Hansard Transcript 1986-May-26 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I ask all members to join me in welcoming the second group of legislative pages to serve in the second session of the 33rd Parliament. Their names and ridings are as follows:

Donna Adam, Renfrew North; Hilary Daboll, Brantford; Carolyn Hannaford, Wentworth North; Talson Henderson, Grey-Bruce; Erica Hiemstra, Durham-York; Paul Hunt, Middlesex; Justin Kelley, Essex South; Heather McCready, Windsor-Riverside; Duff McCutcheon, Algoma-Manitoulin; Bruce Myers, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry; Jeff Nagge, Waterloo North; Jeffrey Paterson, Windsor-Walkerville;

Rebecca Raposo, Mississauga North; Alison Ritchie, Renfrew South; Peter Sharpe, St. Andrew-St. Patrick; Stefan Szeder, Rainy River; Joanne Thomson, Ottawa South; Allison Tummon, Hastings-Peterborough; Rachel Uytenbogaart, Parkdale; Kathleen Wail, Wellington-Dufferin-Peel; Susan Wardell, Huron-Middlesex;Jason Zimmerman, Windsor-Sandwich; and Peter Zuk, Carleton East.

Please join me in welcoming the pages.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROLLING THUNDER THEATRE COMPANY

Mr. Gillies: Tomorrow at the Legislature an extraordinary theatre company will be performing its original play, Given Half a Chance. The Rolling Thunder Theatre Company is a Brantford-based group comprising five people. Two of the performers have cerebral palsy, and a third, who also wrote and directed the play, is blind. Rolling Thunder has performed at schools and service clubs throughout the province to rave reviews.

I know members will find this play a most entertaining and enlightening experience. I am hopeful that all members and their staff will be able to join me in welcoming the Rolling Thunder Theatre Company to the Legislature. The performance will take place tomorrow at noon in room 230. We do look forward to seeing you there.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a statement to make about Ontario health insurance plan premiums. Smoke and mirrors are not only for use by the Tory party on my right, but they also belong to the Liberal government, a party which before the last election promised us the end of premiums; that it would support the reduction of these premiums over the next few years and would ultimately eliminate them. We are now into the second year of that government. By the end of this second year, not one cent less in premiums will be available to anybody in Ontario.

The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) promised that $15 million would go to premium assistance for the very poorest people in society to help them with their OHIP premiums. That money will not be spent until April 1987, after two years of this government. This is surely just a matter of smoke and mirrors. This is not a Liberal reform government unless it has the New Democratic Party to push it. That is the only way it is reformist. Otherwise, it is fiscally and socially conservative and has already fallen back on its basic promises to the people of Ontario.

LIBRARY OPENING

Mr. D. W. Smith: I am pleased to announce to the House that I was able to participate in the opening of the new library in the town of Forest on May 16. The official opening was made by my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro). I thank her for her help in obtaining a grant of approximately $50,000 to help this project along and for her attendance there that day. The library building was built as a replica of the old train stations that used to stand beside the tracks of many localities on the Grand Trunk Railway line. It will be a reminder of our history for many generations to come. I would like personally to congratulate the town of Forest for its successful achievement.

CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD

Ms. Fish: I would like to express my outrage at the manner in which the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) has treated the consumers and producers of this province. Last week shocking information was made available about the levels of dioxin in our food, particularly fresh fruits. On Tuesday the minister stated in this House, "We have been testing apples since we heard there could be a dioxin problem."

Mr. Speaker, I do not know about you, but to me that sounds as though there was at least a representative sample tested of the total 300 million apples produced in this province. The minister had a sample tested all right -- two apples. How can the minister expect the consumers of this province to trust his apples?

The report on which the minister bases this good news says, "The available data base is too small to make any general conclusions regarding average levels of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and chlorinated dibenzofurans found in food." In other words, the testers did not think the testing of two apples was sufficient to reassure the consumers either. If the minister has no information he should say so and his government should get the information and get the tests done. The minister's false assurance and this government testing are a sad joke, but the people of Ontario are not laughing.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: The ongoing expression of the philosophical bias against public auto insurance made by the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) is probably the main reason Dr. Slater did not recommend insurance plans similar to those in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia and did not quantify the financial and other advantages of the public system. From the minister's answer to me last week, it is becoming more and more clear that he does not want to know the advantages himself and he does not want the people of the province to know them because it would further jeopardize the eroding support for continuation of the private system which is so dear to his heart.

Consequently, I am tabling today a resolution for debate in private members' hour calling on the Ontario government to have a public insurance plan similar to the ones in the western provinces in place and ready for operation in the province by January 1, 1988.

There are six major problems now faced by vehicle owners and drivers in this province: arbitrary cancellation of insurance; all drivers in the household penalized for one driver's record; discriminatory rates for age, sex and marital status; the growing number of uninsured drivers in Ontario; nonexistent or inadequate no-fault compensation; and excessive premiums and escalating rates generally. While the Slater report, if implemented, will make only a few marginal improvements at great cost, a public insurance plan for the province will eliminate all the problems.

PRESENTATION

Mr. McGuigan: I notice on the agenda that Ambassador Allan Gotlieb is going to meet the cabinet this afternoon. When the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) was in the riding of Kent-Elgin some weeks ago, he remarked upon the quality of the wine that is being made there by Charal Winery and Vineyards. He asked me if I thought I could find a suitable wine to serve when Allan Gotlieb, the ambassador to Washington, was in Toronto. I am very pleased at this time to present three bottles of beautiful Kent county wine from the winery of Allan and Charlotte Eastman at Blenheim, Ontario.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Durham-York for 35 seconds.

VEGETABLE PACKING PLANT

Mr. Stevenson: I am pleased to report the opening of a new vegetable packing plant near Holland Landing that, along with other producers in the area, will pack produce from Bradford, Keswick and Colbar marshes. This is International Fruit Distributors, which sells under the label Snow Boy. It received funding from the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development. Unfortunately, this Liberal government has not chosen to come through with a similar program to help other producers and packers in this province.

TIME FOR MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am not sure why the last statement was 35 seconds. There were six previous statements, with a maximum of 90 seconds, for a total of nine minutes. This is the first time there has not been at least a minute for the seventh statement. I do not understand how that could happen.

Mr. Speaker: I will have to consider this in the future. We do have timekeepers. I will certainly check with them.

2:12 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

UNIVERSITY EXCELLENCE FUND

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: On October 17, 1985, I had the pleasure of informing the House of this government's decision to establish a university excellence fund, which is providing an extra $50 million in special operating grants to the universities and related institutions in 1986-87.

At that time, I indicated that $10 million was being allocated to the faculty renewal component of the fund in 1986-87 to bring new talent into our institutions. I expressed the view at that time that excellence in both teaching and research is largely dependent upon the human resources within our institutions and that a consistent flow of talented new faculty into the system is vital to the institutional quality and adaptability of our institutions.

More recently, my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) indicated in his budget statement of May 13, 1986, that it was the government's intention to commit sufficient new resources to the multi-year program to support 800 new faculty appointments. Today I have the pleasure to announce that the government has committed multi-year support for the university faculty renewal program and has authorized an expenditure of $84 million in constant 1986 dollars for the duration of the program.

I want to take this opportunity to provide additional details with respect to this initiative, which should improve the percentage of women faculty in our institutions while at the same time increasing the opportunities for Canadian scholars. The 500 new faculty will be appointed over a five-year period. The ministry foresees the appointment of some 300 faculty during the first two years of the program, 1986-87 and 1987-88; 70 in 1988-89; 70 in 1989-90; and 60 in 1990-91.

Each appointment will be supported for a period of five years and, therefore, program funding will continue until 1994-95. The amount that will be allocated in support of each position will be based on a specific salary level to be determined in consultation with the Ontario Council on University Affairs and the Council of Ontario Universities.

In the first year of the program, faculty renewal funds will be allocated to the universities on the basis of a formula. Each university will be required to submit a faculty renewal plan. The plan will describe the institution's current situation and set out how it intends to use the funds to further the program's goals, particularly the improvement of the percentage of women faculty, as well as its own plans to pursue specialization and excellence.

Ontario's universities are a vital resource to our current and future generations, but they have suffered deterioration as a result of a decade of chronic underfunding. While we cannot hope to erase the results of this neglect overnight, I strongly believe this multi-year, multimillion-dollar program clearly reflects this government's determination to give our institutions the support they require on a long-term basis.

Mr. McFadden: We welcome the announcement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) concerning the university excellence fund and a program for faculty renewal. This program is consistent with a program that was announced by the previous government about one year ago.

I would simply make two comments on it. First, the government mentions that the funds will be allocated on the basis of a formula. It would be nice when the minister makes these kinds of announcements if he would provide the members of this House and the universities with at least some idea of what that formula might be.

Second, reference is made in the final paragraph to underfunding. That particular paragraph is increasingly lacking credibility from this government. The fact is that the recent budget and the programs announced by the ministry to date fail entirely to respond to the kinds of issues raised by the Bovey commission.

The ministry itself has failed to provide any detailed response to the recommendations of Bovey and, further to that, on the basis of the actions of the government, there is no indication this government is prepared even to come to grips with the kinds of issues raised by Bovey in relation to the ongoing operating requirements of universities. This announcement goes some distance towards faculty renewal, but it fails to respond to the fundamental needs and requirements of the universities.

Mr. Allen: I rise to respond to the statement of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Any dollars moved in the direction of university faculty renewal at this time, after a decade of increasing lack of younger faculty in the universities, is a welcome move. It is that much more welcome when one notices there is an affirmative action dimension attached to this program.

However, there are some curious aspects to his announcement that I think one has to call attention to. The overall dollars that are announced are said to be $84 million. The amount the Bovey commission said was required to do this task was $155 million over the same period. What is even strikingly more curious is that these dollars are supposed to be spread across the same number of faculty members. If we have half the dollars and the same number of faculty coming into the system, I am not sure whether we are engaging in some kind of slave labour or minimum wage approach to the hiring of these faculty members.

For example, on the back page it refers to these dollars being expended on a salary level to be determined in consultation with the Ontario Council on University Affairs and the Council of Ontario Universities. One wonders what kind of business the government is getting into, intervening in collective agreement arrangements in the salary levels and schedules in the universities.

Finally, what I want to call attention to, which I think is strikingly missing from this document, is that it is all very well to throw these dollars out there to hire new faculty at this time with specific programs and with targeted grants, but this does not say anything about elevating the ongoing operating grants of the universities to keep on paying for that faculty on a year-in, year-out basis. Unless the minister is going to make some announcement about those moneys on a year-in, year-out operating grant basis, it is going to be very difficult for the universities to take up this program and to build in new appointments that are going to cost them big money down the road with no assurances for the funding in the future.

This is a curious announcement. I hope the minister will stand up as soon as he can to clarify the extremely murky nature of this document.

TILE DRAINAGE

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am pleased to be able to inform the members of the Legislature today that Ontario farmers will have access to more money for tile drainage loans this year. My cabinet colleagues have agreed to continue the Ontario tile drainage loan program at eight per cent interest and to increase the maximum loan available from 60 per cent to 75 per cent of the cost of the work or $20,000 per farmer, whichever is the lesser.

Drainage systems allow farmers to drain fields of excess moisture. Research indicates that tile drainage can boost productivity by 15 per cent to 80 per cent. We felt it was necessary to enhance the tile drainage program to permit farmers facing increased economic pressure to take advantage of the benefits they could derive from improved drainage.

We also wanted to streamline the program to get the money quickly to areas where it is needed. As the members know, municipalities issue debentures to cover the costs of approved projects. The province, in turn, purchases the debentures, and the municipalities lend the proceeds to farmers with approved drainage projects.

To speed program delivery, the province will purchase debentures on a first-come, first-served basis, eliminating the time-consuming process of allocating and monitoring budget amounts to each participating municipality.

Mr. Stevenson: I will comment very briefly on the minister's announcement on tile drainage. We are pleased to see an increase of up to 75 per cent, as had been promised in the Liberals' election campaign of a year ago. I believe this brings to three out of 22 the items they have completed in their agricultural platform. Undoubtedly, if we wait for an extended period of time, we may get to number four.

