxin discovered in the St. Clair River area was not 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which is the most deadly of the 75 dioxins. Does it make any sense to the minister that a ministry would announce the discovery of dioxin in one location of the province and would not do the selfsame thing in another location, if it had that information at hand?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I assume that would be the case, exactly. These are the rules and regulations I have set down in the Ministry of the Environment since I have been the minister. If there is any information the public and the members of this House should know about, it should be released.

The former minister probably could tell better than I, what information was available when he was there. The information that is available while I am here, is information he will have in this House and so will the public, and I do not care what the consequences are.

HEATING SYSTEM

Mr. Davis: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. I would like to refer him to the concern of many tenants and senior citizens in Ontario Housing Corp. buildings, specifically those at 10, 30 and 40 Gordonridge Place and at 31 Gilder Drive in Scarborough and at 275, 285 and 295 Shuter Street, who have expressed deep concern that they are forced to use their stoves and sweaters to keep warm because the new computerized heating systems do not seem to deliver adequate heat to their residences.

They are concerned as well because of remarks such as those attributed to the minister by Rudy Gaudett, who expressed concern to the minister at a meeting this weekend and to whom he responded, "If you get a petition, then I will look into it."

Mr. Speaker: There is a question, I hope.

Mr. Davis: I am coming to it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Very soon I hope.

Mr. Davis: So much for a government that expresses compassion and sensitivity to seniors and tenants in Scarborough and Metro. I would like to know what the minister is going to do about the situation.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The matter was drawn to my attention at the meeting at city hall on Sunday. I asked the lady who had the petition in her hand to give it to me. She stated she wanted to hold it until she had more names. I then asked her to tell me the concern so I could look into it, and she did so to my executive assistant, who was there.

I thought we should address the concern and not the petition. I have asked my staff so far to look into the matter; so my sensitivity is right where it should be.

Mr. Davis: Will the minister increase the temperature in the buildings affected, damn the conservation program, let our senior citizens reside in comfort and not force them to put on their stoves, and wear extra sweaters and heavy overcoats?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If conditions are such that the heating system needs to go up to raise the temperature, we will do so.

AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It is about the Ontario Municipal Board decision in Brampton, which, as he knows, permits the paving over of more than 5,000 acres of Ontario's best food land.

I want to ask the minister, who has now been in office with his government for four months, what general instructions -- and I am not talking about specific directions on the Brampton case -- he has given the OMB on his government's food land policy. Specifically, has he notified the OMB that his government wants a higher priority on food land preservation? Or has he been content to have the OMB believe that the former Conservative government policy on this issue is okay with him and is continuing? Is that not the main reason for the OMB decision in Brampton?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I did not advise the OMB of any of our policies while it was trying to decide what to do in connection with the Brampton lands. The best legal advice I was given strongly advised me not to interfere with a quasi-judicial body that was in the process of trying to make a decision. The decision has been made. I understand it will be appealed to cabinet, and I will have an opportunity when it comes to cabinet to make my comments.

I do note from the report that "Mr. Riddell suggested that the official plan does not conform to the Food Land Guidelines and, as this decision demonstrates, the board has, in part, agreed with his argument." I am pleased to see that because of my argument the board did take out 1,600 acres that were in the plan and also went along with my suggestion that severances should be granted only if they are farm related. The board does know what my policies are.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Polsinelli: I have a petition signed by 188 people addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario dealing with Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Mr. Reycraft: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I will dispense with reading the preliminary clauses. The operative clauses read as follows:

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to implement the policy on the funding of the completion of our separate school system without delay in order that it can be applied on September 1, 1985."

"We further petition that this legislation protect the historic rights of Roman Catholics to maintain the special character of their separate schools."

The petition contains 258 signatures from the riding of Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I look around the chamber, I see and hear quite a few private conversations. It makes it very difficult for me to recognize members who may want to present petitions.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Brandt from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 14, An Act respecting the Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

MOTION

ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that when the House adjourns on Friday, November 8, it stand adjourned until Monday, November 18, at 2 p.m., but this motion shall not prevent any standing committees from meeting according to the schedule previously adopted by the House, at the discretion of such committees.

Motion agreed to.

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. Philip: It is a pleasure to participate in the debate on this budget, the first budget debate over which you, Mr. Speaker, are presiding. Let me tell you how much we appreciate the fair-handed and even way in which you have conducted yourself in this House and your excellence as a Speaker. It is fairly obvious that when you were chosen to become Speaker it was a wise decision.

I would like to congratulate the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) for taking a step towards presenting a more realistic picture of the present status of Ontario's economy. For a number of years, a number of Provincial Auditors and, indeed, the Auditor General of Canada have argued that the financial assets in their respective jurisdictions must be tabled as they truly are. The Treasurer claims that he has taken action to present and establish in a more realistic way the real value of the assets of this province.

The previous government in its unrealistic inflation of the value of some of Ontario's assets presented an inaccurate, if not misleading, picture of the value of the assets and of the real deficit of this province.

3:20 p.m.

This is the first Treasurer to address this problem. This Treasurer has proposed a number of changes in accounting procedures and policies. In my opinion, these initiatives should be studied by the Provincial Auditor and by the standing committee on public accounts, as we have been highly critical of the way in which previous Treasurers have presented the information on the state of the economy in this province.

Only a few months ago, on behalf of Ontario, I had the honour of addressing the annual convention of provincial and federal public auditors and public accounts committees. At that time, I expressed my concern about the difficulty faced by parliaments in dealing with the spending of governments and crown corporations and agencies. As I pointed out to that body, a former NDP cabinet minister from British Columbia has stated publicly on a number of occasions that the single most important issue facing us as parliamentarians is the monitoring and making accountable of crown corporations.

I have the greatest respect for our parliamentary system of government. No one in good faith can accuse me of being a republican. At the same time, I think the parliamentary system must be flexible to meet the challenges of ever more complex societies. I would not adopt or advocate the adoption of an American system per se, but at the same time there are certain aspects of the US system that have evolved as a way of coping with increasingly complex societies and coming to grips with being responsible for larger and larger expenditures of moneys.

In my presentation to the seventh annual meeting of the Canadian Council on Public Accounts Committees, I summarized the major events in which our committee investigated the activities and expenditures of Ontario Hydro. The members may wish to read the whole presentation. A copy is available in the legislative library. Members of the House would be interested in some of my conclusions and what I have learned as a result of our investigations into this large crown corporation.

It is terribly important that we cannot talk about the objectives of budgets and the spending of moneys unless we are sure the intent of the Treasurer and his government is carried through in the most cost-efficient manner possible. One can have the best objectives in the world, and one can set up the best budgets, but if they are inadvertently, or with intent, sabotaged along the way, then those objectives are meaningless.

One of the exercises of the public accounts committee in the investigation of Ontario Hydro had some payoff to the taxpayers, but I do not think we were able to deal with the most important issues, namely, the future cost as a result of decisions, happenings or events that took place in the past and whether alternatives to meet certain energy objectives were ever explored or costed.

When we got into a very highly specialized field, it was fairly obvious the auditor was not able to have the kind of expertise needed and had to rely on the experts of the very body he was investigating. Therefore, if the Provincial Auditor is going to do the kind of investigation we would expect of him, then surely he and the public accounts committee he is working with must have their own independent investigators to deal with the particular body under investigation.

The MPPs on the public accounts committee had no technical or professional expertise, and it is clear in the case of Ontario Hydro that it would have been far wiser to have it investigated by a select committee. I am pleased to see the government has moved in that direction.

It may well be that at some time we will want to consider the need for a select or standing committee of the Legislature to deal exclusively with crown corporations and to investigate them on a periodic basis.

If one looks at the General Accounting Office in the United States, one can see that it has moved a little farther away from the financial audits during the past 20 years to program audits, which evaluate the effectiveness of government programs. The GAO, according to their officials when we met with them, plans to conduct more comprehensive auditing, in addition to checking individual program results and monitoring.

Unlike the Canadian government, the US government does not produce consolidated financial statements which can be audited by the GAO. Basically, if one looks at the GAO, its scope of auditing has three components. The first component is fairly common in our experience; that is, financial and compliance. It determines whether the financial statements in an audit present entirely fairly the financial position and the results of the financial operations in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and whether the entity complies with laws and regulations that may have a material affect on the financial statements.

Second, the GAO examines economy and efficiency; whether the entity has managed and utilized economically and efficiently such resources as personnel and property space, the causes of the influences or the uneconomical practices, and whether the entity has complied with the laws and regulations concerning matters of economy and efficiency.

In looking at the Ontario situation, it is fair to say the work done by our Provincial Auditor goes a long way to meeting the first two objectives met in the US system. When we look at the third component, however, the GAO will go out and look at program results and will determine whether the desired results or benefits established by the legislative body or other authorizing body are being achieved and whether the agency has considered the alternatives that might yield desired results at a lower cost.

If one looks at that in the US perspective, one sees there is a whole area of investigation that our Provincial Auditors have not been allowed to examine, or perhaps on their own initiative have decided not to push their authority into. What are the solutions? It seems to me that as society becomes more and more complicated we may have to move more in the direction of the American system. If we look at the GAO and see exactly what it is doing, I think it has some relevance to us in Ontario. Section 9 of our Audit Act makes no mention of the auditor examining proposed expenditures or doing the kind of evaluation of alternatives conducted by the GAO.

Section 17 does allow for the taking on of special assignments but it is fairly clear that those special assignments can only come from three sources. The first of these is the assembly; in other words, in the time of a majority government, from the government. That creates problems if there happens to be a majority government. A second source is the standing committee on public accounts; again, if there is a majority government, that means no contentious issue will be examined.

I am suggesting we may want to look at making the offices of the Provincial Auditor available to any committee or any body of the Legislature to make its studies more meaningful. I am suggesting we look at what happens in our estimates system and at the way we make decisions without knowing the true cost or the projected cost of particular programs.

Those are the kinds of changes that I believe are necessary if we want budgets to be meaningful and if we want budgets to be carried out as spelled out by the Treasurer in stating his original objectives and programs. We cannot speak about a budget without taking into account the need for reforms to ensure that the objectives and outlines in the budget are being implemented by the public service in the way they were intended.

To do all that, we must take some time to examine what exactly the authority of the Provincial Auditor should be. It may well be that his authority has to be expanded to give him the power necessary to examine adequately all the documents and to examine the crown corporations.

3:30 p.m,

Recently, we had the fiasco of the human rights equivalent of the Provincial Auditor, namely, the Ombudsman, being denied access or jurisdiction in the area of the home warranty program. At the federal level we similarly have had the fight of Kenneth Dye, the Auditor General of Canada, to obtain documents.

Unless we sit down and take the time to explore adequately the true role of the Provincial Auditor and of the standing committee on public accounts in a complex society, we are going to have a constant series of horror stories and the wasting of the taxpayers' money.

Only a couple of days ago, Kenneth Dye, the Auditor General of Canada, sent me a copy of some of the results of some panels in which public auditors from across the country and from his own office met to discuss some common issues. I am not going to read all of them, but I have highlighted a few of them. These are the consensus opinions that the Provincial Auditors and the Auditor General of Canada seemed to reach in their deliberations at their seminars in July 1985.

I quote from one of them: "The seminar was generally of the view that there should be clear legislative provisions to enable the Auditor General to have access to all information that he may deem necessary to satisfactorily discharge his statutory responsibilities."

Further on, the report states:

"The seminar was generally of the view that audit reports should preferably contain conclusions and recommendations for remedial action arising out of audit findings.

"It is not good enough for the auditor to point out time and time again the horror stories of the past. Surely what needs to be done is systemic studies of ways in which to avoid the repetition of those kinds of problems in the future."

We have been dealing with this, interestingly enough, in the auditor's equivalent on the human rights side, the Ombudsman of Ontario. For the first time in Ontario, we have an Ombudsman who I think really understands the major theory of what it is to be an Ombudsman and who has outlined some of that theory in his report. Indeed, he looks at the fact that the role of the Ombudsman is not simply to patch up the sins of a particular government ministry vis-à-vis an individual but to find the patterns of problems so they are not repeated and so other individuals do not have the same kind of suffering.

Similarly, I have argued in the public accounts committee that the Provincial Auditor, and indeed the Auditor General of Canada, should be as much a teacher as he is an investigator; part of his role has to be to establish those patterns that are causing the problem and to train the public service in such a way that those problems are not repeated over and over again.

I noticed with some appreciation that the budget provides for 10,000 new non-profit housing units. When one considers that there are more than 18,000 families on the waiting list for the Ontario Housing Corp. alone, this will not on its own solve the problem of the scarcity of affordable housing to working people and to poor people, but one must compliment the Treasurer for at least moving in the right direction.

He must, however, look at what has happened to the present rent-geared-to-income housing stock. It is not good enough to talk about the creation of new, affordable housing for poor people without looking at exactly what happened to the existing housing stock under the previous government.

If we look at what OHC spent on maintenance between 1981 and 1985, we find some dramatic patterns. In 1981, the maintenance budget for Ontario Housing -- that is, for gross materials and services -- was $67.4 million. The following year, 1982, it dropped to $66.4 million, a drop of 1.4 per cent at a time when the consumer price index rose by 11.4 per cent. In 1983, there was an increase of 11.5 per cent at a time when the CPI rose by 8.3 per cent.

Similarly, if we take the five years between 1981 and 1985, what we have is an increase in the CPI of 31.7 per cent while the increase for maintenance of the OHC units was only 31.3 per cent. If we look at the Metro Toronto picture, it is more serious than that. The total maintenance increased by 29 per cent as compared to the CPI increase of 31.7 per cent.

This perhaps makes more sense if one understands that what happened was that in the first two years of the majority government, under the then minister, the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett), there were major decreases at Ontario Housing in the money spent on maintenance and there was an attempt, presumably later on, to do some catch-up, but that has not kept up with the rate of inflation.

We also have an increasingly older housing stock because, as the Treasurer will well know, the previous government was not exactly the most active builder of rent-geared-to-income housing in the past five years. As the houses became older, the government was spending less on maintenance. We have a situation where we have a declining standard of housing among the people who are faced with the problem of living in rent-geared-to-income housing because they cannot afford accommodation in the private marketplace.

When the Ministry of Housing estimates come up for consideration, I am looking forward to discussing at some length where the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) intends to move with respect to the recommendations of the standing committee on administration of justice. In 1979, as chairman of that committee under the minority government, I moved that we do a study of rent-geared-to-income housing in this province. The report was prepared but unfortunately was not tabled until after the Conservatives obtained their majority in 1981, at which time they defeated the report.

I note with some satisfaction that the Liberals signed the majority report with the New Democrats. I now hold those same Liberals to implementing the 119 recommendations contained in that report. I will not deal with all the recommendations, but it seems to me there were some that if implemented -- and they have not been implemented, at least not the ones I am going to talk about -- would have resulted not only in more humane living conditions for those tenants but also in some cost savings to the taxpayers.

By that I refer to such things as the incorporation of an annual meeting for each project in which a budget would be struck and made public. Some input could be made by the community and the tenants. I also refer the members to the fact that we now have no way of judging the efficiency of one manager compared to another under a particular housing authority as they often work through global budgets.

The most heinous of all the kinds of bureaucracy being set up by OHC is the way in which it treats its tenants as though they were little children so that Big Daddy has to take care of them in every way possible. In particular, the transfer policy is a highly authoritarian, highly centralized bureaucracy. It seems to me our committee came to grips with that. We argued for a more flexible transfer policy. We argued that the welfare of the tenants was more important than the bureaucratic considerations of the corporation. Unfortunately, the government has done absolutely nothing about it.

3:40 p.m.

I can tell of women in Ontario Housing Corp. accommodation at the moment who are slaves, who are being beaten over and over but who have nowhere to go because the OHC has a policy of not breaking up families. Therefore, it will not grant to a woman and her children who are being beaten a transfer to another safe housing unit where she does not have to put up with her estranged husband. We have the ludicrous situation where the only way a poor person can get away from that kind of slavery and beating is to move into a hostel.

The problem, as my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) pointed out to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) in question period the other day, is that there are very few or no spaces in the hostels. When I am trying to get a battered woman into Ernestine's Women's Shelter, a safe environment, it is very difficult. Some people have been there for as long as six months because there is no other accommodation. It is inhuman to keep people in that kind of environment.

The regulations have to change to cope with those emergency situations so that social workers, ministers, priests, and MPPs can document that the woman in question is in an unsafe condition; that it is reasonable to take possession of that unit and transfer her to another one and take possession of the unit which the battering husband is occupying.

There are a number of other recommendations in that report that I hope the minister will address himself to. Over and over I am faced with obvious injustices in the way in which the various tribunals of the OHC operate. Only the other day I had one case, which I have referred to the Ombudsman, in which a gentleman was refused access to the Mississauga Housing Authority because his estranged wife lived under the auspices of the Mississauga Housing Authority. That kind of irrational decision made by some bureaucrat, who decides that somehow he has the right of life-and-death control of people's lives simply because they are poor, is unacceptable in a civilized society.

I am pleased the Ombudsman of Ontario, recognizing the need for systemic studies and having done one on the Workers' Compensation Board, has now agreed with my request to investigate what is happening in the Ontario Housing Corp. and report back to the standing committee on the Ombudsman. I look forward to that report, but I say to the minister in no uncertain terms that he should start with the 119 recommendations of the justice committee, start implementing some of them immediately so that the Ombudsman may be able to come back to the committee and say there are a number of problems but, luckily, under this government some of those problems are being worked on and some of the recommendations of the justice committee are being implemented.

I would like to deal with another aspect in the report which came as a tremendous surprise to me. The minister no doubt will be aware that the fast section of his report I went to as our party's critic on government spending was entitled Better Value for the Taxpayer's Dollar. I thought that was great. Here is the Treasurer starting to deal with some of the issues I had been asking, unsuccessfully, previous Treasurers and Management Boards to deal with. Then all of a sudden a little sentence popped out which seemed to be very contradictory in the light of some of the other positive things contained in that section. I refer to a section which reads, "As a step towards eliminating duplication in the public sector" -- so far so good; we are all interested in eliminating duplication in the public sector -- "the government will transfer the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education to the University of Toronto."

I find that a very interesting statement. What duplication?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Two boards.

Mr. Philip: There are certainly not two activities. There is absolutely no duplication whatsoever that the minister can justify. There has been no consultation. This was the minister who, as a member of the opposition, over and over again accused the Tory government of not consulting. This was the minister who got up on Bill 30 and said Davis should not have announced it without proper consultation, and that anything that major in education should not be announced without proper hearings and consultation.

There was no consultation on this. It came as a complete surprise to the University of Toronto, and it certainly came as a complete surprise to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. I submit there is no cost-benefit analysis the minister can produce that will show there are any financial savings to this. He has not conducted one. Furthermore, there is no indication of any duplication he can mention. There have been negotiations between the president of the university and OISE over the last few months with regard to renewing the agreement between them, and that was making progress. Instead, this minister out of the blue decides to lower the boom without any kind of consultation between two bodies that were successfully working out a new agreement.

OISE is a world-renowned authority and research facility. It has been bringing the results of world research to the grass roots at eight different centres. One has to ask what will happen to those eight centres if it is under the direct power and direction of the University of Toronto. What guarantee will there be that the research done on the world level will be made practical at the grass-roots level through the kind of implementation programs and consultation programs that OISE has developed.

OISE is a unique marriage of practice and theory. It is a world-renowned institute, and in my humble opinion if the minister had wanted to go in a direction that was positive and would have been creative, he would have gone in exactly the opposite direction. He should have given OISE the right to have degree-granting status. He should give it more autonomy to do the kind of creative research it has been struggling to do over the last 20 years and to implement it at the grass-roots level.

I find it interesting that the average age of the graduate students at OISE is 37 years old. I dare the minister to find any graduate school in the province that has that kind of mature adult learner obtaining a graduate degree.

OISE has been at the forefront in developing innovative documents that have changed our society. I think of years ago and some of the publications on teaching prejudice that resulted in major changes in the textbooks and in the outlook that many people had in the way in which they dealt with education. I think of some of the programs they have done in women's issues and women's education. Some of those innovative programs are not guaranteed under the more direct traditional university system.

Furthermore, as a province-wide body, why should one university have jurisdiction over it and all the others not? What magic is there at the University of Toronto that it should be directing OISE, which is a provincial body operating not just in Toronto but all over the province?

I suggest to the minister that I and my colleagues will certainly give him a fight on this one, and he will not get it through very easily. Indeed, the public, who have benefited from this research and teaching body, will not think lightly of this unsubstantiated, unconsulted and completely incomprehensible decision.

3:50 p.m.

When I talk to Liberal back-benchers and ask them why the Treasurer would do this I get some very funny answers, but they all result in somehow referring to OISE as the birth child of the Conservative government. In 42 years of government, they had to do something right, and one simply cannot throw it out because one happens to have a prejudice against something that Bill Davis, the former Premier of this province, created. He did create some things that were good and OISE was one of them. OISE should be kept. It should have its autonomy and not be slaughtered in the way this Treasurer wants to do it, simply because it was an invention of the Conservatives.

If we look at the history of the University of Toronto and its extension programs over the years -- and I have done some writing in academic journals on this -- we see a constant problem of the University of Toronto in terms of extension has always been the almighty buck. Extension is frequently a way of raising money. If the Treasurer puts OISE under the University of Toronto, history may well repeat itself.

The actions taken by Dunlop when he was director of extension in the 1920s may well come back to haunt this government and to haunt innovative education in this province. I suggest the Treasurer should take a second look at this and govern by economic reasons, not by personal prejudice.

I would like to deal with another area, property tax reform. This will come as no surprise to the minister since I have dealt with it at some length. I would like to read a letter I received on Friday. It is written by a fellow by the name of H. H. Walker. Mr. Walker, as some members may recall, was the Deputy Minister of Revenue from 1967 to 1971. He writes on the letterhead of the Etobicoke Condominium Association:

"The undersigned has been working with the above association in making submissions to Queen's Park to try to get fair assessments. You were sent an 11-page paper late in August and a further memorandum in mid-September," which, incidentally, I responded to.