It is a help, but when we see what other governments are doing, it is still not much help for the cash-starved Ontario farmers.

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I have received the final report of the Ontario Grape and Wine Industry Task Force, which I would like to table for the information of the members at this time. The report is based on nearly two years of consultation with growers, grower organizations, the processing industry, wineries and government ministries.

The task force was established to analyse the problems and to examine opportunities for Ontario's grape and wine industry in the long term. It was asked to develop ways in which producers, processors and government could work together to enhance the performance and prospects of the industry.

The 139-page report makes 29 recommendations that involve four government ministries. For that reason, I have asked senior staff from the interested ministries to begin meeting today to consider the recommendations. Any action that may be required will be taken first through a committee of deputy ministers and then to the provincial cabinet.

I would like to thank task force chairman Jack Tanner and other members of the task force for their efforts in preparing this report.

Mr. Partington: In response to the statement of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I am pleased to see the report on the Ontario wine and grape industry. The industry continues to have serious needs, and I hope the government will quickly respond to those needs and to the recommendations in the report.

I thank Dr. Jack Tanner and his committee for their many hours of work in preparing the report.

FOREST FIRES

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would like to bring the House up to date on the forest fire situation in Ontario and on some fire prevention measures that have been implemented.

As members may already know, the weather in the north has been unusually warm and dry, even warmer and dryer than in southern Ontario. Combined with an early snow melt, this weather has produced high to extreme forest fire hazard conditions across the north from Quebec to the Manitoba border.

Twenty-three forest fires are currently burning in the province. Eleven of them are not under control. A number of these fires may have been caused by railway work projects. While most of the fires are quite small and there is no threat to any communities, there are two fires of some size. A fire northwest of Red Lake is now approaching 10,000 hectares in size. North of Cochrane another forest fire has already consumed 1,150 hectares. Forest fire crews from less threatened areas, such as the Algonquin region, have been moved into northern Ontario to provide extra support.

Last Friday I declared most of northwestern and north-central Ontario a restricted fire zone until tomorrow. Today, as an added prevention measure, I am extending that restricted fire zone to cover the northern and northeastern parts of the province and I am extending the time to at least Friday, May 30. While this restriction does not limit public travel, it suspends burning permits and prohibits open campfires.

A lot of firefighters have been thrown into action recently and water bombing crews are flying the maximum number of hours. We are dealing with some very hot, fast-spreading fires. Some unit crews working hose lines have had all their equipment and personal belongings destroyed because at some points the flames have been jumping ahead at the rate of 30 metres a minute. There has been plenty of activity. Despite that, I am happy to say there have been no serious injuries.

I would like to add that reports from Terrace Bay, where we had a small but serious blaze last week, indicate that residents are crediting heavy water-bombing crews with hitting the fire early and keeping it away from the subdivision. Some have even gone so far as to say that if it were not for this quick action, the subdivision that was threatened could easily have been lost. These comments, of course, extend to all those who worked on that fire and the evacuation, local firefighters from Terrace Bay and Schreiber and local police and others.

We can be proud of them all for doing a great job and on very short notice.

Mr. Harris: I want to respond to a couple of points in the statement by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio). He made quite a highlight of a fire being started by rail crews. I did not hear anything in the statement about the rumour that is rampant in northern Ontario that the fire northwest of Red Lake, one of the significant ones approaching 10,000 hectares in size, was started by Ministry of Natural Resources staff clearing a road. I do not know whether there is anything to that, but the minister might have commented on it since this is what we hear in the north.

We had a similar type of statement from the Minister of Natural Resources on Thursday, talking about the fire update. At that point, the minister mentioned an aircraft that was beached. He took great pains to tell us there were no injuries and everything that was happening with it.

What was not in the statement surprised me. There was nothing in the statement about the helicopter that was leased to the ministry that went down in Sharbot Lake, along with 54 gallons of chemicals and 20 gallons of fuel that went into the lake. When one tries to get any information from the ministry, the only information it gives out is, "It was a naturally occurring virus that was dumped into little Sharbot Lake," which, incidentally, has a fish hatchery on it. When we try to ask questions of the ministry about the effect this would have on the fish hatchery, we do not get any information.

Since the minister appears to be making daily statements on the status of the forest fire situation, which we agree with and appreciate getting, perhaps he would look at his priorities. Maybe the House would be interested in what happened with this naturally occurring virus, 54 gallons down in Sharbot Lake, in a helicopter that was leased to the ministry last week.

TOURIST SIGNS

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I would like to inform the honourable members of the government's latest effort to assist Ontario's tourism industry. We want to make Ontario's tourist attractions more visible; so we are introducing a new policy for tourist signs on Ontario's highways. Our new policy reflects this government's strong commitment to the tourism industry. It is a policy designed to improve the current system by relaxing tourism signing criteria.

In essence, we are coupling tourism with our first-rate Ontario highway system. We are convinced, as is the industry, that we can significantly increase the potential for our province. We want to attract more tourists, be they Canadian, American or visitors from other countries.

Working in close consultation with the tourism industry and my colleague the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins), we are announcing that more attractions and facilities now can be signed off provincial highways, in addition to freeways and staged freeways. We underscore this change by reducing the attendance requirements for attractions eligible for signing. Requirements for private and public attractions have also been brought into line. In addition, all qualified attractions can be signed from a distance of 10 kilometres, and up to 30 kilometres in some cases, based on attendance.

The costs of new signing will be recovered through an equitable fee structure.

In tandem with this policy, we are continuing to investigate the use of highway signs in other ways, such as the promotion of tourism in those municipalities where there is a potential to highlight locally known attractions and the creation of more picnic and rest areas, coupled with the upgrading of existing areas in the north and on freeways.

By ensuring that all those using our highways are aware of Ontario's holiday areas, we will contribute to making their experience truly "Ontario -- I ncredible."

Mr. Speaker: There seem to be an unusual number of private conversations taking place and it is difficult to hear. Perhaps I might have the attention of all the members.

2:31 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the Minister of Health. Can the minister tell us what plans are in place to deal with the pending health care crisis of Thursday and Friday of this week?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman speaks of a health care crisis. I want to assure him there is no crisis and that, in fact, there has been a guarantee of emergency services. I can tell the member, if he would like to know what our preparations have been, that they have included contacts with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and with the Ontario Hospital Association in setting up a scheme by which the Ministry of Health can monitor very thoroughly the activity on those two days.

Mr. Andrewes: The minister's negotiations to date have failed. We face in this province a pending crisis in health care. I wonder whether the minister, in conjunction with his cabinet colleagues, has considered the merit of appointing a mediator who might effectively deal with this situation, which is something he and his colleagues have failed to do.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentlemen says we have failed. It is true there is no negotiated settlement. We have indicated quite thoroughly that we have made attempts to come to a negotiated settlement, which we have not been able to do.

We will not and cannot consider a manner in which patients' rights will be bartered away in exchange for the release of some patients. We have committed ourselves to ending extra pay in this jurisdiction. We think when there are benefits that are insured, that should be all that is required, and no patient should be required to pay more. That being the case, it seems to me we are always willing to explore ways in which we can make genuine gains in terms of negotiating, or otherwise, an end to paying extra for insured medical services.

I can tell the honourable gentlemen there appears to be no advantage at this time in appointing a mediator, as he would say. I have not received a request in that manner from the OMA.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Andrewes: My point was that the minister has failed in his negotiation. Why does he not let someone else try to succeed where he has failed?

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Elston: In answer to his question --

Mr. Andrewes: I have not put the question yet.

Hon. Mr. Elston: He did.

Mr. Speaker: Now is the time.

Mr. Andrewes: We have warned repeatedly that the failure of this government to negotiate in good faith would lead to a health care crisis in the province. We warned them of that, and they are heading headlong into that situation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Are you going to place your supplementary?

Mr. Andrewes: Is the minister saying that he will not take further initiatives, that he will allow this crisis to build and that he will jeopardize the health care system for people in this province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: That is not what I said. This minister has always maintained at the highest level his responsibility to ensure that the people of the province are receiving good-quality medical care. The member knows full well there is a guarantee of emergency services during the slowdown on Thursday and Friday. He also knows, as I do, that there is a tremendous bond between physicians and patients with respect to the degree of care required. I do not think he is suggesting that is being jeopardized.

The other thing with which the member preambled his third or fourth question, that we had bargained in bad faith, is absolutely not right; it is not correct. In fact, we made a very genuine proposal that provided the key for us to deal with the critical issues, and we have received indications that the other side was favourably inclined towards that.

GOVERNMENT BUDGETS

Mr. McCague: I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board. Can she help us by explaining why the combined budget of the Cabinet Office and Office of the Premier is up by 45 per cent?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I would like very much to refer this question to the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is my responsibility, and I am happy to relate it to the honourable member. There has been a decrease in the budget of the Office of the Premier of $700,000, as I am sure he is aware. The budget of the Cabinet Office has increased by $2.8 million because the Social Development, Resources Development and Justice secretariats, which the previous government had and we got rid of, have been transferred to that office. They originally had a budget of $3.5 million, and we are now doing it for $1.2 million; so the member will see there are economies brought to bear there.

If the member would like me to go on with some of our initiatives, I would be happy to explain further. He is probably too embarrassed to ask any more questions about this.

Mr. McCague: I had hoped to have a chat with the Chairman of Management Board today, but I see that is not possible.

Now that the Premier has disbanded the policy fields, is it true the policy-making procedures are all in his office and not left with who we think are the appropriate authorities, the civil servants in each ministry?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is clearly wrong. We have strong policy units in all the ministries. The member just has to look at the incredible performance of the ministers of the crown to know who makes the decisions.

Miss Stephenson: Unbelievable is the appropriate word.

Mr. McCague: In the Cabinet Office --

Miss Stephenson: Fantastic. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult to hear even though the member is sitting very close.

Mr. McCague: As I understand it, the item in the Cabinet Office budget called "services" includes consultants and contract work. Why has the budget for services gone up by 700 per cent in the Cabinet Office?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I invite the member to put any questions he has into the Orders and Notices paper. It is all there to be shared with him on any occasion. When he looks at the numbers, he will see there have actually been real savings since the previous administration, when we had a proliferation of ministries and a variety of other things.

There have been some initiatives with respect to office automation. The bottom line is that the phones did not work, but they are working now. There is a special adviser attached to the office who is looking at the disposition of crown corporations. It is not easy when we have a situation such as Suncor, on which we have already wasted more than $1 billion to try to cover our losses. Some of these things are tough deals. We are dealing with the Urban Transportation Development Corp. and a variety of other things.

I invite the member to examine the budget in detail, because everything we do is open to scrutiny. He will see that we are spending money extremely wisely and well and that we are saving money over the money they wasted over the years.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Over the weekend, Dr. Earl Myers of the Ontario Medical Association announced the bizarre strategy of advising doctors to keep patients in hospitals longer than previously was the case. Is it the minister's view that this suggestion by Dr. Myers is right and professional? If that is not his view, what does he intend to do about it under the Health Disciplines Act or any regulations subject to the control of his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to the main question and the supplementary question, I must respond to the question in this fashion: I find the advice being given by Dr. Moran and Dr. Myers to be inappropriate for two reasons. First, it intrudes upon the relationship between physician and patient, which is something the physicians of this province say they do not want to see done. Second, it fails to recognize the very difficult requirements that are placed on the people who operate our public hospitals and causes a considerable complication in an efficient and well-run operation.

From that standpoint, I will tell the members what has transpired to this point with respect to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. It has indicated it is willing to look at any events that are reported to it through the auspices of the Ontario Hospital Association or its affiliates in the hospitals. The hospitals themselves have protocols and bylaws, and they have admission and discharge committees or bed utilization committees that review in detail what is going on inside those facilities.

The Ministry of Health will be monitoring quite thoroughly the events taking place and any reported information that comes to our attention with respect to the so-called clogging of the system.

Mr. Rae: If the OMA is arguing that the hospitals should be deliberately clogged, and the minister's only response is to say it is inappropriate, I hope he understands that is not the language of the Health Disciplines Act or of the regulations. If he is suggesting the college should have jurisdiction, perhaps he can tell us precisely which section of the regulations is going to be involved, because if the OMA is going to play this kind of game, he had better have enough authority within the college to deal with the situation.