"We believe the government's position is that nothing can be done until the report prepared by David Goyette and due October 31 has been received and studied. We have rejected this delaying tactic. We were hopeful that the government would remove the discrimination against condominiums at the fall session so that their assessments for 1986 taxes would be on the same basis as houses, and all outstanding appeals would be so treated.

"Our efforts to obtain action or even publicity on this subject have not been productive. It occurs to us that some sharp questions in the House might be useful at this time. We, therefore, have taken the liberty of sending you this information."

That is by a former Deputy Minister of Revenue. He understands the technicalities of the way tax assessment operates in this province and he recognizes it is blatantly unfair. With respect to the current policies of the Liberal government on assessment, we understood the Goyette task force report should be submitted by the end of October to the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon). We have not heard whether that has been done.

One article in the Toronto Star indicates the report will not deal with condominiums, that the whole problem of condominiums will not be addressed in the Goyette task force report. Perhaps David Lewis Stein is correct in his information and perhaps not, but it would be useful to find out from the minister whether this is the case.

In general terms, the Goyette report will deal with a number of issues to which we in the New Democratic Party have been addressing ourselves for some years. For example, it will deal with the effect of taxation and assessment on residential improvements. For years I have argued in this House that it was unfair to a person who improves his own home at a cost of at least $10,000 suddenly to be faced with increased taxes while he was still occupying that unit. Indeed, I drafted a private member's bill that dealt with this. It said in very simple language that if a person improved the interior of his home at a cost of not more than $10,000 worth of materials, he should not be penalized with additional taxes.

In my community I have many people who work in the construction trades. These people are frequently laid off during the colder winter months, and at that time they have an opportunity to improve the quality of their homes. This does not mean their income is any greater; indeed, it may well be less. Yet they are rewarded for their initiative, rewarded for improving the community, by being hit with higher property taxes. So it is with some relief that I see that the Goyette task force will deal with this.

It seems to me, though, that the fact it will not deal with condominiums is just part of the general pattern of this government in not understanding, as the previous government did not understand, the issues of condominiums. It is not by any accident that the Liberals voted with the Conservatives at the time that heinous instrument, Condominium Ontario, was invented to act as a bridge between condominium owners and the government. The Liberals voted with the Conservatives in imposing that. Later, of course, we were able to show the whole matter was unconstitutional and the Conservative government, rather than face a challenge in the Supreme Court, withdrew and discarded this body.

We note that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter), in a September 13 address to the Association of Condominium Managers of Ontario, indicated that amendments to the Condominium Act were not a priority but that the act would "continue to be analysed."

What kind of priority does this minister have? Here we have a series of one phoney condominium conversion after another. Numerous schemes came out during the tenure of the previous government. The previous government plugged one hole after another, and yet here is the minister saying, "Condominiums and condominium concerns are not a priority with me."

I hope the minister will change some of his priorities and recognize that some of the issues we are talking about vis-à-vis condominiums are also issues that directly affect the tenants in rental buildings, and that we have to deal with the concept of condominiums, define it properly and plug those loopholes in the Condominium Act that allow various schemes of creating phoney condominiums or phoney co-operatives.

The minister will no doubt remember it was only a couple of years ago that I tabled in this House extensive research -- as a matter of fact, there were 35 pages of tables, as I recall -- which showed there were great inequities in the property taxes charged to condominiums as compared to those charged to other types of home owners. At that time the minister said he was not prepared to act, although, in his words, the research by and large held up, with one or two minor corrections that his officials could find.

Then we had the decision of the Divisional Court in 1984 by Justice Steele and Justice Catzman in the Peel Condominium No. 57 decision, which held that the condominiums must be assessed at the same level of assessment to market value as the owner-occupied single family residence in the year under appeal. The minister at that time, the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), suddenly decided he would take some action, and there was a reassessment.

4 p.m.

In my own riding, it meant that condominium taxes went down, in one instance by more than $400 a year and in other instances by as little as $2 a year. None the less, taxes went down by an average of probably in the $200 to $300 range. Condominium owners welcomed this, but I suggest there are still inequities in the present assessment. Therefore, with the considerable amounts of research I am going to provide to the minister, I would like to show him how there is still a tremendous amount of injustice in the way condominiums are assessed.

In the first place, there is a very incomprehensible decision by the justices in the case of Peel condominium number 57. I will read this to the minister because I am sure that if he can understand it then we will all be set straight, but I have had three different condominium lawyers who have given me three different interpretations of what the judgement means. It says:

"In the case of residential condominiums, there is an obligation on the court to assess them in the same proportion to market value as that of owner-occupied single family residences. There is nothing in section 65(2) of the Assessment Act that restricts this obligation to the year 1975, and it must be considered annually."

Of course, the debate we have is about the word "obligation." It is used twice, but the obligation is not clear. Is there an obligation on the assessment court to reassess condominiums every year? If that is the case, then we have a grave injustice. Why should condominiums be reassessed every year with values going up, as they naturally do on all forms of housing by and large, when other forms of housing do not have that same reassessment every year? What it means is that condominiums will, once again, over and over again, be paying higher taxes. If one is going to reassess each year, why should one group of houses, namely condominiums, be reassessed and others not reassessed? There is a blatant injustice there.

On the other hand, if the decision simply means that anyone still has the right to a reassessment if he happens to disagree with his property taxes in any given year, then it makes some sense; but that is not clear. I am told that what we seem to have is the assessment offices using this as a device for jacking up the taxes.

If we take an overview of the current revised condominium assessments and the assessments in Etobicoke, which I have taken as a result of the previous Minister of Revenue's announcement of November 20, 1984, of condominium reassessments, it appears that the overall impact in Etobicoke, and Rexdale in particular, has been in some respects towards a fairer system of residential property taxes, but substantial lingering latent inequities remain.

As a result of the vicinity basis of the assessment-to-sales ratio, computations as outlined in the graphs which I can show to the minister, and as confirmed by the court, for condominium assessment in the Rexdale vicinity, which is vicinity 12 on this map -- the minister might like to take a look at that at some point -- show a ratio of 0.64. On the other hand, if one looks at area 5, which is the Kingsway area, we have a ratio of 0.41. By the same token, if one looks at the Lakeshore area, which would be area 1, which is another working and middle-income area, one sees another fairly high ratio of 0.52.

I will list the figures with the sales for the minister's interest. In the case of area 1, there is a ratio of 0.52, based on 120 sales; area 2, 0.053, based on 143 sales; area 3, 0.052, based on 52 sales; area 4, 0.055, based on 19 sales; area 5, 0.041, based on 97 sales; area 6, 0.057, based on 513 sales; area 7, 0.053, based on 315 sales; area 8, 0.057, based on 90 sales; area 9, 0.058, based on 365 sales; area 10, 0.052, based on 127 sales; area 11, 0.060, based on 117 sales; and area 12, 0.064, based on 412 sales.

One can see a pattern. What happens when one takes a map is one can see that in the city of Etobicoke the people living in middle-income condominiums are more heavily assessed than those living in the Kingsway and more affluent areas of the city. That is blatantly unfair and a complete reassessment needs to be done to make a much fairer property tax system.

These computed ratios, based on actual sales, were applied to all the existing condominiums and co-operative developments in the vicinity to adjust assessments for 1984. For new condominiums, an estimate would be made of market value and, through the application of the ratio, the assessment would be set. For the current year, the local assessment office used a similar methodology to perform the required annual update of condominium assessments, where necessary, in relation to the vicinity trends.

Senior assessment officers do not believe market value trends result in many assessment changes, but when we look at this we see there are great inequities in the system. These discrepancies demonstrate the potential sensitivity associated with any moves towards comprehensive assessment reforms and adjustments across Etobicoke and throughout Metro Toronto. The onus is on the minister and the Minister of Revenue to look at these inequities and correct the obvious injustice.

At a more general level, the overall impact in 1984 of condominium and co-operative assessment adjustments among the 11,164 units in Etobicoke -- that is, the 10,728 condominiums and the 436 co-ops -- was an average decrease in assessment of $216. I indicated that was a pattern that held in my own area of Rexdale. Of this total number of units, 75 per cent or 8,425 experienced a decrease and 2,736 experienced an increase.

In an earlier report, estimated 1984 property tax savings for a selection of developments were computed with the application of the 1985 mill rates -- 252.64 mills for public school support and 255.44 mills for separate school support. All indications are a similar computation could be done with a selection of developments for 1985. That is what we are in the processing of doing.

In summary, while the government took a step in the right direction in doing some reassessment of condominiums in 1984, there are still grave injustices in the amount of taxes being paid by condominium owners, and there are great discrepancies between those areas, such as area 12 and area 1s in Etobicoke, compared to the more affluent areas and the more expensive condominiums.

4:10 p.m.

There are a number of questions we have to deal with. In 1975, this Legislature unanimously approved an amendment to the Assessment Act, subsection 65(2), so that condominiums would be assessed at the same proportion of value as houses. However, the recent court decision about York Condominium Corp. 460 has pointed out a defect in the amendment, so condominiums are not entitled to be assessed at the same proportion of value as houses.

The minister must look at what can be done because this is not happening. On a district basis, all the condominiums that are already higher than they should be are being taken into the overall average in calculating the average assessments. In other words, the condominiums are themselves part of the factor in boosting the recalculated condominium tax assessment.

Recently, the Ontario Municipal Board set down rules regarding the representation of condominium owners in assessment appeals. The story written by David Lewis Stein suggests that the report that will be tabled by Dave Goyette may make the recommendation that specific permission or authorization has to be granted by each home owner in order for someone to represent him or to appeal that particular assessment. This makes it very difficult where often one may be dealing with an absentee condominium owner and his permission may be very difficult to come by.

I suggest this should be looked at. If Mr. Goyette is recommending something like this, he should see the distinction between private homes and condominiums and the problems they face, and allow for the fact that condominium boards should be empowered to represent and argue for the reassessment of any condominium unit in the particular block of condominiums it represents.

There are a number of things in the budget I would like to address at some length. Unfortunately, I have come down with the worst case of flu I have had in several years and my voice will not hold out.

By and large, the budget is a move in the correct direction; I will not say in the right direction. Certainly, some of the provisions in it are in keeping with the accord we have signed.

I hope the minister will take a look at some of my objections to what is not in the budget and at some of the more objectionable things I find in the present budget. I look forward to debating these with him and his officials in the days ahead.

Mr. Cordiano: I wish to elaborate on the remarks of the Treasurer respecting the impact of the budget initiatives on post-secondary education in Ontario. My remarks also supplement those of the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) in his address to the House on October 17.

As members know, this government is committed to improving post-secondary education in Ontario. A number of measures recently have been announced to give force to this commitment. The Treasurer indicated that, as a result of the stabilization in the rate of inflation, basic transfer payments to the colleges of applied arts and technology and to universities will increase by four per cent in 1986-87. This means the government will make available a total of almost $1.3 billion in operating grants to the universities and $528.1 million to colleges of applied arts and technology.

In addition, university and college excellence funds have been established which will inject an additional $80 million into post-secondary education. Funding for the Ontario student assistance program has increased by eight per cent to $145.8 million in 1986-87, while tuition fee increases for college and university students have been held at four per cent.

I am sure members will agree these initiatives represent a very significant commitment to improving post-secondary education in Ontario, particularly in the face of a decade of government neglect and chronic underfunding. The evidence of chronic underfunding is particularly evident in our universities.

Student-faculty ratios have increased during the last 10 years. There are fewer support staff in libraries and laboratories and good research opportunities have been lost. Library acquisition and equipment budgets have diminished. With the universities' reserves stretched to the limit, the physical plant has been deteriorating. In the face of all this, relations between the universities and government have frequently been in conflict.

There is a whole new attitude towards postsecondary education in the province. We intend to put the universities back on the path of excellence. We intend to make a major financial investment in the health of our universities.

I would now like to discuss the university excellence fund announced to the Legislature by the Minister of Colleges and Universities on October 17. This fund, which will enhance the quality of both teaching and research, will provide an additional $50 million in special grants to the universities and related institutions in 1986-87. The fund will involve three major components already stated -- faculty renewal, research leadership and library enhancement and instructional equipment.

The faculty renewal component of the fund has been established in recognition of the need for an infusion of new, younger faculty into our institutions. The government has allocated $10 million for this program in 1986-87. The introduction of new faculty should increase the opportunities for young Canadian scholars and improve the representation of women on the faculties in our universities.

The research leadership component of the fund will provide $15 million in 1986-87 to enhance the research resources of the universities. It will be used to assist in the acquisition of research equipment, specialized experimental facilities and highly skilled technical and professional research support staff.

The library enhancement and support equipment component of the fund will provide $25 million to assist the institutions in the acquisition of library reference materials and equipment and urgently required teaching aids, computers, laboratory and scientific equipment for substantial instructional upgrading.

In view of this contribution to university teaching equipment needs, institutions will be enhanced so as to restrict the imposition of new incidental fees to defray the cost of program-related equipment and computer usage.

The excellence fund will also provide $9.5 million in capital assistance to universities for 1986-87. This amount is in addition to the $10.5 million allocated for regular capital assistance for 1986-87. These efforts are a firm beginning to what the government knows must be a continuing effort to reverse the history of inadequate support by the previous government.

I wish to now discuss the impact of the government's initiatives on colleges of applied arts and technology. Members are also aware of the critical role played by colleges of applied arts and technology in producing a highly skilled work force in Ontario.

4:20 p.m.

As I mentioned earlier, the government will provide $528.1 million in operating support to colleges of applied arts and technology in 1986-87. This represents a four per cent increase over the 1985-86 allocation and follows closely on the heels of an additional $20 million provided to colleges earlier this month to offset costs arising out of the arbitrated salary adjustment for college faculty and for other extraordinary costs as a result of the strike last fall.

I believe the operating support being provided to colleges of applied arts and technology is evidence that this government is committed to providing the high-quality training required in this province. That commitment is further strengthened by the announcement of the Treasurer in the budget of the creation of a college excellence fund to foster excellence in the delivery of program in the colleges.

The total funding for this program in 1986-87 will be $16.5 million; $10 million will be provided to assist in the purchase of instructional equipment that will give students hands-on experience on equipment they will be using once they enter the labour force, while $6.5 million will be provided by way of capital support for the renovation or expansion of teaching facilities in the entire college system. The $6.5 million is in addition to the regular capital allocation of $8.5 million and brings the total capital allocation for 1986-87 to $15 million.

I also want to reflect on the Ontario student assistance program, which provides financial assistance to students, many of whom are from low- and middle-income families. It allows them to attend post-secondary institutions they otherwise normally might not have the opportunity to enter. As I mentioned earlier, funding for this program will increase by eight per cent in 1986-87 to $145.8 million. This is a significant increase, which amounts to $10.8 million over the previous fiscal year. These funds will be used to meet the four per cent increase in tuition fees at Ontario's universities and colleges and to make various improvements to the assessment criteria and allowance levels. More details respecting these changes will be announced in early 1986.

In the past five years, funding for the Ontario student assistance program has not kept pace with inflation and the growth in applications. There has been a gradual shift in student assistance from grants to loans, and students have had to face increased debt and loans over this period. The budget for 1986-87 is intended to try to solve some of the problems facing students. They face increasing debt. Funding increases for the Ontario student assistance program will reinforce the commitment of this government to improve accessibility to post-secondary education for residents of Ontario. This is a very significant commitment to OSAP.

These measures demonstrate this government's real commitment to improve postsecondary education in this province. We intend to make the post-secondary community an environment for individual and institutional growth and excellence.

I want to turn our attention to some initiatives with respect to the Ministry of Skills Development. The 1985 Ontario budget reinforces the argument of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) at the August 1985 first ministers' conference that we must try to improve our past performance in the placing of human capital investment in achieving both economic growth and personal performance.

A number of initiatives announced in the budget will help our young people and various other groups in the labour market to prepare for and find employment in this province. The $75-million increase, to $100 million, for youth programs in the budget for 1985-86 is welcome, and I know people throughout my riding have commented very positively on this step.

A total of $200 million allocated for youth training and employment programs for 1986-87 also reflects a maturation of the Futures program and other youth initiatives. This program will create employment opportunities and training places for more than 230,000 young people, with 110,000 obtaining opportunities this year and 120,000 benefiting next year.

I have some comments on the Futures program. The Futures program met the commitment the Premier made two years ago and repeated on July 2. Two years ago, our present Premier promised a program that "would guarantee hard-to-employ youth meaningful employment in return for individual efforts and educational upgrading." On July 2, the same man, as the newly sworn-in Premier, said: "We must rationalize all our job creation programs and ensure they are understandable and accessible to the public. This is especially true of the programs for young people."

Announced by the Minister of Skills Development in the Legislature on October 22, Futures meets both commitments made by the Premier. This program has another unique feature; it is designed so a major effort can be made to break the cycle of recurring unemployment by providing on-the-job training and experience for one year for young people committed to working towards grade 12 equivalency.

As I stated earlier, Futures has received a number of plaudits in my riding and throughout the province. Let me quote briefly from one. On October 24, the Toronto Star, in talking about jobless youth, said, "A co-ordinated effort, a simpler way, was needed, and a good start in that direction has been taken by the Ontario government." It went on to applaud the Futures program and said, "Bit by bit, the government is co-ordinating and improving its patchwork of job creation programs for the young." The Star also said the program will "be closer to the realities of the marketplace than previous programs."

Futures, which goes into effect today, was designed to address the problems of the hard-to-employ youth. This challenge has not received sufficient attention in the past, and it will now be effectively addressed with the appropriate resources. Last year, the government of Ontario spent $76 million to help 33,000 hard-to-employ young people. This year, with this program, the government will spend $133 million to help 56,000 young people. That is quite a significant change from the past.

This new program also hastens the decline in youth unemployment in Ontario, which has come down from 160,000 last year to 124,000 today. The program deals primarily with the long-term structural problem. The total level of unemployment remains largely affected by the business cycle and requires appropriate national fiscal and monetary policies, which are being addressed.

4:30 p.m.

The unique structural problem of hard-to-employ youth arises from a lack of work experience, education and skills. Previous programs often did not address all the barriers or did so insufficiently within the maximum period allowed. The one-year work experience guarantee, in particular, provides youth with a new and real incentive to improve their education, which is absolutely essential to their long-term employability and long-term success. The requirements of individual training also ensure that work experiences are more relevant and have an ongoing benefit.

Various delivery organizations of the Ministry of Skills Development are the 90 campuses of the colleges of applied arts and technology and the 55 youth employment counselling centres across the province.

The 1984 Ontario budget announcement of the three-year, $450-million youth opportunities fund indicated it was the previous government's intention to spend $150 million on youth training and employment in 1985-86. The $175-million figure indicated in the 1985 budget represents a $25-million net increase this year and a potential $50-million net increase in 1986-87. In addition, there is $13 million allocated to school boards over the next three years for co-operative education programs, which will attempt to assist high school students make the transition from school to work, and that is very important.

The budget is a fresh, new approach, and it is a comprehensive approach to industrial policy in a sense which tries to recognize the increasingly important role of skills training and the individual worker in industrial and economic development. In addition, the construction activity of the initiative to increase the stock of non-profit rental housing units in the province will generate 30,000 jobs, many of which will flow to the young people of this province.

As well, the 10,000 additional subsidized child care spaces will assist women with families to enter or re-enter the training and labour markets by giving them an opportunity to find meaningful work. Creation of the $100-million special northern development fund will also increase training and employment opportunities in northern Ontario.

In conclusion, I wish to say the budget meets the commitments made by this government over the past election campaign, and throughout the summer as we consulted with various groups throughout the province, through a fiscally responsible plan which was set out in our accord with the New Democratic Party. This budget has put words into action, and it deserves our final approval.

Mr. Shymko: I am just apologizing to one of the pages who wants my autograph. I do not think this is related to the eloquence that members will be hearing in the next few minutes, but I have asked the page to wait and listen to my speech, and if I deserve it then I will provide her with the autograph. Is that agreed?

Mr. Speaker, it is not agreed; so if you allow, I will sign the autograph, since members can be assured I will try to match the eloquence of all those who have spoken previously from this side of the House.

I am honoured to participate in this debate. I would like to say the Liberal government has begun its reign in this great province of ours with a fiscal program that I would describe as one of betrayal. I refer to the betrayal not of this party but of those who have signed the very interesting accord, and of the citizens of this province to whom so many promises were made during the campaign.

The government has begun its fiscal reign with higher taxes, lower credit ratings, higher deficits, broken promises, and yes, dishonesty. This is being done at a time when the recovery we are witnessing today should be providing tax relief to the nine million people of this province. Instead, our consumers are being hurt, they are being undermined and they are being cornered at every turn.

It comes as no surprise that the very day after the Treasurer's budget, the "vice-premier" of this province told the Treasurer, "Were it not for the accord that we negotiated, the Liberal Party today would be all dressed up with no place to go, and possibly a few steps in reverse." What we see is a total reverse, a reverse in full gear.

Let us talk about a different type of betrayal. I refer to the members of the third party. The member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella), who is eagerly engaged in conversation, should listen to what I have to say.

Over the weekend, we all heard the news that the Quebec Federation of Labour, in a very historic decision, decided to pull back from its support of the Parti Québécois. Those who for many years supposedly represented the interests of the working men and women of Quebec pulled out because they realized for the first time that they had been betrayed by those who pretended to represent their interests.

The third party, the party that has placed this government in power and is making sure this government will continue to reign for another year and a half, will not get away with speaking out of both sides of its mouth, trying to have its cake and eat it at the same time and pretending it is concerned by this budget. It is a budget they helped to construct. The increased taxation of the working men and women of this province through income tax, the 3.5-cent-a-gallon increase, which will hurt the workers of this province, is a conspiracy for which they are to be blamed. This is not a Liberal budget; it is a New Democratic Party and Liberal budget.

The New Democratic Party would like to refer to its leader in Quebec as Jean Paul Harney, but the French media for some reason just call him John Harney. Mr. Harney, referring to the situation in Quebec, said the following in Le Devoir. I will read the French text and translate it for the benefit of those who are constrained by the lack of simultaneous translation, Mr. Speaker, which I know you personally endorse. This is a quotation from Mr. Harney: "Les gens ne font plus de différence entre le Parti québécois et le Parti libéral."