Can the minister tell us specifically which section of the regulations or which section of the act is going to give the college the ability to deal with this flagrant abuse of power within the health care system?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I regret the honourable gentleman did not listen to my answer, which indicated quite specifically that the mandate in the primary sense will fall on the publicly operated hospitals through the boards of trustees and otherwise. They have protocols and bylaws in place in those institutions. As well, they have in place committees that review bed utilization and otherwise deal with situations where there is inappropriate dealing. I think the gentleman will acknowledge that the first area of concern is at the hospital level. I repeat that I think the advice given by Dr. Moran and Dr. Myers was inappropriate. We have in the publicly operated hospitals and independent hospitals --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: There is a double standard going on here. If a spokesman for the nurses' aides said they were deliberately going to create a clogging of our hospitals and a misuse of hospital beds, the Minister of Health would be on his feet that day saying what the government was going to do to deal specifically with that kind of abuse. When it comes to the doctors --

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Rae: Which section of the Health Disciplines Act is the minister prepared to look at to deal with an intolerable abuse of power by a group of people within the health care system?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is being a little loose with what he sees as what this minister might or might not do. First, the registered nursing assistants in this province would not do that. He knows that and he is being hypothetically unruly, if I might say that.

The gentleman should understand full well that, for a very good reason, the administration of the hospitals in this province has been kept at a level independent of the ministry. They run a very good and viable operation. Any problems about administration or dealing with questions of patient concern inside those institutions are dealt with by the mechanisms that the institutions have at hand. Included are the bed utilization committees, in this case the medical advisory committees. The college is quite willing to receive information and to deal with that information as it is received.

Mr. Rae: All those committees are headed by doctors.

SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENTS

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Premier a question with respect to South Africa and Ontario's involvement. It is true that after a successful labour campaign many Ontario institutions, such as jails and psychiatric hospitals, have stopped the purchase of South African fruit and juice. Is the Premier aware that the Ontario Hospital Association has not encouraged similar action by Ontario hospitals? In particular, is he aware that there is still widespread purchasing of South African products by Ontario hospitals, which are publicly funded institutions? What steps does he intend to take to ensure that this kind of practice is stopped immediately?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As the honourable member knows, the hospitals are independent even though they are funded by government. I believe we have taken action in all the agencies that we control directly. I hope there are no deviations from that policy which has gone forward. I do not know how widely that is done through the OHA or, one could argue, the universities, with their cafeterias, and others as well and how far the policy goes.

In a sense the point the member raises is a follow-up to the one he raised last week. I understand what he is saying. With respect to the member's question of last week, I have asked the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) to investigate where our jurisdiction lies and how widespread the practice is. We are trying to get some kind of handle on it. I was not specifically aware of the question the member just raised; perhaps we can make suggestions to the OHA in that regard.

Mr. Rae: These are publicly funded institutions. If the government wanted to indicate what could be done with its money, I would have thought it could have indicated that pretty darned clearly.

With respect to South African wine, I am sure the Premier is aware that last year, just before the boycott was announced by the government, a very substantial order was placed by the Ontario government, which order has been honoured. It is possible to buy South African wine right throughout the system, with large signs showing the sections and so on.

I wonder whether the Premier would consider doing one of the following: either take the stuff off the shelves or hold an auction and donate all the money that would be raised by the sale, and that has been spent since the boycott was announced, by making a contribution to the international defence and aid fund for South Africa, to which the federal government has contributed, so we can make a clear statement on behalf of the people of this province that the money will not go to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario but will go to people in South Africa who need it.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As the member knows, when we announced our policy some months ago, we stated that no more orders would be placed. I believe that was the case. I think the member's facts are correct in that there were some outstanding orders. We also said at the time we would sell off gradually the stocks that are there and not replace them.

The member could argue perhaps that we should not sell them off, that we should just let that inventory sit for ever. Now there is the member's new suggestion of having a big sale, publicizing all this and giving the money to another body to distribute in other terms. This government has made donations and grants to other countries, and we have the right to do that. Frankly, I am not sure that having a sale of South African wine, advertising it in the way the member suggests and then contributing that money back to the committee would be the most appropriate way of registering our views on the situation.

Mr. Rae: How does it compare with the proposal the Premier has in place right now, which means people have spent nearly $500,000 on South African products that have gone to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario since the Premier announced his so-called boycott, which in effect has not been a consumer boycott at all?

What steps is the Premier taking to make sure he does not simply continue to make money out of the sale of South African goods in stores that are owned and operated by a corporation that is responsible to the government of this province? If this suggestion is not the right one, why does he not put up one of his own that will ensure he does not profiteer from products from apartheid?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I ask the honourable member, who usually thinks things through, to think through exactly what he is suggesting. He may come to a different conclusion. What he has said is that the LCBO should eat that inventory, just let it sit there for ever and have nothing happen to it. In other words, the taxpayers of Ontario will be punished.

We are not buying any more. That is very clear, and we announced it at the time. We are sitting with I do not know how much inventory. It is being sold off, and those moneys go into the LCBO profits, which go for hospital beds, education, roads, social services and other things in the province.

As the member knows, the LCBO contributes almost $1 billion to the funding of programs in this province, and that is where the money is used. The money is sitting there. The member may advocate that we throw away $500,000 or whatever it is

Mr. Rae: That is not throwing it away. Tell that to Desmond Tutu when he comes here.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If we own it already -- just a minute.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Davis: I have a question of the Minister of Education.

Mr. Martel: He is in trouble.

Mr. Davis: Not yet.

During the examination of Bill 30 in committee last week, it was my understanding that in answer to my question, the minister stated that no community with a single public board secondary school would see that school closed or transferred to the Roman Catholic school board as a result of Bill 30. Is it still the government's intention to ensure that no community will lose its single public board secondary school because of the extension of full funding to the separate school system?

Hon. Mr. Conway: As I have said repeatedly throughout the lengthy process of discussing Bill 30, the government views very seriously and very positively the role of the high school in the single-high-school community. I have made it clear to the committee and to the honourable member that it is the policy and the intention of this government that no community in Ontario that today has a public high school will be without that public high school as a result of the extension.

Mr. Davis: Future governments can change policy. The minister is quite aware that Ministers of Education come and go in this province.

Mr. Laughren: The member has noticed that, has he?

Mr. Davis: I have noticed that; so do parties, and the minister had better notice that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Was that your supplementary?

Mr. Davis: No, that was not my supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Place it.

Mr. Davis: To protect these single-school communities for the people for the future and to remove their anxiety, will it be the minister's intention to put in legislation the phrase "No single-school community will be closed because of separate school funding"? If not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Conway: On the subject of reversal of policy, the honourable member knows whereof he speaks, because some months ago the honourable member, speaking for his colleagues, said there should be an automatic exemption from religious education for non-Catholic students in the extended separate school system. Weeks later, the honourable gentleman reversed his feeling entirely. Therefore, I know from recent experience the concern some would have, because the honourable members of the official opposition cannot be relied upon.

Government policy with respect to single-school communities is clearly and precisely as I have stated it repeatedly here in the House, this afternoon and throughout many weeks and months of testimony.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: My question is to the Minister of Health. He indicated in answer to an earlier question that he is not concerned and that there is no crisis in the health care system this Thursday and Friday because the doctors have guaranteed emergency services. What are the minister's plans for Cornwall, where the doctors have indicated there will be no emergency services; no services, period?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is not quite right on the facts of that situation. There is an indication, as I read the same press report, that if there is a picket line at the local hospital, doctors might refuse to cross it. The member would want to assure the people here that this article was as I have said and not that there would be an absolute withdrawal of those emergency services.

In that centre, there is at least a second area for the provision of emergency services at the Hotel Dieu Hospital. I know there are other places available for services, but I am watching that situation closely and will have my ministry's staff look at the provision of service in that area very closely indeed.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Is the minister telling us, as he did in answer to an earlier question, that the responsibility for protecting the public lies with hospital committees, which are controlled by doctors? In addition, is he saying that he has not even bothered checking out the Cornwall situation and that all he is going by is press reports? What are his contingency plans to protect the consumers of this province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is asking some questions about which we spoke earlier today. He knows that we have contingency plans, that we have made contacts with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and that we have in place a thorough monitoring group inside the Ministry of Health. He knows that we have a reporting mechanism through the Ontario Hospital Association and that I am concerned that we keep on top of all those circumstances. He knows all this, and yet he stands and suggests he has no information.

I can tell the honourable gentleman, all other members of this House and the people of the province that we are watching closely what is taking place. What I wanted to do first was to stand and correct the member on something about which he was not being exactly precise, the situation in Cornwall.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Treasurer. In his budget of two weeks ago, he said we would be doubling the amount spent on skills training programs to $100 million. I am sending him a copy of the estimates which the government has produced for the Ministry of Skills Development. Will the Treasurer please be so kind as to look at the very few figures involved and tell me which one represents a doubling of the amount spent for skills training programs for all Ontario citizens?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I look forward to examining the estimates carefully, as I have done in the past. The allocation for the Ministry of Skills Development has been increased substantially. The funding for Futures, that extremely successful program initiated by the honourable minister less than a year ago, is ongoing. The funding for skills training in general, a series of programs with attractive acronyms like TIBI, training in business and industry, and -- I cannot quite keep up with those -- are all excellent programs, many of them established by our predecessors; we are not admitting that, we are asserting it. The funding for those programs will be doubled. All the funding is not new; the honourable member will be aware of that, having perused the figures as carefully as he has.

3 p.m.

Mr. Jackson: I would also like to send over to the Treasurer his 1985-86 estimates, which he can also examine and compare with the document I have just handed him. If he compares them, which I know he will, he will notice that none of the expenditures on skills training has doubled, as he promised in his budget. In fact, the total spending on skills training programs is actually being reduced by $18 million; it is not being increased, as he just stated.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Jackson: Why has the Treasurer decided to reduce spending on skills training programs by $18 million instead of doubling the skills training programs as he indicated in his budget?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to point out to the honourable member that the ministry total is about $434 million and, out of that, skills training in general specifically requires $217,538. We believe we can undertake substantial improvement in our programs at present with that level of funding. Having heard the responses from the minister, the member, I am sure, appreciates that with the minister's drive and initiative and the general acceptance of his new programs, we will accomplish great things during this fiscal year.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Swart: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on gasoline prices. I remind him that even though he and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) have bemoaned the high prices several times during the past few months, they have not intervened to do a single thing about them and have admitted only in the past few weeks that they have the authority to do so.

Given that the price of gasoline has increased up to eight cents or more in the past few days and given that, according to the press, the minister has stated that the oil companies will be required to justify that, can we conclude that the minister will now bring in legislation either to require that justification or to have the prices rolled back?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member had a very long question, but it really amounted to one thing: Are we going to bring in legislation to roll back the prices? The answer is no.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister recall that by a letter, dated April 24, he denied my three requests for intervention to lower prices? He said in that letter that gas went down to 38 cents per litre. He then went on to say in another place, "I am not yet satisfied that the consumer is paying a fair price for gasoline." Now more than one month later, with prices more than three cents higher --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The answer was no and the supplementary has to flow out of the answer. I am waiting for the supplementary. I hope it is coming.

Mr. Swart: It is coming right now. Does the minister not realize that the oil companies manipulate these prices upward as they like? He has demonstrated that they have nothing to fear from him because he has not the will or the courage to intervene. Can he not recognize --

Mr. Speaker: Minister, do you not realize?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I do realize, and just for the edification of the member, in Nova Scotia where they do have legislation, they have almost the highest-priced gas in Canada.

Mr. Runciman: My question really flows from that of the previous questioner. The minister has not really enlightened the House at all. In the light of these recent, significant price increases, can he indicate what action he is prepared to take to ensure that consumers in this province are not being gouged by the oil companies?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Members will realize the price of fuel has gone up in the past few days. It is not eight cents. Those eight cents are based on a 33-cent-a-litre price, which is very rare. It is very difficult to find it. There is no question that the price of fuel has gone up and I am very concerned about it. Today I will be contacting Pat Carney, the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and Michel Côté, the federal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to see whether they are making any efforts to do something about it in either of their jurisdictions.

Mr. Runciman: This minister was recently conned in a very public manner by the big oil companies with their 37-cent scam. I am pleased he is not having another private tête-à-tête with his oil baron friends. Will the minister today commit himself to a public inquiry to deal with what appears to be nothing less than an obscene ripoff of the province's consumers?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am not satisfied that it is a public ripoff. I want to find out. Once we find out the facts, we will make a move.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Ottawa Centre would like to ask a question.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Ms. Gigantes: I want to ask a question of the minister responsible for women's issues. Can the minister confirm that his business advisory group on equal pay for work of equal value has been given money and researchers for a summer of yet more studies on equal pay? If so, what does this mean about the government's timetable for tabling legislation to cover working women in this province?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Some students have been provided to assist the business advisory committee in some studies it wishes to do. That will have no impact on the timing of the bill.

Ms. Gigantes: I am glad to hear it. Will the minister tell us when we will get the bill?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I think in the next session after the summer.

LIFE INSURANCE

Ms. Fish: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. Doubtless he will be aware of recent practices of life insurance companies in this province to refuse life insurance coverage to victims of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and to those who have test results suggesting they have been exposed to the disease. What specific steps is the minister taking to protect the consumers of this province and ensure that they can secure life insurance?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the member for that question. I hope members will understand that when a life insurance company grants insurance, it has every right to determine the past medical history of a person. For example, if an applicant has had heart problems, he gets rated.

At present, we have a situation where AIDS, to all intents and purposes, is a fatal disease. Notwithstanding that there are some problems about privacy when they inquire, life insurance companies have a right to find out if someone has AIDS. If a company is going to insure an applicant and finds this person has a fatal disease, it has a right to know that and to rate the person accordingly.

We have been in touch with the insurance industry and we are trying to work out the situation in such a way that an inquiry is not used indiscriminately or abused; however, life insurance companies certainly have a right to find out that information.

Ms. Fish: I think what is an abuse is the practice of the life insurance companies to require tests to see whether a person has been exposed -- not has the disease, but has been exposed to it. By way of information on that, I note that only three to five per cent of those exposed to the disease ever come down with it and that those exposed go across the broad spectrum of this community.

Particularly in face of the public quotes from London Life that it will turn down coverage for those testing positive as simply being exposed to this disease, what steps will the minister take to ensure consumer protection?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We have made sure that there is no indiscriminate testing for AIDS, that it is only done where there is some suspicion that an applicant has had that problem. It is ongoing. I have made known my concerns, which are exactly the concerns expressed by the member, to the insurance companies. We are working on it. I appreciate the question, but it must be understood that this is a very serious problem.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Treasurer arising out of an article that appeared in the Globe and Mail earlier this month on the issue of pension surpluses. The article read as follows: "The Ontario pension commission has no authority to rule on the question of who owns pension plan surpluses and suggests employees and employers settle their disputes elsewhere," according to Ontario's pension superintendent. By that, she meant in court.

If the best his minister can do by way of pension policy on this issue is to suggest that disputes be settled in court, may I suggest he take the issue back from his Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) and impose a rational policy on him?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am sure the member is aware that the minister has circulated draft legislation and is receiving comments from business, industry, labour unions and perhaps even political groups in this regard. In defence of the comment made by the chairman of the Pension Commission of Ontario, the regulations require the commission to maintain 125 per cent --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Do not give up on it. Those are the regulations that apply.

They must maintain 125 per cent of the money required to completely fulfil the agreed-upon commitments for the pension. If there is more money in there than that, it is not for her to decide, other than as the regulations are at present. As the honourable member knows, there is draft legislation out, which is stimulating a review of the matter.

Mr. McClellan: I am encouraged that the review is taking place because the new draft legislation does not clarify this issue at all.

Mr. Rae: It does not touch it and the minister knows it.

Mr. McClellan: It does not.

My supplementary has to do with the same article, which reads: "Surpluses have arisen for the most part because of inflationary gains and the reduction in pension fund liabilities as a result of large-scale layoffs." Has anybody in the pensions commission brought to the Treasurer's attention that Inco, for example, was able to take $100 million out of the pension fund as surpluses largely because of the number of people it managed to lay off over the years? Surely the government cannot be serious in allowing this kind of theft to continue.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member knows that under the present statutes and regulations the pension commission has to maintain 125 per cent of the money that is, by agreement, required to make the necessary payments. I do not want to comment specifically on Inco's position, but I understand that is totally paid by management and that is the agreement that is worked out. Whatever one may think about the disposition, the law permits those withdrawals and that is the way it is currently. The minister is undertaking a review of it, has draft legislation and the community at large is commenting.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture and Food has a response to a question asked previously by the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay).

TOBACCO IMPORTS

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I would like to respond to a question from the member for Timiskaming. In my absence, he asked about the importation of tobacco from South Africa and other countries by Rothmans of Pall Mall.

Bob Allan, vice-president of finance and public relations for Rothmans, stated to ministry staff that his company does not import South African tobacco. For 1984, Statistics Canada reported three million pounds of imports with only 12,000 pounds originating from South Africa. Under the Statistics Act, the federal government will not release any information regarding individuals who import, the destination of imports or the volume. It is classified as confidential information and is not subject to release.

I draw the member's attention to the recent agreement for the marketing of Ontario tobacco. All four domestic manufacturers signed the agreement that the companies will not import tobacco beyond the small amount currently required for blending purposes, except in the case of a tobacco crop loss.

Mr. Ramsay: I would like to bring to the minister's attention a supplementary I made to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) last week. Do we have any regulations in this province whereby we import tobacco that is grown under conditions that are not allowed in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We have no jurisdiction over importation of any commodity from other countries, but the federal government does keep a watchful eye on the various chemicals that are used in other countries. They assure us that if chemicals are used which are banned or not registered in this province, they take steps to prevent that commodity from moving into Ontario or into any part of Canada.

RELEASE OF PROSTITUTE

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Solicitor General. Several weeks ago police in Ottawa arrested a woman for prostitution, who admitted she was carrying the acquired immune deficiency syndrome antibodies. It was also known she was a drug addict and depended upon prostitution to support this habit. Police have now lost track of this woman. Can the minister tell me why the Ottawa police released her from custody on May 12?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I cannot give the member an answer to that. I will take it under advisement. I will be in contact with the chief of the Ottawa police department to try to determine an answer, and shall do so immediately.

Mr. Sterling: I am amazed that the minister is not aware of the facts surrounding this particular case because of the very contagious effects this particular virus can have. Will the minister also tell us what steps he is going to take to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future with other police forces?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I might remind the member that our connection with municipal forces is in an advisory capacity to the Ontario Police Commission. We do not have direct control over the operation of each municipal force. The appropriate guidelines for the force and the determination in trying to retain such people rest with the board of commissioners of police of the area as well as the chief and his men.

ONTARIO HUMANE SOCIETY

Ms. Bryden: I also have a question of the Solicitor General. I have received reports that the Ontario Provincial Police are sometimes unable to deal adequately with complaints of cruelty to farm animals because of the lack of resources and facilities for housing and feeding abused animals.

Will the minister tell the House why he has been steadfastly refusing to meet with officials of the Ontario Humane Society in the past year in view of the fact that the Price Waterhouse study, commissioned by his ministry in 1982, chose the society as the agency most suitable to handle the province's responsibility for enforcing the Criminal Code?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I thank the member very much for the question. We have not refused to meet with the society. We have met with it on a good number of occasions in the past year. I have met with it, and in response to an earlier question, I made sure I wrote personally to the humane society asking it to come back with us to negotiate and to seek a redress of what it considers its funding problem.

It would be of interest to this House and to the member to know that on Friday, after all these months of negotiations, we had a request for a grant of money to the society. We have asked the society to come in to discuss it, and the request is being evaluated by the staff at the moment.

Ms. Bryden: There seems to be some disagreement with the information I have. I understand that only the deputy has met with the society -- and it has submitted numerous requests, including a formal application for a grant, although this is a technicality -- and that the minister is hiding behind technical excuses rather than sitting down with the society and working out exactly what it needs to carry out this responsibility --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Ms. Bryden: -- and what kind of accountability and training requirements he would consider necessary. It is willing to meet those.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: It is great information that the society is willing to meet because we have made that request on a number of occasions. The specific request has been to give us an indication from its own society as to what it will do to meet the requirements of the Price Waterhouse study, should further funding be available. Its answer appears to be, "Give us the money and we will show you what we can do." In the way of a responsible type of government, we have asked for an indication of what steps it will take first and then the money will be provided.

RIVER BANK EROSION

Mr. Gillies: My question is of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. On Thursday last I approached him and his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) to see what assistance the provincial government might be able to provide for those property owners in my riding of Brantford whose properties are threatened by mud slides.

Has the minister consulted with his staff? Is he able to tell the House now what assistance will be available to these families?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I can assure the member that my field office people are monitoring the serious event and that I am aware of the conditions. I have not had a full report yet, but as soon as a detailed report is on my desk, I will respond accordingly.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Gillies: I thank the minister for that. Can he tell me specifically if under the program that exists within the Ministry of Natural Resources, which allows for the acquisition of threatened properties on river banks that are eroding in this way, funding will be made available to the home owners who will not be able to return to their homes in the east end of Brantford?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I can assure the member that I will be in touch with the minister to my right, and if land needs to be purchased or expropriated, we will do so. However, I will leave this up the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio).

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Last July the minister told us he hoped to have some increases in the minimum wage ready for the fall. That has not happened. It is a year and a half since the last increase in the minimum wage. Can the minister tell us what has happened that we have not seen an increase and what his plans are?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The matter of a minimum wage increase is under active review. We have had discussions with people in the trade union movement and with businesses about what might be appropriate levels for an increase in the minimum wage and also about what would be the most appropriate time, the most useful time, to increase the minimum wage so that there is not a disruption of some operations that require notification of minimum wage increases. I expect to have something to say on this matter in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister will also recall that he made sure to point out in his statement last July that one of the problems with our low minimum wage was that the Tories had not acted for almost three years before the last increase. Can the minister tell me what is different between him and the Tories with the kind of delay we have had in the minimum wage increase? What is he doing about indexing or allowing for some form of automatic increases in the minimum wage?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We have taken a look in a general sense at the issue of indexation. I am not sure it is necessarily appropriate. While one can make arguments for indexation, one should also keep in mind the relative competitive positions not only of this province but also of other neighbouring provinces and of other jurisdictions in the United States.

I have had an opportunity to discuss these matters with my colleague the Minister of Labour in Quebec. As I said, we will be bringing forward appropriate recommendations in due course.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Saskatchewan has doubled its agricultural budget this year and now has per capita funding well over double that given to the Ontario farmers. How are Ontario producers going to compete with their friends in Saskatchewan?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Ontario producers have always been able to compete very successfully with the producers in the other provinces, but I have to remind the member that since we formed the government, we have increased the agricultural budget by 39 per cent. I suppose in a way that is a sad commentary on the previous administration, which even failed to recognize that the agricultural industry was an important industry in this province.

Mr. Stevenson: The minister's accomplishments are pale when compared to those of his competition. He promised innovative ideas and he promised the doubling of the budget. Where are the ideas and where is the money?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: When a promise was made to double the budget, I believe the time period was the doubling of the budget over the next three years. We have increased it by 39 per cent within 11 months.

We have introduced a number of programs that farmers tell us have meant in many cases the difference between their survival and their exit from the farm. I am speaking of the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program; an enriched beginning farmer assistance program, on which I will be announcing details later; an enriched farm operating credit assistance program, which I will be announcing later; and the introduction of a crop expansion program.

We have done numerous things since we formed the government, all of which are going to be very helpful to our farmers.

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Shortly after his appointment, the minister was quoted as saying it was not a high priority to bring in a new Condominium Act. Can the minister tell us when the condominium owners across the province can expect the new act?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member will know that I addressed the Canadian Condominium Institute last Friday night and responded to that. The rewrite of the act is going to be a major one. Although I did not say it was not a high priority, I did say it would be difficult for me to get it into the House with some urgency because of the other high priority items. It is something we are working on in my ministry, and as soon as we can get the drafting done and introduced, we will. I cannot give a time because of the crowded legislative agenda.