He is saying that people now do not see any difference between the Parti Québécois and the Liberal Party in Quebec. The people of Ontario now do not see any difference between the NDP and the Liberal government in power. They know very well.

4:40 p.m.

It is impossible and inconceivable that the Treasurer of this great province, who speaks of consultation and of an open process, did not consult the "vice-premier" of this province. I can assure my constituents and the citizens of this province that there was a great deal of consultation about every aspect of this budget. There was a great deal of consultation as to whether we should hit every family in this province with an increase of $800 to $900 a year. There was consultation about the working men and women of this province, where the average worker travels 30 miles a day to work. Theirs are not the Cadillac-driven limousines; theirs are the little rusting cars, the penny that is saved by the working people of this province.

The New Democratic Party consented that they should be hit with an increase of 3.5 cents a gallon. The members should not be fooled that, all of a sudden, they are all angels on that part of this side. They will not get away with this. They will not get away with it in my riding and I assure the House they will not get away with it in the riding of the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies). We see the province going full gear in reverse in this budget.

Mr. Gillies: Are you angels?

Mr. Warner: What an embarrassment. We are not in power.

Mr. Gillies: By the time the New Democratic Party is in power, we will all be angels.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, could you ask my honourable colleague if he would refrain from his emotional support of the statements I am making? I understand there is much agreement by all members on this side with what I have said and with what I will continue to say. I would like the members to quieten down and listen to what I have to say.

I am a back-bencher. I recall sitting on the other side in the last row listening to the present Treasurer and others over there as they criticized our budget. I will agree that at times we listened and some of it made a great deal of sense. This time they should listen to what we have to say because every word of what we say makes a great deal of sense.

We hear all sorts of rumours. There is a no-confidence motion that I am sure will be voted upon very soon. People talk of an election. If this is an election budget, we all know where the party in power will be heading -- Nowhereland.

Mr. Lupusella: They cannot break an agreement.

Mr. Shymko: I really doubt that the third party and the member for Dovercourt will have the integrity or the courage to stand up and vote against this budget.

Mr. Lupusella: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to remind the member for High Park-Swansea that I am the member for Dovercourt, not Davenport.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): That is not a point of order; it is only recognizing that he possibly named the wrong riding.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do believe the member for Dovercourt would have the courage to vote against this budget.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Shymko: I hear there may be some riding changes and I am sure the member for Dovercourt is concerned about what may happen to his riding in the future. I sympathize that the name and the boundaries may be changed. I know the member for Bellwoods has a keen interest in the new riding.

In the admiration I have for the member, I pray that the riding of Dovercourt will not be affected by the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission so that he can serve his constituents in the great capacity and with the eloquence he has served in the past. The member will have to decide with his own colleagues who will be the nominated candidate in the new riding; I will not venture to do so.

Let us continue to address the issue at hand, this historic budget. Under our Conservative government, Ontario, as we all know, led the rest of Canada out of the worst recession in recent history. Sixty per cent of all new jobs in Canada were created in this province as we pulled this province and, indeed, this country out of a very difficult two-year recession period. Ninety per cent of these jobs were in the small-business sector, which is not addressed by this budget. The previous year, we achieved an employment rate increase of 4.5 per cent, well above the national average for Canada, creating 185,000 more jobs in one year by June of this year, compared to what this budget is doing and the predictions we see: a minimum of 44,000 jobs fewer than we would have created had we formed the government.

This was done by a budget which, for two years in a row, was reducing the provincial deficit and which, had we continued to govern, would have totally eliminated the deficit in the next two to three years -- no deficit, no burden on the taxpayers of this province. It was a time when Ontario's growth rate was 6.5 per cent, something that even we could not have predicted, by the quality of the programs and by the wisdom of the budgets that were presented to this House.

By comparison, what we see, as I mentioned earlier, is 44,000 fewer jobs and an increase in the deficit of more than $500 million to $2.2 billion. I understand the figure, if one recalculates it, is much higher. It is not $2.2 billion; it is something close to $2.6 billion. We see a slowdown in real economic growth from 6.5 per cent to 4.5 per cent this year, and a further reduction to 2.4 per cent, as predicted by this government, next year, a situation that will destroy the triple-A credit rating we have enjoyed for so many years in this province.

Let me refer to some of the statements that were made by the present Premier during the election. I quote the Hamilton Spectator. To the question, "Is cutting the deficit a high priority for you, Mr. Peterson?" he replied, "We will be able to fund all necessary programs without increasing the deficit."

Mr. Ramsay: Without?

Mr. Shymko: Without increasing the deficit. This is the statement, a promise, an assurance, a conviction, a faith, just a few months ago.

Mr. Ramsay: A sacred trust.

Mr. Shymko: A sacred trust, as the honourable member has stated. Am I quoting it right? Yes. What was the rebuttal of the present "vice-premier" to this? The member for York South (Mr. Rae), in his rebuttal -- what interesting statements -- said the following:

"Let us look at the record of the Liberal government. The federal Liberals drove the country to the highest level of debt ever in the history of Canada. We will be paying the price of Liberal economic mismanagement for years and years to come."

4:50 p.m.

How true. The leader of the third party said this. If that is the wisdom, if this is a budget that apparently reflects a Liberal consensus, a view of this province, let us quote the words of the member for York South, the man who today is making sure this government is in power, that as a result of such budgets this province will be paying the price of economic mismanagement for years to come.

It may be Cassandra's warning to the present regime; the upcoming and quite probable fall of the Liberal Troy. I believe these Liberal Trojans should beware of that Trojan Horse, the third party. I assure the members it will do everything in its power in the next few months to make sure this government is defeated. There will be a stage where its credibility with the working men and women of this province, whom it supposedly represents, whose interests it supposedly voices -- I will not use the words "double entendre," but certainly something that may be described as hypocritical so often as it espouses and speaks of the concerns of the working people of Ontario -- that position and those commitments will be tested and will be tested very soon.

It is interesting to see the reply to another question in the same interview. The interviewer asked the Premier during the election, "Would your government raise taxes to cut the deficit?" The answer by the present Premier, "I do not anticipate any tax increases."

It is easy to criticize when one is on this side, but it is a true test of ingenuity when one ends up on the other side and takes on the responsibility of government, as I am sure the Treasurer, whom I respect so highly, has learned so very quickly. Where is denticare? It is not around, but it is easy to make promises. It is hard to deliver when one has the responsibility over the lives, the standard of living, the future and the hopes of nine million citizens in this province, and the government has to pay for it. As the member indicated, where does the government get that money?

We do not see a comprehensive, plausible and coherent set of economic and fiscal policies, supposedly from those who for four decades witnessed, criticized, watched the operation of the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario. One would have thought that after 40 years they would have learned something. What do we see? We see fiscal policies which do not create incentives for job creation, which they harped upon time and time again, saying, "Create more jobs."

It does not speak of investments in the economy to help not just the young unemployed under the age of 25 whose tragic state we all recognize, but to address the unemployed over 25, the fathers, the wives, those who are in charge of the fates and livelihood of families, the 386,000 jobless over 25 years of age. Their concerns and tragic state certainly were not addressed by even one penny in this budget.

There are many here today who will be listening to the concerns for those 386,000 jobs because we will be knocking at the doors. This party knows what it will be saying. I would like to see the reaction of the Liberals and those who have propped them up and are propping them up in power, the New Democratic Party, to explain why there is nothing in this budget to alleviate the plight of these unemployed.

We see $642 million of broken promises, promises that have not been delivered. I am not going to list all of these. I am sure my colleagues have done this already. Instead, there is $754 million in the tax formula, not for the economic growth but for the economic stagnation of this province.

Devised by whom? Devised by economic and fiscal experts from Ottawa, the unemployed who unfortunately found themselves in a position where they could not get any patronage appointments. They were there counselling this new government. Those who had destroyed the fiscal health of this country nationally were there advising. The federal Liberal mandarins were there with the Treasurer and the Premier, advising them on this new, responsible approach, this new Liberal approach to progress in Ontario.

I recall that in my riding both the leader of the New Democratic Party and the present Premier made promises about gasoline. I would like to quote some of their statements about gas increases. I quote the London Free Press of April 20, 1985, from Chatham: "Liberal leader David Peterson promised Friday to freeze provincial gasoline taxes at current levels if elected, ending what he termed an `automatic tax grab' by the Conservatives."

An automatic tax grab. What do we see today? When petroleum prices are falling at an unbelievable rate, the Liberals are grabbing every penny, every dollar, from the working people of this province, from the vast majority of those middle Canadians and those who can be described as being in dire straits today. Talk about a tax grab.

"If elected," Mr. Peterson said, "the Liberals would not only freeze provincial taxes at the current eight cents a litre but would require further provincial tax increases to be legislated." There are some interesting increases, and I wish them success in the legislation of these increases because they will come to haunt them very soon.

Another interesting quote refers to the "destitute state of the impact that this increase in gasoline prices will have in northern Ontario." Members may recall the statement that no transportation subsidy was something they could not accept. They said there would be a transportation subsidy. There would be a tax credit to northern Ontario. We certainly do not see this.

I quote the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal, "Ontario Liberal leader David Peterson is wooing northern Ontario voters with a promise of a $100 income tax credit per household." But where do we find this tax credit in the present Treasurer's budget? "`Gasoline is one factor in the high cost of northern living,' said Peterson. He said northern residents drive more miles on the average than their southern counterparts and so the pinch would be more painful here."

If these were his words, he is swallowing them bitterly. I see the honourable minister from northern Ontario.

Mr. Ashe: The only one.

Mr. Shymko: The only one present here.

Mr. Ashe: The only one elected.

Mr. Shymko: The only one elected. He will feel the political pinch of these words. He will feel it.

5 p.m.

Let me not just make my references and my quotes from the Premier. Let us listen to what the "vice-premier" of Ontario had to say in those days, the man who made sure these tax increases are going to hit the people of Ontario. Let us listen to what the member for York South had to say in the Toronto Sun, April 4, 1985, reported by a great journalist, Lorrie Goldstein. This is what Mr. Goldstein had to say:

Mr. Peterson "last night pledged himself to no tax increases without legislation if he's elected Premier." And Mr. Rae "accused Premier Frank Miller of deliberately delaying scheduled increases in the province's ad valorem gasoline tax until after the May 2 election." Remember the big scare: "Elect the Tories and you will be hit with massive gas increases"? Mr. Goldstein continued: "Rae predicted the price of gasoline will rise by 37 cents a gallon in the first year.... Miller and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, Rae charged, are conspiring to slam consumers with higher gasoline prices after the election."

Miller and Mulroney are conspiring, he said. Well, well, well. Who conspired today? It was the Premier and the leader of the third party, the unholy leaders of that alliance. Various names have been given to this alliance. They keep referring to the conversion on the road to Damascus. Apparently, someone needs to be converted, and the people will convert them the hard way, believe me. Talk about a conspiracy!

There was an interesting article in the Globe and Mail on April 24, 1981. The following editorial said something that is of great interest to us today: "The Trudeau government has done it again -- campaigned on one policy to win an election and then, the election safely won, reversed the policy.

"It did it in 1974 over wage and price controls....It has done it again over oil and gasoline prices."