Mr. Philip: The minister has been in his portfolio now for 11 months. The previous minister had promised a new Condominium Act for at least two years. Does the minister not understand there are major problems in the condominium field and that the act should be addressed and sent to public hearings as soon as possible? When can we expect to have the act before us?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I appreciate the member's concern and I agree that it needs some time. In the hierarchy of things, we cannot get it on the legislative agenda. We will bring it in as soon as we can.

HOLSTERED GUNS

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Solicitor General. The minister will remember that last January two Brinks guards were gunned down during a robbery in Ottawa. Now that he has had the opportunity to reflect on this matter for several months, what is his position with regard to the holstering of security guards' guns and their ability to draw them while picking up or delivering cash?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: The position of our ministry has not changed from that stated before. We have met with representatives of the firm in question and we are continuing to review it, but there is no indication from any of our staff, myself included, that there is a need to relinquish and provide more freedom in the handling of handguns in this province than exists today.

GO TRANSIT

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications concerning the provision of GO rail transit east to Oshawa. The minister knows that whole project has been on hold for the better part of a year. When are we going to see an announcement that will allow the construction of that project to continue?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member is well aware that construction east from Pickering is well under way. A number of contracts have recently been let and bridges have recently been opened. We cannot possibly get to Oshawa until we get to Whitby.

Mr. Breaugh: I would give him a map, but I do not think it would help. We are all embarrassed watching this major construction project lie idle for the better part of a year. When will we see some construction activity on that project?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I do not know how the gentleman goes back and forth to his home, but I would like to give him a map and perhaps a pass on the GO train. Construction is under way and we intend to open the line to Whitby on schedule in 1988.

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Jackson: I wrote to the Minister of Colleges and Universities some months ago about a concern with the Ontario student assistance program and a practice whereby students were being denied filing of their applications with banks unless they had been depositors for a period of up to six months. When I wrote to the minister, he replied that he understood this practice was to put pressure on the federal government to revise its interest structure and to provide a transaction fee on loans negotiated. What has the minister done in his discussions with the federal government to overcome this abusive approach to filing student loans?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The short answer to that question is we have not done anything in particular that is going to alleviate the problem in the short term. However, collectively with my colleagues from other provinces, we are having discussions with the Secretary of State to try to deal with a number of these issues and to make certain changes to funding students, particularly for loans to students. We hope to carry on that exercise and perhaps have some results within six or eight months.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Jackson: If the minister has known about the practice, it is not good enough that he has done nothing about it. The minister has responsibility for the students of Ontario. When is he going to resolve this unfair practice, or is he going to sit by and do nothing about it?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The problem my friend raises is not the most serious problem students have with respect to funding their post-secondary education. In addition, the problem is created by another level of government.

We are undergoing a fairly comprehensive review of the Ontario student assistance program in view of the fact that debt loads to students have increased substantially over the past number of years. We are considering this rather minor issue within that context. I am not prepared to raise it with the Secretary of State in Ottawa and make a major issue out of a small problem that could be dealt with in context working with my provincial counterparts.

PRISON FACILITIES

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Premier. Mr. McDonald at a meeting with him a number of months ago indicated only that there was a vacancy rate in northwestern Ontario for prisons. He forgot to tell the Premier that he would have to expand a number of prisons in the south and continued to give him the idea that we should bring the prisoners from the north to the south.

Is the Premier prepared to change that Tory thinking and to reopen the prison in Burwash, thus making 225 jobs, plus another 225 that will spin off to create a total of 500 jobs and reduce the unemployment rate and the welfare rate?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know of my colleague's intense interest in this matter. Perhaps he wants to be assured of a secure place after he leaves this Legislature. I am not sure. Wherever there are accommodation problems in this province, we will personally find him a jail in which to reside. I want my honourable friend to know that.

He has put the argument eloquently and passionately, and so often that no one could ever not know what he was talking about. The Minister of Government Services and Chairman of Management Board (Ms. Caplan) and a lot of others have been looking seriously at Burwash to try to find some use for it. I do not have the answers today. As the member knows, that place has a strange history. It was opened up and closed and, in a sense, it has been gutted. It is not as if one could move in immediately with a facility for incarceration of any type.

I do want to thank the member for his devotion to this cause, for his understanding and for his reminding us of the importance of this issue. We are pursuing it, but I do not have an answer for him today.

NUMBER OF QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: One day last week I was quick to inform the members when we had only 33 questions and supplementaries placed. Today we had 47, which means people were up on their feet 94 times.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Polsinelli: I have a petition signed by 100 Ontarians.

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

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

"Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

"And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

Mr. Shymko: I have a similar petition.

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

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

"Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

"And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

Mr. Offer: I have a petition that reads:

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

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

"Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

"And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

Mr. Swart: I too have a petition in relation to the naturopaths, which reads:

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

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

"Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

"And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

This is signed by 108 people from my area, and I want to say that I support the petition.

COURTHOUSE

Mr. Morin: I have before me a petition submitted by the North Bay Historical Society and supported by 720 North Bay residents that the old North Bay courthouse be preserved and saved from demolition.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Gregory: I have a petition signed by residents of Mississauga East. The wording is:

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

"We request the government of Ontario to reduce gasoline tax by 1.1 cents a litre from 8.3 cents a litre to 7.2 cents a litre immediately and to phase in further reductions over three years to 5.4 cents a litre by 1989."

Mrs. Marland: It is a pleasure for me to submit to the government of Ontario a petition from 200 members of my constituency with their concern about the reduction of the gasoline tax.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Offer: I have a further petition signed by 16 members of the parish of St. Francis of Assisi Anglican Church asking that the government of Ontario institute legislation that allows for the closure of businesses on Sunday.

ABORTION CLINICS

Mr. Callahan: I have a petition signed by 94 residents of my riding:

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

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

"As involved citizens of Brampton and Bramalea, we support the vigil which was held at Peel Memorial Hospital on May 14, 1986, to protest the loss of life to abortion of hundreds of unborn children at this hospital.

"We understand that Robert Scott, MD, an associate of Henry Morgentaler, has announced his intention to open yet another illegal abortuary in Toronto. We are extremely concerned about the fanatical disregard of the law by the abortionists and urge the government to use every possible mechanism to meet this challenge and ensure that these illegal abortuaries are closed and that the law be upheld."

3:40 p.m.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R. F. Johnston from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 94, An Act regulating the Amount that Persons may charge for rendering Services that are Insured Services under the Health Insurance Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 43, An Act to amend the Shoreline Property Assistance Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This bill will make two changes to the Shoreline Property Assistance Act, which was enacted in 1972 to assist owners of shoreline properties damaged by the elements.

The first change will allow municipalities to make loans to eligible property owners for the raising of a building or for the moving to a new location. The second change will allow property owners in areas without municipal organization to apply for loans for the same purposes as owners within the municipality.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wildman moved first reading of Bill 44, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: This bill is designed in a way similar to the bill just introduced by the Minister for Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) in that it provides for regulation in unorganized areas, regulation that already applies in municipal areas. This bill specifically regulates motor vehicle salvage and disposal sites located in territories without municipal organization under the Environmental Protection Act. At present, the Municipal Act empowers municipalities to make bylaws regulating these sites, but there is no parallel regulation for territories without municipal organization.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 30, the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given by the Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Keyes), and I am happy to inform the members that this matter will be debated tomorrow at 6:30 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 106

Ms. Bryden moved that the order for second reading of Bill 106, An Act to amend the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Act, be discharged and that the bill be withdrawn.

Motion agreed to.

OTTAWA LITTLE THEATRE INC. ACT

Mr. McClellan moved, on behalf of Ms. Gigantes, second reading of Bill Pr12, An Act respecting Ottawa Little Theatre Inc.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved third reading of Bill 65, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Mr. Laughren: I would like to say a few words. I will be very brief. The standing committee on resources development dealt with this bill between the two sessions in March and April. We travelled to northern Ontario as well as certain parts of southern Ontario and heard from employee representatives through their unions and from employer representatives through their organizations.

There was a wide-ranging debate on the bill and the minister's staff was most helpful during the deliberations. The debate was so thorough that when the committee reassembled to deal with the clause-by-clause stage when the Legislature came back, we had resolved our differences to the degree that we were able to deal with the clause-by-clause stage in one session.

While the bill did not grant this party everything it wanted, it did at least open the door for first-contract arbitration when those disputes get nasty, which is why we are supporting this bill.

Mr. Gillies: I would like to commend the committee for the very excellent work it did between sessions. As my friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) said, when we came back for the clause-by-clause discussion of the bill, the work was such that I believe it has improved the minister's bill.

The minister knows the concerns our party had about Bill 65; we voted against it on second reading. We remain unconvinced about the efficacy of this type of legislation but, in fairness to all concerned, the bill that will be enacted into law after today is better than the bill that was first introduced some months back.

The minister moved a couple of critical amendments, including one to the wording on the critical access section, subsection 40a(2) of the bill, which improves it. Amendments moved by myself and by the critic for the third party were also accepted. Some of these amendments failed and others passed. We can all take some small degree of pride in the work that was done.

Finally, I commend the chairman of the standing committee on resources development, the member for Nickel Belt, for his usual effective chairing of the committee and for the excellent work that was done.

I remark, as did my friend the member for Nickel Belt, on something that I do not think I have seen here in five and a half years: the fact that we did a very thorough and comprehensive job of the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill in less than one and a half hours. Everybody's views got on the table, everybody's views were discussed and all the amendments were voted for or against. It was a tremendously effective and efficient example of committee work in this Legislature of which the resources committee should be very proud.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a few comments to make on this bill, but I would be remiss if I did not also sound a bit of a warning to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) on the legislation.

First, it is an important bill. It may be not a major piece of legislation in the view of many in the province, but it deals with one of the most difficult, time-consuming and nastiest situations that can arise in the relationship between labour and management; that is, a first-contract dispute where management has decided it does not want a union and is not going to have a contract if it can help it.

The bill that the government brought in was deficient mainly in the access. Both this party and the trade union movement in Ontario have argued long and hard in the course of the hearings that access to the bill as a right and not as a remedy was absolutely vital if we were to have an effective piece of legislation dealing with first-contract disputes. That was not provided in the original draft of the bill, in clauses 40a(2)(a), (b), (c) and (d), and in my opinion is still not there in open terms.

3:50 p.m.

Mention has been made of the amendments we finally arrived at and that there was a lot of hard work and goodwill on the part of all parties in trying to change the bill. Subsection 40a(15), which removes some of the restrictions on the arbitrators, was an effective and necessary change without which it would have been difficult to move with the bill at all. I am a lot less happy with clauses 40a(2)(a) to (d). The change removing the word "frustration" is important. Adding the word "expeditious" at least gives us an opening on the time it may take to resolve a dispute such as this.

However, access is not open. It is a situation that in my opinion, and in this case I hope I am wrong, is going to lead to a number of battles to establish the rules in effect and the precedents before the board. That in itself is not a good thing, I warn the minister, particularly in view of the current difficulties with bad-faith bargaining cases we seem to be having at the board, more of which have surfaced in the past few weeks than in a long time. I do not know whether there is a deliberate change in emphasis in board policy, but I am getting warnings that have started in only the past few weeks that it is more difficult than ever to deal with bad-faith bargaining charges.

This new bill is slightly better than bad-faith bargaining, but it is going to mean some lengthy battles before the board. There are 50 or 60 cases out in the community where they would like to use it. The discipline of the labour movement itself is going try to restrict that, but I want to make it very clear that if we find this bill is not working because it is too close to bad-faith bargaining in the access to the legislation, then we are going to have a very unhappy and cynical group of people within the trade union movement, and rightly so.

My hopes are riding on the interpretation and speed with which we can deal with the problems that come before the board. It is an important piece of legislation. It is better than having nothing, as before. I do wish it were more open than it is, but we are willing to give it a try and see what happens with it.

If the minister and the government thought they had the labour movement on their necks before, they will really find it on their necks if after giving it this hope that we can resolve a very difficult collective bargaining situation with a piece of legislation, it is found to be not good enough to resolve those disputes. I hope it is going to work. It is worth that try. I just wish we had been able to get it more open than it is.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. McClellan: It is a third reading debate; there cannot be questions or comments.

Mr. Breaugh: That is why we are here: to remind you of the rules of the House.

The Deputy Speaker: Certainly there can be questions and comments. Do any other honourable members wish to participate in the debate? If not, we will hear from the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will be very brief. First, I want to join with my colleagues who have spoken in paying tribute to members from all parties on the standing committee on resources development, who listened patiently to a lot of testimony. A lot of points were made by both employee and employer groups and in the end, working with this minister and this ministry, we have produced a bill which, as it comes out and as it passes into law, is a better bill than the one we first proposed. It is an improved bill.

I acknowledge the differences that still exist between the official opposition and this government and between the third party and this government, but we believe we have made important and significant changes, particularly on the access issue and, as my friend the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) pointed out, on subsection 40a(15) as well as, I would add, on subsection 17 in the construction section of the bill.

We on the government side are very pleased with the final package. We believe it will provide a very balanced approach that will allow those who are bargaining for a first contract to get on with the job of achieving a successful first contract in the knowledge that if they do not achieve it after moving forward with all the goodwill in the world, they will be able to get the kind of redress the legislation calls for.

We on this side have worked towards that kind of balanced approach. We believe it is now present in Bill 65. In the months to come, as the Ontario Labour Relations Board issues rulings on the key question of access, I look forward to seeing the intent of the government put into law and interpreted through the actions of the OLRB.

Motion agreed to.

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Brandt: I welcome this opportunity to participate in the budget debate. I am pleased the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has found the time to remain in the House to hear some of the comments and observations that are going to be made by the members of our party with respect to the budget that was brought down recently.

Let me say at the outset that from my perspective, having listened to the presentation of the budget, following which the first speaker on our side of the House was the former Treasurer, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), I have to say how deeply impressed I was with the response she gave to this budget. I certainly recommend it to the Treasurer as a working document he could use as a guideline for the things that should have been in the budget and the direction that should have been taken. I take this opportunity to compliment my colleague because the remarks she made were very well thought out, very precise and very specific. They were some of the very things that were missing in the budget that was presented by the Treasurer.

I call attention to the two major undertakings in this budget, namely, the $850 million that has been set aside for the capital expansion of our health services, principally our hospitals in this province, and the $1-billion high-technology fund that has been discussed at some length, the committee of which is to be chaired by the Premier (Mr. Peterson). Those two amounts supposedly add up very close to $2 billion in new initiatives on the part of the government.

I guess one could call this a budget that asks for details to be announced later. Interestingly enough, as is the case with so many areas of this budget, for both those very significant, very large and very substantial expenditures -- as I said, it is something close to some $2 billion that is being proposed -- we have very sketchy details at best. Even some days after the budget, for the $850 million that was proposed to be spent for hospital expansion, as an example, we have no idea whether that is over five years or eight years.

When one takes a look at those numbers and relates them to the kinds of investments that have been made in previous years by other governments in this province, they do not relate to an increase in spending. There is no provision for any supplemental or additional funding to be set aside for the expansion of our hospitals.

This concerns me very greatly because one of the commitments made in a very specific and very direct way by the party that is now the government of this province was that if all else failed in terms of the moneys it might have available, it would address its attention to health spending, and it would very significantly increase the amount of money that would be allocated for health purposes. At this time, we have not seen any indication that is going to be the case.

In my own situation, using my own municipality of Sarnia as an example, the community has already raised close to $4 million for the capital expansion of St. Joseph's Hospital. The exact amount to this time is some $3.8 million. That money was raised by the community with the specific intent, upon completing its own local requirements for fund-raising, of having the ministry come in with its supplemental funding to provide an additional 150 chronic care beds.

4 p.m.

What has happened over the course of the past few days is that the Ministry of Health has thrown another curve at the board of St. Joseph's Hospital and at my community, indicating that part of that $3.8 million, if one can believe this, was raised from moneys the hospital was able to save in the capital fund and, therefore, those dollars will not be allowed as part of the local participation that is required.

That is absolutely absurd. Those ground rules were never understood to be as I have just outlined them. Once the community had met its commitment and raised the amount of money it was requested to raise, it was then a single question of the ministry coming forward with its level of participation and the balance of the funding in order that the hospital could proceed to develop the expansion that is so desperately and critically needed in my community.

The situation we face in Sarnia in connection with hospital capital spending is one that is a very serious problem right across this province and certainly one that $850 million, if allocated over five years, is not going to solve. If the allocation period for this $850 million -- and I hope this is not the case -- is spread over eight years, then it is an absolutely unacceptable amount to the party of which I am a part. That amount of money is simply not a sufficient commitment to hospital spending. It is not a sufficient commitment to the capital needs of our hospitals and health services in this province. In the light of some of the other things that have happened in the budget, how can the government retain even flat-line health spending for capital purposes when the budget went up so significantly in other areas?

In this budget, there are some $700 million in new taxes given to the current government as a result of tax increases that were brought in with the previous budget. On top of that and on top of an increased deficit of some $500 million that took place in the previous budget, we have an overall spending increase in the most recent budget of close to eight per cent. I believe it is in the range of 7.6 per cent, but very close to eight per cent.

It may come as a surprise to some of the citizens of Ontario that this increase in spending on the part of a government is the largest increase in spending of any province in all of Canada, including the federal government. No other government has substantially increased its spending to the extent the current government has.

How can the government increase deficits, increase taxes, increase the amount of spending it is going to be involved with and yet flat-line spending for health services? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I ask the Treasurer and his very able and capable Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) to review that area of the budget to see whether, in the goodness of their hearts, they cannot make some money available for a hard-pressed community that is struggling economically at the moment with a high unemployment rate.

In spite of all that, this community was able to raise close to $4 million and, at this point, remains able, willing and anxious to participate with the Ministry of Health in a very needed expansion of health services in that very fine community of Sarnia.

I do not ask that in a critical sense. Our community has been waiting for a long number of years in putting together the preplanning requirements and the amounts of money that would be required with respect to fund-raising activities in the community in an attempt to meet all the requirements of the ministry. I hope this most recent question mark that is now hovering about the St. Joseph's expansion relative to the amount of money that has to be raised locally is one that will be resolved by the Minister of Health at the earliest opportunity.

Fundamentally, the minister is a fair-minded individual. I know he is the type of person who, when looking upon a situation such as this, will take the needs of the community into account and will balance them off against all the other pressures he has across the province. When he finally makes the determining decision with respect to where funding goes, he will see the proper direction that I am suggesting to him, namely, that some modest amount of money should be allocated to the community of Sarnia.

I am pleased to see that my colleague and friend the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) is in the House. I am sure he set aside time to be here with us today to listen to the few remarks I want to share with him, the Treasurer and the Minister of Health. I have some concerns about the $1-billion technology fund set up in the budget because the budget is so extremely vague when it comes to the two largest spending increases in the entire budget.

I have already mentioned hospitals to a certain extent. I want to direct and focus my attention on the technology fund. When the government sets aside $100 million a year, supposedly over 10 years, surely there must be some direct program it intends to invest that money in. I suggest to the minister that he has before him at this time in his ministry a very successful program that could be beefed up and expanded where additional moneys could be put to good use, that is, the technology centres we have across the province. That is one of the success stories, one of a long litany of success stories of the former government, in which the $100 million or so he has allocated on a yearly basis could be invested in that program in a very profitable and positive way for the people of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: With all that success, why is the member over there?

Mr. Brandt: Because they happened to fudge the realities during the course of the last exercise we had in meeting with the people of Ontario. That, too, shall change; it need be given but an ample period of time.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We are prepared to accept a 42-year cycle if the member is.

Mr. Brandt: There will be no 42-year cycle when the people of Ontario fully understand and appreciate the increases in the Treasurer's most recent budget, which are in addition to what he brought in in his previous budget. He has brought in only two budgets in this province. Both have subjected this province to absolutely horrendous increases in taxation, horrendous increases in overall spending and problems that I can see are very close to the kinds of difficulties, if I may say this in a charitable sense, that this country now faces as a result of irresponsible spending at the federal level in Ottawa. The deficits that were rung up by that government continue to shackle and hold back the progress of our country because of the spending that took place over such a long number of years.

Mr. Haggerty: Like 42 years in Ontario?

Mr. Brandt: Let me address the 42 years in Ontario. That is an important point to give some attention to. As to the course of the 42 years, at the time the current government took over the direction of this province, it was left with a sound financial and economic base that was second to none anywhere in the country. This province was not only in a good, sound, secure, financial condition when they took over, but it allowed a great deal of manoeuvrability on the part of the Treasurer as the province and the country worked their way out of the very difficult and problematic recession we went through for a number of years.

We have come out of that now, but I can assure the member that it was not the actions of the current government over the course of the past 10 or 11 months that resulted in this province having the lowest unemployment rate of any province in the entire country. Those measures were put in place long before the current government took office. Those measures have allowed this province to continue the economic buoyancy we are taking advantage of at the present time.

That brings me to another point -- I will get back to the high-tech fund in a moment -- that should be given some attention.

4:10 p.m.

During difficult times when governments have problems, when unemployment is high and when there are significant and severe societal problems that have to be addressed, I do not take any exception as a Conservative and as a member of this great party to governments having to raise deficits to ease the burden on the individual citizen in a particular jurisdiction. I do not take exception to that because I believe in the type of economics whereby, during times when the going is rather difficult, the Treasurer can make a conscious decision to invest some additional money through the raising of the deficit he has available to him and can help to ease the plight of people during times of difficulty and economic deprivation.

However, when we have a buoyant economy, when we have revenues moving up and accelerating at one of the highest rates and one of the fastest increases in the history of this province -- none of which the Treasurer had anything to do with -- when we have a stable economic base in place and when things are going well, that is the time to start to tackle the deficit. That is the very time he has to bring the deficit down to a more realistic number in order to prepare for some difficult days that will surely come ahead again, particularly if we have the current government over there in its present position.

This is very simple, basic economics, and for him to understand, I will speak slowly. Basic economics simply indicates that during good times he has to bring down the deficit, because during bad times he has to increase the deficit. He does not, however, during a time when he has a relatively low unemployment rate, when he has record high revenues coming into his coffers, fail to address the ad valorem question on gasoline taxes and continue to gouge the Ontario public with gasoline taxes that are absolutely absurd in terms of the amount of money he collects on an hour-by-hour basis from the users of gasoline in this province.

When all of those things are going in the favour of the Treasurer, let me tell members what he did in terms of the deficit. He took a look at the deficit and said: "You know something? The people of Ontario, and probably the people of Canada, really do not understand what a deficit is all about." Because there is a little difficulty in the public mind with respect to the problems that deficits can create, the Treasurer made a very conscious decision at that point in looking over his budget. He said: "We are going to spend in this budget. We are going to be the good guys and we are not going to reduce the deficit."

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We did, though.

Mr. Brandt: He reduced the deficit by the paltry amount of $85 million. By creative bookkeeping, the real deficit came down by some $85 million.

That is totally unacceptable. The deficit for this province should have been down below $1 billion. I do not say it should have been wiped out in one year and I do not say the whole problem could be overcome even if we had two or three good years of economic growth back to back. However, the reality is that the Treasurer had a tremendous opportunity in this budget to prepare for a rainy day that is inevitably going to occur at some point down the road. Did he prepare for that rainy day? Did he set aside and make provision for a time when the economy may not expand as rapidly as it is doing now? The answer is no, he did not make any provision for that.

Concerning the money he did spend, I hope the Treasurer or perhaps the Minister of Health will clarify the $850 million and indicate to us once and for all and in very specific, understandable terms whether that $850 million for capital spending for hospitals is over five years or over eight years, whether it is on top of another capital commitment and, if so, point it out to us in the budget so that we know exactly the amount of money the government is spending.

I indicated I wanted to get back to the $1-billion technology fund, because this is an opportunity for the government to do some good things. If the government uses this money wisely and judiciously, with thought and sensitivity, this money can be used for a very positive job creation program -- if not today, perhaps in the future -- for our great province.

What we have to do, quite obviously, to meet the competition of many jurisdictions in the world that are causing the erosion of some of our industrial base is to move into areas of high technology and to be more aggressive in preparing this province for the inevitable competition and challenge that are going to occur in the years ahead. We are not going to be able to do that if we do not prepare now.