"Yesterday," it said, "this Liberal government imposed new taxes of three and a half cents a gallon on gasoline." That is exactly the same increase that was instituted by this government. It went on to say "they brought total Liberal gasoline...price increases well above the levels proposed by the Conservatives just 14 months after the Liberals won an election." The article concluded: "What are promises to a Liberal government?"

What are promises indeed to a Liberal government? I will tell the members. No matter what budget will be introduced next spring, we know it will be an election budget. This is not an election budget; there is no way one can win an election with the Treasurer's budget. There will be another one in March 1986. There will be goodies and there will be promises. But once the Liberals have destroyed their credibility on the first budget of broken promises, no one will believe them in March 1986.

We will see next year. Take my warning as someone who sympathizes with members on the other side. Take my warning as they at times warned us and at times made sense.

Interjections.

Mr. Shymko: The member knows I listened attentively to his words when he was on this side. I wish he would reciprocate in the same way.

While talking about incentives, let us take a look at the so-called corporate tax. The $200 million to be collected by this budget from corporations as additional taxes, in my opinion and in the opinion of every intelligent person in this House, could have been reinvested in jobs by these very same corporations.

I recall a question from the front bench of this side of the House asking how many jobs would have been created had the more than $200 million of corporate taxes been reinvested by these very same corporations. There was no answer. There was a lot of hedging but there was no answer. With this budget, the poor, who are already in dire straits, will be even worse off, while the middle class will continue to carry an even greater burden.

I would like to refer to an analysis and a statement of this approach to a Liberal budget from the Toronto Sun. I know the Treasurer will say: "The last newspaper I would listen to for wisdom and advice would be the Toronto Sun."

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Their editorial was quite complimentary. I hope you are not just reading selectively.

Mr. Shymko: I am sorry, I presumed.

I would like to quote something from the Toronto Sun, dated October 25 of this year. This is from the business editor, Mr. Turner, whom the Treasurer knows very well. Let us listen to what Mr. Turner had to say. This budget by the Treasurer is "a classic Trudeau-like shot at redistributing wealth" -- taxing the assets of the middle class to try to finance their program. Mr. Turner said this budget is something that may get some vote appeal from certain circles. "Too much money is being pulled from those who are most likely to invest in the still-fragile economy. The list of horrors, for Middle Ontario, is a staggering one."

"With a knee-jerk bow to ideology" -- and we know which ideology and to whose ideological principles -- "the Peterson Grits are dousing any real chances the federal budget has of sparking new economic growth. It's stupid, mean-spirited, socialist drivel. Ontario is being forced in a new direction, where those who achieve are penalized for it.

"The inevitable result will be a sick economy with chronic joblessness and a bureaucracy gone wild. Maybe not this year. Maybe not next. But it will come.

"And when it does, we will regret Bob Nixon, and we will regret yesterday."

Unless members opposite listen to what is being said, they will indeed regret their yesterday.

I watched the reaction of the Treasurer when I mentioned the name of Mr. Turner. He obviously understands why Mr. Turner would describe the budget in those eloquent terms that obviously create some pain.

5:10 p.m.

I would like the Treasurer to listen to words from a Liberal colleague of his, a former Liberal cabinet minister from Ottawa. Let us listen to what the Macdonald report on the economy has to say. Let us listen to what Donald Macdonald has to say about investment and fiscal policy. Let me quote from volume III, page 86. It was indeed interesting reading to go through these volumes. It cost me $46 or something, but it was well worth the investment. This is what Mr. Macdonald had to say:

"Given that, after 1973, investment was higher in Canada than in any other country in the world except Japan, our investment performance relative to other countries appeared in those years adequate, at least before the 1981-82 recession. However, there may be at present cause for concern. Real investment in Canada suffered a sharp decline during the recession and has not as yet began to recover significantly. Investment in the United States, however, has since rebounded sharply. In looking at figures, these are the facts."

On the following page, he says: "An increase in investment raises the level of output. To maintain the new level of output, namely, the 6.5 per cent economic growth we saw last year, it is necessary to devote an increased proportion of output to investments. Otherwise," says the wise royal commission of intelligent people, not reporters from the Toronto Sun, "the economy will eventually return to its original growth path." The Treasurer knows this. That is why it will return to a growth of 2.6 per cent. He knows the impact of his budget.

The commission goes on to say that the benefits from increased investment, while perhaps not dramatic, are worth while. They will improve the economic welfare and raise living standards by increasing investments. How do we do it? I will conclude by mentioning the two options recommended by a royal commission headed by a former Liberal cabinet minister, Donald Macdonald. This is his recommendation to the Treasurer and the Premier and to the "vice-premier," the leader of the third party. "One policy prescription to stimulate investment is to reduce the taxation of capital. Another is for the government to increase savings available to finance investments by reducing its own deficit." Reduce taxation of capital and reduce government deficits. That is the proposal, the statement, to continue the economic growth we have enjoyed in the past. What has this government done? It has done the complete opposite. It has increased the deficit and increased taxation.

Mr. Knight: The member should pretend he is over here.

Mr. Shymko: I do not even try to pretend to have the wealth and depth of wisdom in economic affairs of the Treasurer, but I can read, quote and understand what a royal commission is saying. I would like to ask the Treasurer, where is that $5-million women's training employment fund offering loans and grants to train women in nontraditional occupations? It disappeared all of a sudden. Where is that $100-million employment tax credit for small businesses which his party had unveiled during the election campaign to create 22,000 jobs?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: It is coming.

Mr. Shymko: Someone said it is coming. I do not know who said it was coming. In the fullness of time is what we keep hearing.

I will not go into all the details of many of the programs, particularly for women. I am a member of a Toronto riding in the west end and a member of the Metro caucus. There are Metro caucus members on the government side. I would like to remind the Treasurer there are 100,000 injured workers in Metro Toronto. Do not tell me this budget will not affect them to their detriment.

There are 80,000 single mothers in Metro. Do not tell me his budget will not affect them to their detriment. There are 150,000 persons over 25 years of age unemployed in Metro Toronto. Do not tell me they are greeting his budget with open hands and arms -- open hands perhaps, begging for help and programs. There are 1.2 million people in this metropolitan area born outside of Canada, and there is nothing for English-as-a-second-language programs.

We are going to have 120,000 immigrants to Canada next year, more than half of them coming to this province and this metropolitan centre. What will the government do about housing? Where will it house them? What will it do about jobs? The government has not addressed this issue. It had better start addressing it.

Talking about the environment and broken promises, the members will recall the promised $30-million environment superfund, as it was called, to deal with toxic wastes. They will recall the pledge of $100 million -- $20 million a year over five years -- to clean up Metro's pollution problems. There is a beautiful beach in the west end, Sunnyside, with serious pollution problems. The sewage treatment plant is located right next to our riding. There are serious problems.

What is this government doing about it? It was so easy to criticize when they were on this side. Where is the influence of my friend, who backed them all the time? Where is his impact and clout today? He is trying to have his cake and eat it at the same time. It does not work.

Some members have asked me for 10 or 15 minutes. That gives me about 30 more minutes. I will try to be brief for the sake of those whose patience is being tested by words of wisdom from a humble member of the opposition, not a front-bencher or second-bencher. We listened to them when they criticized. All we ask is the same type of respect and patience. They should listen. There may be some wisdom in these words.

It was $73 million to clean up the environment, for beach protection, sewage improvements, acid gas emission controls, cleanup of the Great Lakes. Everything has suddenly evaporated, gone, zero, zilch.

Where is the money for new day care centres? The members are all aware of the statements that have been made in the media. There no doubt is an increase in subsidized spaces, but the problem was indicated by Larry Katz, the Ontario executive member of the Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association. He said:

"This budget does not create new spaces for the tens of thousands of average-income families in need of child care support. It does not lower the exorbitant fees now charged to unsubsidized parents and does absolutely nothing to increase the inadequate salaries now paid child care workers."

Do the members realize that a child care worker is paid 40 per cent of the salary we pay zookeepers today? We are paying double the salary to take care of animals. That is not addressed in any way by this budget. There will be subsidized spaces. Where will the government put these children when there is no capital to build new day care facilities?

I would like to continue by saying that promises to the people have no doubt been broken. In major areas such as housing there is mass confusion. The Minister of Housing is here. He will not comment. I sympathize with a very serious dilemma, but we still do not see a housing policy. We were lobbied today by the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations. Where is that available rental housing today? Where is that stock of housing when today major construction companies, major contractors and major builders are saying publicly, "Even if you create a program, we will not be part and parcel of it any more."

Mr. Mancini: The member wants us to abolish rent review. We get the message.

Mr. Shymko: The member should not put words into my mouth. There is no housing policy.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Epp: Why does the member not comment on the need that was created by 42 years of Tory rule?

Mr. Shymko: I am getting advice from an honourable member whom I would have loved to have seen in cabinet. It is so unfortunate that the member for Waterloo North, with the wisdom of his approach, is being ignored by the Premier and not put in cabinet to provide some guidance. I say to him, do not counsel me in this House; counsel your own leader. Why are you not in cabinet? I would love to see you in cabinet because I admire your wisdom.

The Deputy Speaker: Would the member address his remarks to the chair, please?

Mr. Shymko: Yes, but I do not need interruptions from those who try to counsel me on the remarks I should be making.

I admire the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) and many other honourable members. The member for Kent-Elgin has sat on so many committees and we have shared the input he has made in the social development area. He knows very well the concerns we heard about day care as we travelled throughout this province. Time and time again we heard pleas for more space. Where is that capital in this budget? I am talking about capital, not about operating subsidized spaces, because today a nonsubsidized parent is paying $95 a week for a child in a day care centre. It is the middle-income group of parents who are not assisted in any way.

Where is the promised child tax credit? I do not have the figure, but I recall the Liberal pledge to increase the child tax credit from $2,000 to $4,000 or $5,000. The member remembers it. It was a Liberal platform on which he ran with his leader. Why is there nothing in this budget? Ask the Treasurer.

I would like to continue by referring to other areas of concern. Women's issues have not been addressed. Day care has not been addressed.

There is a four per cent increase in social assistance despite the fact that the Liberal Party criticized Frank Drea, the then Minister of Community and Social Services, for his 4.5 per cent increase. Members recall the reaction from this side of the House to a 4.5 per cent increase when the Liberals were the official opposition. One would think they would have learned something from their own criticism. Their increase is less; it is four per cent at a time when the inflation rate is almost five per cent.

I could read a number of articles. I could refer honourable members to Rosemary Speirs's article, but I will save their time by not reading it. There are so many excellent reviews of what is lacking in this budget.

Je voudrais enfin, comme président de notre section ontarienne de l'Association internationale des parlementaires de langue française, dire quelques mots en français. Malheureusement, du fait que je parle français, mes chers collègues ne comprennent absolument rien. Ils ne comprennent rien, du fait qu'il n'y a pas de traduction simultanée. Malgré le fait que j'ai le droit de parler français comme une des langues officielles, malheureusement, on n'aura même pas de traduction en anglais dans le Hansard. Alors, à l'exception de quatre ou cinq députés du côté du gouvernement et peut-être quatre ou cinq du côté de l'opposition, le reste ne comprennent absolument rien de ce que je veux dire et ils n'auront pas de traduction dans le Hansard.