Thank goodness we had a government in office for some long number of years that prepared for those kinds of difficulties and challenges and the inevitability of the kind of competition we are going to have in the years ahead. That government established and set in place high-technology centres throughout the entire province, dealing with farm machinery, mining and resources, computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing, and a whole broad spectrum of high-technology and new manufacturing concepts in which this province can be a world leader in undertaking.

The current minister is a fine chap, whom I like personally, but he has some difficulty on occasion with his vast and important ministry. The reality is that if he will take the $100 million per year that has been set aside and inject a significant portion of that money into those centres, they will produce very real dividends for this province. They will produce the jobs that are going to be required in the days that follow when our international competition becomes even more intense.

One of the most devastating one-two punches that this province will have to react to as we move into the future is the one-two punch that our international trading partners have available to them, namely, low wages and high technology. The minister knows that to be a fact. He knows that when we look at countries such as Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and even China, with which we are going to be dealing on an increasing basis in the years ahead, those supposedly emerging Third World countries are now heavily industrialized and are in a very real position to continue to move in on some of the markets that have been historically Ontario's markets or Canada's markets.

I will join hands with the minister in attempting to meet that kind of competition and I will not be critical of any moves on the part of the government that I see reflect that kind of concern, because we have to be ready for that competition or the jobs that we are going to have in this province in the days to come will not be the kinds of jobs that will stimulate and challenge the citizens of this province. They will not provide opportunities for our young people, who require that kind of employment to earn an appropriate level of income, and this province will be reduced and decline economically.

I want to touch on a number of areas of the budget. I touched very briefly on the matter of the high-tech fund and also hospital spending. I would also like to talk about a couple of other areas of the budget I think should receive a failing grade in terms of the government's response to the problems of Ontario.

I have raised in this House on a number of occasions the need for at least some kind of program from across the aisle to respond to the difficulties being faced by workers who are being laid off in their mid-years, in their very productive years of employment, in communities such as Sault Ste. Marie, my own community of Sarnia and many northern communities. The government members really have sat on their hands and provided virtually no financial assistance, no program, nothing in the way of any kind of unique or progressive thinking in order to respond to the needs of these workers.

As an example, when my request for some additional funds for retraining these workers was placed before the Premier, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara), the response I got was: "That is a good idea. We should be helping some of those workers to retrain." We have a retraining program in place now, but the interesting part of that program is that it does not reflect the needs of workers who currently have a trade.

4:20 p.m.

I want to re-emphasize the importance of recognizing there are people in some key industries in the work force today who are 30, 35, 40 and 45 years of age, who are being laid off, who do have a trade but are unable to exercise that trade in the employment they are able to find because there are no jobs left in those industries.

What I am asking of the Premier, his colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities and the Treasurer is that some moneys be set aside to help ease some of those workers back into the work force, to provide them with another trade where there is a job available or where jobs are ultimately going to become available in the future. Those are the kinds of programs he should be looking at very carefully with a view towards assisting some of the workers who, through no fault of their own, are thrown back on unemployment insurance in the first instance and, at a somewhat later date and even more critically, are thrown back on welfare if they still cannot find any form of suitable employment.

I bring that program to the attention of the minister and hope he will make a note of it. If he has difficulties with the implementation of the program and if there is any assistance we on this side of the House can give him, we would be happy to so do. We want to work co-operatively with him in bringing in positive programs that will reflect the needs of the workers of this province.

There were a number of promises made in connection with the budget brought in by the Treasurer. In spite of not reducing the deficit, in spite of doing all the other dastardly things he did with respect to tax increases and not addressing what I feel are some of the real problems in the province, he left a whole long series of things unattended. Yet they were promises made by this government over a long period of time.

When I look at the budget, I see a long litany of broken promises to the people of Ontario. Where is the elimination of OHIP premiums, as an example? Where is the exemption of sales tax on meals costing less than $4? Yes, it was adjusted upwards from $1 to $2 to reflect at least a movement in that direction. I would like to read back some of the speeches the Treasurer made in connection with that terrible tax. I can recall with vivid interest the rhetoric of the current Treasurer when he completely denounced that tax as being regressive and unnecessary in Ontario.

Where is the government's financial commitment to a cleaner environment? Interestingly enough, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) was speaking the other day on television. I received some reports on this, the accuracy of which I cannot speak to only because I did not see the program in full. He was asked what he had done to this point after spending close to 12 months in that ministry. One of his responses was, "I have cleaned up the phosphorus in the lakes." I bring to his attention that he had absolutely nothing to do with cleaning up the phosphorus in the lakes throughout this province and the lakes we share with our American friends to the south of us. The phosphorus reduction program was put in place in this province two decades ago at the very least. It was intensified as a result of improvements in sewage treatment plants by this party when we were the government.

If one reads reports of Lake Erie 10 or 12 years ago, the reports at that time talked about the ultimate demise of Lake Erie. Lake Erie was going to die as a result of being strangled by algae and as a result of phosphate loadings and the difficulties Lake Erie was having. Because literally billions of dollars were spent in environmental control programs by the previous government putting in place improved municipal treatment systems and reducing the phosphate loadings into the Great Lakes, what has happened as a result is that the life of Lake Erie has now rebounded very substantively, fishing is far better than it has been in many decades and there has been a very substantial improvement in the overall environment of that body of water as well as of others.

I take a look at the minister's comments when he talks about the new tough controls he is going to bring in. He has talked about tough controls for municipalities and tough controls for industry. I do not take exception to that, but as I have said in this House on previous occasions, there should have been some budgetary provision to look after some of the costs related to those tough controls. As an example, municipalities have always had a partnership with the province. When municipalities moved towards a more stringent control program they always had a partnership with the province.

There is no mention of any increase in capital funding on the part of the Ministry of the Environment. There is no indication that it is going to join hands with the province in looking after some of these new, very finite toxic chemicals that we are trying to come to grips with in our environment and that are being discharged on a regular basis, I might add, by municipal sewage treatment plants. There is no commitment whatever to a capital program that will address the real environmental needs of this province.

There is a very substantial difference between the rhetoric on the one side and the action on the other side. At this point, we are dealing with a great deal of rhetoric and a very limited amount of action. We are not getting action backed up with any dollars to indicate the participation of the government in connection with some of these badly needed programs.

It is not enough to say the minister has had some impact on reducing phosphate loadings in the Great Lakes and that has been a major success story of the current government, because that is hogwash. He has not yet moved even an ounce of acid rain out of the system. He has not cut back sulphur dioxide at all. He has taken no action whatever. What he did was step up a commitment made on the part of the previous Minister of the Environment, whom I know well, since it was me. He stepped up that commitment to require an additional 10 per cent out of the system.

A huge press conference was called to tie all this up in a nice new pretty package with a nice red ribbon -- the blue ribbon of course being removed. What was said at that time was, "We are going to take action against the major polluters in this province who are spewing out sulphur dioxide." So far, sulphur dioxide in this province has not been touched by the current government. This government has done absolutely zero about reducing emissions into the atmosphere and into the natural environment. What they have done to this point is talk a good case. We reduced acid rain further than any other jurisdiction in North America.

Mr. Philip: What did you do when it came to putting scrubbers on Hydro furnaces?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order.

Mr. Brandt: The experimental scrubbers that were put in the Lakeview power station -- I will try to ignore the interruptions, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Grier: What scrubbers?

Mr. Brandt: The scrubbers that have been constructed there already were put on by the former government.

Mrs. Grier: That is a lime injection process; they are not scrubbers.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: It is a scrubbing process, my dear. It has exactly the same effect.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Will members address their remarks to the chair.

Mr. McClellan: Oil-can Harry.

Mr. Brandt: One needs some of that to run one's car on from time to time.

When one talks about some of the programs that are being ignored by the current government, one can see that what we have in this budget is the makings of nothing more than a shell game. Some of the moneys have been moved around. I recall a newspaper article I read the other day. I will quote very briefly, if I may, from the Globe and Mail. The headline says -- and I will show it to you, Mr. Speaker, because I know you have excellent eyes -- "Ontario Saved $3 Million in Wages."

It is not a bad headline, other than in the context of the present budget -- and I am still on the budget, it is interesting to note, "Even when the budget of this operation is considered, along with cuts in the Premier's office, the continued cost of the Premier's and cabinet office budget is 45 per cent higher than a year ago when the Liberals took office and adopted the Tories' spending plan." That is 45 per cent in one year.

Have members looked at the increase in civil servants? For years there was a struggle on the part of the former government to reduce the numbers of people --

Miss Stephenson: Annually.

Mr. Brandt: Annually -- to reduce the burden on the taxpayer.

Mr. Haggerty: Then you hired them through contract.

Miss Stephenson: No. You have not looked.

Mr. Brandt: Not at all. The object was to reduce the cost of government and to remove government from the backs of people. The former government went through a very difficult period in order to bring some of those things under control rather than let them run rampant and out of control, as was the case under a Liberal government in Ottawa.

4:30 p.m.

What has happened? As a result of a new Liberal budget, we have the highest increase in spending of any budget of any political jurisdiction in all of Canada; that is point number one. We have the highest tax increases of any jurisdiction. Yet we have the strongest, most buoyant economy as a direct result of measures that were put in place previously.

Does it make sense to start now to unwind some of those things, that judicious kind of control that was put in place by the previous Treasurer and by others who worked on budgets for years past to keep government spending under control? Does one automatically let the lid on the box spring open and allow the money to flow in a totally irresponsible fashion?

I say no. The people of Ontario will not stand for it, and they do not have to accept it. It is something that will become a little better known as the days and the weeks pass by and people understand in more detail what this current budget is all about.

I wish to thank the members of the assembly for their attention, and I want to close my remarks by repeating what I said at the outset of my comments.

I strongly urge the Treasurer to look at the comments of my colleague the previous Treasurer, who spoke first for our party on this budget and used the very intelligent, sound and principled statements that were made during the course of the remarks she shared with this House. If he will only take into consideration some of the directions suggested by the honourable member from our party, he will find he will have a much better budget to give to the people of Ontario than the one he tabled in this House a few days ago.

The Acting Speaker: Are there questions or comments?

Mr. Philip: I have some comments on the crocodile tears for the health care system by the previous speaker. If the member is so concerned about the need for more money for hospital beds in this province, why is it that under his government we managed to have such a deplorable state that in the hospital in my riding, the Etobicoke General Hospital, on any given day there are 50 people in beds who should be in chronic care facilities?

If the member is really concerned about the health care system, why is it that he and his party are doing everything possible to delay the passage of a bill that will save the taxpayers of this province $50 million in federal subsidies, or cross-payments, to the health care system? That $50 million could be used to buy a lot of beds in this province. If he is really concerned about the health care system in this province, why is he acting as the mouthpiece for the Ontario Medical Association, which is going to delay people being out of hospitals at the time they should be discharged, thereby driving up the cost to taxpayers, not to mention possible dangers to those who so badly need admittance to those beds?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I might take a moment to respond to three things to which the honourable member referred.

First, I agree with what the member said about the quality of the first speech made on behalf of the official opposition by the critic. I listened to her speech with great attention. There was perhaps a certain misalignment of views between us, which might be expected, but one thing that concerned me was that this leadoff speech by the official critic for the opposition party was attended by only a handful of members of her own party. She very appropriately got a standing ovation at the end of the speech. Because the members were standing, I had a chance to count them; there were 11 out of 51.

Miss Stephenson: That was far more than there were for you.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is true. I regret that. I want also to say, as the clock ticks away, that the member has made some comments about the level of gasoline taxation in this province. He was a member of the cabinet when the previous government used the application of a 20 per cent ad valorem tax to double the tax on a gallon, as it then was, of gasoline in the years from 1981 to 1985. With reasonable judgement, we stopped that automatic application of tax, and we returned to the Legislature for a specific tax. As a matter of fact, the Legislature decided not to apply all of the tax that would have been appropriate, in my judgement, but it did apply a tax of 8.3 cents a litre. This is the decision of the Legislature, and it is an appropriate decision, particularly after the old ad valorem doubled the tax in only four years.

I also want to refer briefly to the deficit, which was reduced by $590 million, not the amount the honourable member referred to.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member's time is up.

ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his chambers.