C'est pour cette raison que je voudrais voir disparaître cette absurdité de la philosophie de l'existentialisme d'Albert Camus, qui a dit que le seul sens, c'est qu'il n'y a pas de sens. Et le voilà. On parle en français, et la majorité des députés ne comprennent absolument rien. C'est pour cela qu'on a besoin d'une traduction simultanée, au moins pour traduire ce que je dis oralement, si pas dans le Hansard. Si cela coûte trop cher, il faut au moins traduire cela.

Le trésorier avait dit, dans la préface qu'il a faite dans le document intitulé La Réforme du processus budgétaire, qu'il invitait le public à faire des commentaires sur ce document et que c'était avec le plus grand plaisir qu'il accueillerait de nouvelles idées et des commentaires.

Très bien. J'espère que le trésorier acceptera mes commentaires avec grand plaisir parce que je dis franchement que j'ai un vrai plaisir de participer à ce débat et de conseiller aux députés de la part de quelqu'un qui comprend ce que c'est que d'être de l'autre côté -- pas comme membre du Cabinet mais comme quelqu'un qui voyait la frustration de ce que c'est que d'être du côté du gouvernement.

Je voudrais rappeler à mes chers collègues du tiers parti que ce sont eux qui soutenaient ce budget, ce sont eux qui donnaient l'ampleur aux problèmes, aux programmes néfastes qui vont avoir un impact négatif sur les citoyens de cette province.

Je me rappelle le cher ministre, le député d'Ottawa Est (M. Grandmaître), qui s'est adressé à un symposium des droits des Franco-Ontariens qui fut organisé il y a quelques jours par 500 déléguées des Franco-Ontariennes. L'honorable ministre, à cette question d'enchâsser plus de droits des Franco-Ontariens dans la Constitution canadienne, avait répondu: Cela s'en vient. On ne peut rien faire, mais cela s'en vient.

Cela s'en vient. Voilà sa réponse aux besoins immédiats d'enlever la peine, d'enlever le fardeau des citoyens, d'enlever le fardeau des travailleurs et des travailleuses de cette province immédiatement. Sa réponse, comme l'a dit le cher ministre: Cela s'en vient. Je veux voir quelque chose qui va venir immédiatement, mais cela s'en vient.

Interjections.

M. Shymko: Je ne ferai pas de commentaire afin de ne pas donner trop d'ampleur à l'amitié dont nous jouissons.

Dans le secteur des transferts aux municipalités de cette province, nous voyons que la présidente de l'Association des municipalités de l'Ontario, le maire de Kanata, Mme Wilkinson, vient de dire que l'augmentation générale des paiements de transfert aux municipalités de 4.2 pour cent en 1986-87 et d'au moins quatre pour cent en 1987-88, cela n'est pas suffisant, dit-elle, pour permettre aux municipalités de faire face à leurs obligations, et plusieurs, dit-elle, devront augmenter leurs taxes -- augmentations de taxes par le gouvernement provincial, augmentations de taxes par les gouvernements municipaux parce qu'ils n'ont pas assez d'argent de transfert. Qu'est-ce que le gouvernement va faire avec tout cet argent?

For the sake of those members who do not understand what I have just said -- and that is the irony:

The standing orders of this great Legislature provide us with the opportunity and the right to speak both official languages, a right we all cherish. But what is the point of exercising the right of speaking French when 98 per cent of the honourable members do not understand what I have said?

Not only that, but when my remarks are printed in Hansard they are again in French, and the members will not even understand them when they read them. What absurdity to provide members with a right whose exercise is not conducive to communication. The best eloquence I can use in French -- and I try hard -- draws blank faces. There is no reaction, because the members do not understand. This is why I ask, in the future, if they give us a right we hesitate to use because it is not practical, why give it in the first place?

5:30 p.m.

I hope that in your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, in the wisdom of your office and your understanding of our concerns, there will be at least simultaneous translation so my colleagues can understand me. I am not talking about translations in Hansard. If that is too costly, which may be the criterion in translating all the bills and all the legislative orders of the day, etc., at least translate my oral comments so my honourable colleagues can understand.

If we are going to pay millions of dollars to set up cameras, which I believe has been agreed to and passed by the committee -- I have heard ridiculous figures of $9 million to $10 million to have cameras here -- what good is it for our members who have a high percentage of francophones in their ridings, if the cameras are focused on them and they are asked to and tempted to speak French, which they will try to do more and more because their francophone constituents want to hear them, when their colleagues will not understand a word? That is part and parcel of something.

Let us eliminate this existentialist absurdity. I quote Albert Camus, the famous existentialist, who said the only sense in life is that it does not make sense. That is the only sense of this existentialist budget. Even the great French philosopher Camus would tremble in his grave to see a budget whose only sense is the sense that it does not make any sense: Le sens du non-sens. Le sens de l'absurdité totale.

The only rationale I can see -- and I have tried to see one; we have all tried -- comes when I recall the initial comments of the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague). He comes to the conclusion that what he sees is an interesting development, perhaps a budget that is the first attempt to establish a semblance of credibility. I quote his words: "If there is anything that is taxed in this budget, it is your credibility as a government. That is what is being taxed, your credibility."

This may not be an election budget. There will be another budget in the spring of next year, but once they have destroyed their credibility with their first budget, re-establishing it will not work. They break $650 million of promises and they think they will have credibility in their second budget. Their so-called election budget will probably promise everything under the sky, projects galore -- not just $650 million; we will see billions of dollars in promises, sky high. The third party will be faced with deciding how long it can continue to prop up a collapsing Liberal regime.

With that I conclude my remarks, giving the next honourable member, the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), not the 10 minutes he requested but, with the well-known generosity of Progressive Conservative members, 25 minutes.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am sorely tempted, but I am going to stay away from it. After all, I have been here for only a little better than 10 years, and we have had Tory government for 42 years.

I have waited anxiously for something a little more progressive in each of the budgets that have been presented while I have been in this House and I have not found it. When the member castigates this government and this party for its support of this government for the time being, I cannot help but wonder why he does not tell us a little bit about some of the things they were famous for. I am still trying to find out, for example, how Mr. Foley got those under-the-table payments, deferred bonuses and so on, at the same time we in this House had the bitter debate over restricting workers' wages that he was waxing so eloquently about earlier.

However, I want to go through half a dozen points with the Treasurer. I congratulate him on changing the process a little. However little the change may be, it is the first time in the years I have been in this House that we are having debate before some of the measures take place. There are some very minor changes with respect to a more progressive tax balance in this province. I hope it is not something cosmetic for this budget alone and that we will see a real move in the next one; but I have to say it was a pleasant surprise.

I want to remind the Treasurer that 1,128 Canadians with incomes of more than $100,000 -- a good chunk of them in Ontario -- did not pay a cent in taxes in 1983. Also, 6,662 Canadians -- once again a good chunk of them in Ontario -- made more than $50,000 and paid no taxes in 1983. I am not at all sure we have begun to correct the imbalances in our tax system, but it is a move in the right direction.

There is a lot of room for the Treasurer to move in. I looked at the shares of the revenue pie and noticed that corporation taxes are 10 per cent. I acknowledge that is an increase over what it was for the previous year, but I remind the Treasurer it was only 20 years ago that the corporation tax base was better than 25 per cent of the revenue in this province. We have seen one hell of a drop with respect to what business in this province is paying, and although I recognize it is not all the province's fault, we still see benefits, bonuses and concessions given to the business community.

I want to make one or two suggestions to the Treasurer. We are having some meetings with business people in Hamilton, trying to come up with something that may put a little life into the regeneration of jobs and industry in our city. One of the things that surprised me in meeting with both small and large business in Hamilton was that there was not much respect for the old job creation programs and the variety of different ones; so a move to a single umbrella is useful. One suggestion was about interest rates, which at the moment are a little more favourable, and knowing exactly where they were going and what the tax structure was going to be for a period of time would be of more assistance to business than almost anything else we could do.

I suggest to the Treasurer that it is perhaps time we took a look at the business area, because then we could get a fairer assessment. In many cases, they are not paying their fair share of taxes, but a tax structure could be set up that would bring us a little more income. With respect to the business community, why not set up a structure on the basis of two or three years and let them know where they are going so they can do their planning accordingly? There is some merit in such a suggestion that would resolve some of their problems.

5:40 p.m.

Another suggestion I have to make comes to some extent out of the recent free trade hearings we have had in the select committee on economic affairs, but it relates to something this party has been concerned with for a long time; that is, exactly where we are going in this province and this country of ours. Why not take some time to take a serious look at what we want in the way of an industrial strategy? I say that because it is almost impossible to put in place retraining programs for young people, to decide where the jobs are, and to decide where we want to spend the kind of largess we have every once in a while for the business community without knowing exactly what we want to retain or maintain in this province in the way of industry and what we want to do for the future of our resource sector.

It is hard to train young people for jobs when the best experts in the field tell us they really do not know what they will be working at or what the future of work is. I am not sure there is a big percentage in training people for the jobs at Wendy's and McDonald's that have kept us afloat over the past period of time. We have to know where we are heading. It is obvious that the demographics alone and the rising older population tell us some of our efforts and some of our retraining has to be in the area of services to people.

It seems to me we should decide whether we want a viable aircraft industry. We should decide what we want to do in terms of automobiles and what merits there are in looking at whether it makes any sense for the Urban Transportation Development Corp. to tie in with Bombardier, whether there is a rationalization that might be in the public interest. I do not know. My concern is that we are doing nothing in this province to get a handle on exactly what we want to do in the future. That is a major factor in deciding what jobs we need to train people for.

I will not spend a lot of time on this. I mentioned it briefly when we were dealing with the supplementary estimates. We have not done anything as yet in pension reform. It is absolutely essential that we decide what we are going to do. I cannot for the life of me understand the delay in dealing with reforms to private pension schemes.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is all set to go.

Mr. Mackenzie: Then the Treasurer should let us see it. Let us see whether the Treasurer can show a little initiative and tie some form of option, if necessary, for earlier retirement for workers into the reforms needed in the private sector. I suspect the payoff in positions opened up would be well worth whatever money might be needed up front in terms of bridging and earlier retirement.

It seems to me that is an area which ties into looking seriously at the future of work, and it ties into looking seriously at some kind of industrial strategy. I was amazed at the hearings on the economy and free trade that people on both sides of the issue, the proponents and opponents of comprehensive trade talks, came down on the side of the need for an industrial strategy. One of the big shortcomings in this province is that nobody seems to be taking a serious look at that. As well, we should be taking a look at the hours of work. I do not know why we are not taking a serious look in this province at vacations as a job-provider. I noticed an interesting little piece recently. I do not have the details in front of me. They are talking now in Japan about adding 10 additional holidays for every worker in the country. They are doing it on the basis of stimulating the domestic economy through more free time and more buying power as well as more job creation.

My information is they are already ahead of us in the vacation arrangements we have. We have two weeks' vacation with pay in this province and that is it. Sweden today has six weeks' vacation with pay after two years' service. Many countries are way ahead of us. Why are we not taking a serious look at lowering the hours of work in this province and at how much incentive is there in terms of domestic purchasing power if people have additional time off, especially if they have jobs?

We also have some serious problems in the area of coverage. I am talking now about the most basic standards under the Employment Standards Act. It seems to me we have not yet moved even halfway in terms of domestics. I do not know whether the Treasurer gets the little daily problems I do. Lately there have been a lot of people working in the landscaping field and a number of other industries such as that who point out very strongly that they are not covered under the Employment Standards Act for hours and vacations. There are some loopholes that are long overdue for change.

We have some problems in human rights in this province. I am not going to go into detail about them, but this government should be aware that what used to be a six-month period for dealing with various human rights complaints is now a year and in some cases a year and a half. I know of cases that have taken almost two years and where we are still waiting for decisions. Unfortunately, that is also happening with the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

One thing that concerns me is that we are seeing almost a legalization of these procedures. The lawyers are getting more involved. The delays are longer than we have had for a number of years in the province. There is a real need to take a look at that. I am not sure it is just staff, although that may be a part of it, but it seems to me this government had better come to grips with the structure, both in the Ontario Human Rights Commission and in the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Another thing worth taking a look at is the whole question of deregulation in the province. I dealt with some of the things that have happened in the trucking industry in the United States through information that came before the select committee on economic affairs when it was looking at free trade. However, there is a move towards deregulation in this province that bothers me. I think it is a dangerous move, and I hope the Treasurer and his government are not going to be stampeded into making moves in various sectors that mean deregulation. The people who get hurt there are the workers, and safety and health standards, in almost every case.

If there is a disappointment in this budget, it is the four per cent social assistance ceiling and the help for the elderly. There is some money there, but if I have learned anything in my constituency office over the past few years, it is that the government is not doing anybody a favour when it helps a person into a nursing home. I understand there are cases where that is necessary, but the government is doing a lot more of a favour to older people if it is able to find the home support and in-home services that keep them there, with friends or family, or even on their own, much longer than some people now are able to.

It seems to me, with the growing older population in the province, this is an area that is going to need an awful lot more attention than we have given it up until now. I hope it is an area this government is prepared to move in and that it will recognize, both in help for the elderly and in the social assistance payments, that it was not very generous in that area.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: What about the $11 million for warm coats and boots?

Mr. Mackenzie: That is a welcome step, but it is not the answer. I think the Treasurer knows that.

We seem to have an ability to spend money on some major projects and to forget some of the minor projects. I am speaking now of a position I have held for a long time in opposition to a freeway down the Red Hill Creek in my community. I am talking about the decision, which I will be writing to the Premier about and appealing to cabinet.

The Red Hill Creek freeway raises two or three questions over and above the heat of argument on either side of the need for that expressway. The questions it raises is whether it is worth destroying that valley, which most people accept has been destroyed from Lawrence Road to the lake. Major damage certainly has been done to the valley north of Lawrence Road. I wonder whether it makes sense to put better than $200 million into that kind of expressway when one of the arguments that were originally given for its need, the population growth, has been totally discredited at the hearings. The second argument, that it is needed to attract industry to a city like Hamilton is valid, but of course that is using the old argument that can be very emotional, to appeal to people that it is needed for jobs.

It seems to me that when one takes a look at what it is servicing -- it goes down a valley which it will destroy and it is hemmed in by major housing projects for the total length of the valley, so there is no spinoff effect that one sometimes gets from industrial corridors or even such as one will see along the Queen Elizabeth Way from here to Hamilton -- there is no advantage that way at all. It is to service the Mountain Industrial Park. Surely this government understands that the Mountain Industrial Park in Hamilton is already under fire from citizens who live around it and that planners in the city of Hamilton, some of whom supported the freeway and others who have not, admit it is probably in the wrong place and is probably not going to see any major growth.

5:50 p.m.

We are going to put $200 million into a freeway that destroys the last major greenbelt in the east end of Hamilton and where the real ability of industry to locate and the really desirable location is the north-end industrial sector of my city, the city of Hamilton.

I would advise some government members and members of the cabinet who may have some input into the decision on this project to drive down Sherman or Wentworth or some of the streets in the north end of my riding and take a look at the large numbers of boarded-up, dead factories in the industrial sector. Surely to goodness, when the transportation corridors are already in the north end and when that is where they have done a lot of work and where we have now got the twinning of the skyway, that is the sector for industry in the city of Hamilton.

When it was raised, it was recognized at the hearings we have had with industry people as well. It makes no sense to me. If we have a problem, it is finding out who has got a hold on that land, because it is extremely valuable, and getting that opened up again for the development of industry. Most industries, if they could get in, would move there or operate there or operate out of that north end from the tremendous number of old industries that have shut down over the last number of years, factories that are boarded up in that area. It makes no sense to put $200 million of the taxpayers' money into this expressway and destroy a beautiful valley at the same time.

It is very hard to understand the rationale of some of the arguments. It is hard to understand a number of things. I do not know whether these figures are totally accurate or not, but I suspect they are not too far out. There was a major piece in the Hamilton Spectator of Thursday, October 31, which I am sure some members have seen. They are talking about permanent job creation. While this is one hell of a lot bigger, it is in the same category as the kind of money we want to spend on a destructive expressway that really does not make sense and will not produce jobs in our community -- and I say that categorically. It is the fact we are also spending a fortune each and very year on something such as Darlington.

I thought this article was interesting. Lawrence Solomon was the reporter who wrote the article. They provide a little chart on the bottom of the numbers of people working there. There are 5,000 or 6,000 and there are another 3,000 or 4,000 who are involved in some of the supplies immediately, but those are jobs that are not long-term jobs.

They talk about one Darlington plant, value $12 billion. I suspect it is not even going to come in at $12 billion by the time we are finished, and it will provide 750 permanent, ongoing jobs. They talk about one Bell Canada, value $12 billion, and they talk about 57,000 jobs. They talk about four General Motors of Canada, that is what $12 billion amounts to, and they talk about 176,000 jobs. There are a number of examples where we can make the same kinds of comparisons.

What rationale, what sense does it make to put the kind of money we are putting into Darlington, $12 billion, for a payout of 750 permanent jobs? To me, it makes no sense whatsoever and it does not take any mathematician to do a little figuring to tell the kinds of projects we could get into with that money that would produce jobs at a heck of a lot larger rate than we are producing here. I submit it is the same principle as the argument over whether or not we are going to waste $200 million on the Red Hill Creek expressway.

I want to deal also with one or two other things that are bothering me a bit. We do have a serious need -- and I suspect it is right across the province but I can only give the figures for Hamilton -- in that there are a number of people who fall through the safety network or the services that we provide to people who are less fortunate than ourselves. Among those are ex-psychiatric patients.

I have been to a couple of events recently. I was down at a picnic that Jimmy Lomax, our famous Santa Claus, gave for about 125 or 130 ex-psychiatric patients in our city just a few short weeks ago. I found that for many of them, it was one of only two social events they would attend all year. When I talked to these people, and I think I met with every single person who was at that backyard party, I found that one would not know many of them had a problem; with others the problem was obvious. I started to talk to them about what they were doing and where they were staying. I talked to some of the workers and I found we actually had almost 1,800 people in this category in the city of Hamilton.

We had fewer than 200 in the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital 24-hour program where there was really some direction, some control and effort made to really assist these people. These are people who, in most cases, are going to be needing assistance and medication all their lives. There were 560 of them in licensed homes where they were getting some form of 24-hour supervision, but there were 800 or 900 of them in unlicensed homes, some of whom are kicked out first thing in the morning. The meals they get are watered down and they spend the day wandering on the streets and come back in at night for help. Then we wonder why the re-entry rate into the psychiatric institutions is extremely high.

It also showed a number of things that bothered me a bit. Most of these people, after they have made their payment for their centre, whether it is a licensed or a private one where there is not the control and they do not look after these people, end up with about $73 in comfort money or spending money. Very few of them are in a position to work. I understand probably only 10 or 15 per cent of them have any chance of getting totally out of the system.

A phenomenon among these people is that a large number of them -- the workers tell me it is a majority -- spend about $60 of their $73 comfort allowance on cigarettes. That tells us a number of things. It is probably the only thing they have in their lives. That in itself is pretty devastating. It tells us they have $12 or $13 left as a personal allowance to spend on everything else. It tells me we are not taking a look at something a little better in the way of control. At least the unlicensed beds have to be changed into supervised beds, and we have to see if there are not procedures available that will give us a little higher rate of people who can get back into the system.

When we have this kind of problem with these people in my city alone, we have to wonder where our priorities are and where the civility in our society is that we can have people living out their lives with the problems they already have in this kind of situation. It is a sad commentary on the kind of government and priorities we have established in this country.

I want to remind or make the Treasurer aware of a number of things that need to be done. We are long overdue for a steel labour institute in Hamilton; at least some people are beginning to talk about it. It would not be a major employer, but it would be a bit bigger than some of the small businesses. With the record and history of the steel industry and the record of the labour movement in Hamilton, we are long overdue to take a serious look at a steel labour institute in Hamilton, which could capture some of our history and arrange for people to see what went on at the steel mills -- people still love to see them -- and the workers who developed some of our stronger industrial unions.

I also want the Treasurer to know other major efforts are being made in Hamilton. One of them is a job on the Hamilton waterfront. After some nervous gyrations, it seems our local council is back on side with a heavy majority in terms of the development of a major waterfront park. It will be a people place with some small, light industry. It will open up and help clean up some of the Hamilton harbour, which used to be a place of beauty.

It is one of the central things needed when trying to change, redevelop and produce a bit of a renaissance in a heavy-industry town like Hamilton. It would tie in nicely with the decision to stop the paving of what is a beautiful creek valley, the Red Hill Creek valley. That project will cost something like $30 million to $32 million. I am not sure where the funds in that project will come from.

The potential for jobs and for the quality of life and pride which can be brought back to a community like Hamilton is large. I know members outside of Toronto are always concerned about where the dollars seem to be flowing. They seem to flow to all kinds of projects in this city. The only cities I know which have done any major work on their waterfronts are Sarnia and Kingston.

Until now, I have not taken the trouble to look into the funding and financing of those major projects. I can see the kind of renaissance that would be possible in Hamilton with the major development on the waterfront. Because it could be one of the better payoffs for jobs and a quality-of-life future in our city, I hope when the plans are in that this province is going to be ready to give serious consideration to the development of the Harbourfront properties in Hamilton.

I hope the Treasurer will take a look at all the things I have raised that are important to me. There are a couple of others I would have liked to raise. One of them is the government's move on beer and wine in the corner stores. I want to say on the record now that I think they are wrong in making that move, but I would hope that is something they will reconsider. I hope they will take a look at developing an industrial strategy so we know what we are training people for, we know what we want to save in terms of unique Canadian industry and jobs and resources and that this will allow us to produce a much better, much more progressive budget in the future.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

November 4, 1985

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

PROPERTY TAX GRANTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

FREE TRADE

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP.

EXTRA BILLING

ARTISTS' TAX EXEMPTION

FOREST MANAGEMENT

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ST. CLAIR RIVER

ORAL QUESTIONS (CONTINUED)

ST. CLAIR RIVER

REPORT ON PROPERTY TAX

ST. CLAIR RIVER

HEATING SYSTEM

AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MOTION

ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)