Clerk of the House: The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour has assented:

Bill Pr12, An Act respecting Ottawa Little Theatre Inc.

Bill 65, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Brandt: I would like to respond briefly to some of the comments that were made, particularly by the member of the third party, who indicated I was pouring out crocodile tears in connection with the hospital expansion.

The point I want to make, and I hope I can say this in such a way as to allow the Treasurer to understand the position I am coming from, is that, first of all, when we increase spending by a very substantial amount of money, then surely, as a priority we would all share in this House, that amount of money should be directed towards an increase in health spending and, more specifically, capital expansion of our hospitals.

I agree entirely with that. When we look at the problems of some of our hospitals in this province, I agree much of those have been brought about because of restraint programs over the years, because we went through a very difficult recession, because dollars were not there in many instances to allow for the expansion of some of those hospitals to take place. But one cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Philip: Then you should stop extra billing.

Mr. Brandt: Extra billing has nothing whatever to do with the subject I am talking about.

Mr. Philip: It has $50 million a year to do with it. What are you talking about?

Mr. Brandt: I want to get to that point. Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt the member when he was making his points. I am sure he will allow me an opportunity to address the $50 million in extra billing transfer funds from the federal government, which I will get to in a moment. The only point I want to make is that when a budget goes up very substantially, then we have to allow for some of that money to be allocated to hospital spending.

Very briefly, on the matter of transfer funds from the federal government, the current government, to buy its way out of a very difficult problem, has already committed more than double that amount of money that it is going to give away. There will not be one cent of that left for capital spending; it will all go into other programs.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Rowe: I rise this afternoon to address the Legislature on the the government's 1986 budget. I do so with enthusiasm because I want to reveal to this House how this government is deluding the electorate, the good people of Ontario, in many ways in its budget.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: That is not a very nice way to start out.

Mr. Rowe: Let the honourable member assess the tone of the speech from the beginning.

As I have said on previous occasions, the budget is a gift-wrapped box with nothing inside. I would like to expand on that, because it is shameful that we should be led to believe this is a budget that combines "social concern and common sense," as the Treasurer stated on May 13, or that the public could be expected to believe the leadership of the Premier will bring about the continuation of the upsurge in investment, job creation and economic growth.

The budget was all gloss with no lasting glow. It failed to keep the promises the Liberals blatantly made to us only a few months ago. In fact, when one looks closely, the gift-wrapped box was indeed empty.

What about the sales tax exemption on meals? The Liberals promised us they would raise the exemption to $4. They raised it to $2. So much for that promise. As the Toronto Star said just recently, the exemption is still not enough to cover the cost of both a Big Mac and a Coke.

Let us talk about the hospitality industry. While the hospitality industry is in a very serious way financially with respect to hotels and motels in this great province these days, why would this government not allow the industry a 25 per cent trade discount on licensed purchases of alcohol and beer? I am sure my good friend the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) will know the industry wanted that sort of break in the budget.

While we are on that subject, let us talk about the price of gasoline. It is not very long ago in this House -- I believe it was, as my colleague said, a little more than a year ago; the minister was critic of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation at that time -- when he was standing up and expounding on the terrible price of gasoline. How could we attract American tourists to Canada if the price of gasoline were going to continue to be exorbitant? I do not quite see in the budget where the price of gasoline was dropped to encourage those very important visits, which this industry needs.

Mr. Barlow: We have to read between the lines.

Mr. Rowe: Maybe we should read between the lines; that might be the answer.

What about the denticare program for children and seniors? The Liberals grudgingly gave us a vague statement: "The Minister of Health will be presenting a proposal to extend the range of dental services available to children."

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It was promised by the Tories in 1943.

Mr. Rowe: Let us not go back to 1943. I wonder what kind of present fulfilment that is. I am sure the Treasurer is happy in 1986, not in 1943.

What about the promise of the Premier to eliminate Ontario health insurance plan premiums? The budget gave relief to only 35,000 low-income Ontarians, and not for 1986 but for 1987. That promise is currently unfulfilled as well.

If they cannot keep election promises, I suggest the Liberals should not make them. Surely all this does is raise the expectations of the public and then let them down. If the Liberals want to stay in power -- and heaven forbid that this should be the case -- they must keep their promises. Since they have not done so, can the public believe in them? Will they believe in them? They certainly cannot make a believer out of me.

There is a 19th-century insight into this question. It reads, "When voters in a democracy discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits." The Liberal budget does not fulfil the promises made to the electorate. Next time, will the electorate be taken in by promises? These unfulfilled promises remind me of the Broadway play of the 1970s, Promises, Promises, in which frustration was the bottom line.

There is more to this empty gift box than meets the eye, and it should be brought out in the strong light of the Legislature for all to see. Specifically, let us look at the budget's forecast of economic growth for the next year. "Ontario's economy is expected to grow in real terms this year by 4.2 per cent," the budget says. Where on earth did the Treasurer get that pessimistic figure of 4.2 per cent? We on this side of the Legislature think it is far too low, and we base our estimates on such reliable forecasters as the Conference Board of Canada. That reliable economic growth group states we will grow at 4.9 per cent or better, and its forecast is supported by other equally reputable groups.

Is the Liberal government deliberately downplaying the growth rate? Would the Treasurer do that? If its downplaying is deliberate, what is the Liberal government trying to do? First, is it deceiving the public? Is it not deceiving us all? Understating the growth rate simply means the Liberal government is suddenly going to find itself with millions of excess dollars in revenue unexpectedly. It means that during the next few months the Liberals will have several million dollars of excess money.

What do the members suppose they will do with that excess money? Will they reduce the deficit? Will they meet fully all the election promises of the past year, which were (a) to reduce the sales tax exemption on meals, (b) to introduce a stepped-up program of dental care for children and seniors and (c) to eliminate totally Ontario health insurance plan premiums? Would that not be the responsible way to distribute that excess money?

The Liberal government might be tempted to act that responsibly, but it might have its sights on other goals, goals of self-interest. I leave it to the imagination of the members of this Legislature to reach their own conclusions as to what the goals of self-interest are. A suitable hint might be to ask the question, when is the next election to be called?

This reminds me of my readings of economic forecasting during election years in the United States and Canada. These readings resulted in some conclusions on my own part; truisms, if one would like to call them that. Prior to elections, there are no increases in personal income taxes, corporate income taxes and retail sales taxes. There is no tampering with social programs. There are goodies for education and health care. Is it not coincidental that all these truisms are in the Liberal budget? It is quite a coincidence, I might add.

Let me turn to another area of this gift-wrapped box with very little in it, the current Ontario deficit. The budget indicated that only $85 million will be chopped off the deficit, which will run to $1.5 billion in 1986-87. It is commendable that the Liberal government at least is paying attention to the deficit. I thank the Treasurer for looking at it, but to us, that is about all it was.

Other financial experts in the US and Canada have looked at Ontario's deficit situation closely. As a result of that look, Ontario was downgraded as an investment risk. We lost our triple-A credit rating last October. Why could the budget not have addressed this downgrading and used some of its previously mentioned excess funds to upgrade our rating in world financial markets?

Let me address further areas of this empty gift-wrapped box. How has the government met the problem of the farmers of this province? I am sure my colleague the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) is interested in this. How does the government propose to handle the needs of the hospitals? How does it suggest we look at the ownership of companies, at how educational institutions should be handled and at how public-sector pension plans should be perceived?

First, the farmers: "...the agricultural outlook remains bleak," to quote the Treasurer. He then proceeded to increase the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food by 13.4 per cent. He intends to extend the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program. The budget enriched the farm operating credit assistance program. It has expanded the beginning farmers assistance program. However, it has wound down the farmers in transition program.

The farmers of this province are strapped. They need this aid, and they need it now. To hold off giving them aid now and wait for several months to implement this program can only cause new and additional hardship. It is a hardship the farmers can ill afford. We on this side of the Legislature think it is absolutely absurd.

Next, let us move to the hospitals. "We will provide $850 million for a major, multi-year hospital capital expansion," the Treasurer announced. "The program will provide for additional acute and chronic care beds and the most pressing improvements to existing hospital and cancer treatment facilities."

We maintain that the $850 million is really a repackaging of spending programs of the past and that the budget does not add any new moneys to the financially starved Ontario hospitals. With a very close look, we might squeeze $2 million a year in additional funds. Billions of dollars are needed for the construction and expansion of hospitals in this province. In our opinion, the $850 million falls short.

4:50 p.m.

Perhaps I can be personal and speak specifically about my own riding; I think the situation in Barrie is similar to that around the province. Additional moneys must be forthcoming to the Royal Victoria Hospital and for the building of a new hospital in the community or the results will be frightening.

Our community has had a significant leap in population, particularly in senior citizens, and this population increase demands more chronic care beds, acute care beds and rehabilitation beds. Specifically, in Simcoe county the shortage of chronic care beds will increase to 300 from 200 in the next 10 years. Some 150 acute beds and 200 more rehabilitation beds are required in the same period. Barrie should have received assurances in the budget that it would be included in the $850 million figure allocated to hospital care. It did not, nor did any community. Barrie and other communities ask, why not?

The budget allows for only a four per cent annual increase in operating funds for hospitals. That is not only disappointing; it is also insulting. There is $400 million plus for our area with respect to health funding, and we still cannot get a commitment for a long-overdue hospital. How can one quarter of the 220 public hospitals which have deficits in this province hope to continue to provide adequate service to their communities, let alone survive?

My next point is the plan to create share ownership in Ontario companies. I applaud the Treasurer for proposing an employee share ownership plan in which employees would participate directly in the benefits of business growth, but I am concerned. If the Liberal government's logic is correct, then it should have gone further in specifying how the plan would operate and given more incentives to the employer to start up such programs. The employers should be given to understand that such a program was not to be in lieu of wage and pay increases. The budget failed to spell that out.

I now turn to education. The universities, for example, will receive an increase of four per cent from the budget. As in other areas of this budget, it is completely unacceptable. If the Ontario government is sincere in stating our economic future cannot be secured without a strong and vital education system, it should use some of these excess funds to keep the system viable.

One final area I wish to address is the hint of this government that it is considering removal of inflation protection from the pensions of civil servants and teachers.

Overall, the budget has failed, just as the speech from the throne before it, to provide the appropriate climate for Ontario today and tomorrow. It failed to recognize that only an industrial society, free enterprise and the ambition to excel can provide an adequate and fair standard of living for all Ontarians. It took from the concepts of the budgets of the past decade and attempted to build on them, but it failed to recognize the basic truisms of the past and to rework them for the future. If that is the best we can do, then I say pity them and pity us for the next year.

Mr. McClellan: I have one comment. The member who spoke previously said the previous government had not closed any hospitals. In case the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Rowe) has forgotten, the previous government closed the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital and created a major crisis in the mental health care system of Metropolitan Toronto which has still not been solved.

Miss Stephenson: That is debatable.

Mr. McClellan: It is not debatable. A thousand pages of evidence were presented before the standing committee on social development when it held hearings on the closure of Lakeshore hospital, arguing that the types of things that have come to pass would come to pass if the government closed the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital.

One of the things that happened was that a program at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre, which is in my constituency, was literally blown to smithereens by the action of the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) when he was Minister of Health and he closed the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital. Queen Street has still not recovered from the damage that was inflicted on it when its patient population increased by about 35 per cent as a result of the closure.

The speaker we just listened to has been seriously misinformed. He is a new member and was not here when the previous government launched its major attack on the health care system of this province through the imposition of bed-patient ratios and through its attempt, sometimes successful, to close hospitals selectively. We are still living with the damage that was inflicted by the previous government, and that is simply part of the historical record of this province.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I do not intend to speak in this debate again, except to ask a question of the member for Simcoe Centre. How does he justify the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) taking the position of Minister of Health? Does it not cause him a great deal of grief to find that the questions are coming from the New Democratic Party rather than from the government?

The Minister of Health is here. He is not the least bit concerned about the comments the member for Simcoe Centre made, but the member for Bellwoods felt he had to respond. Having signed the accord, the NDP could at least sit for another year and not become too involved, unless the member is lobbying for the job of Minister of Health.

Mr. Rowe: Quite briefly, in response to the member for Bellwoods, let the record show I did not make the statement that we did not close any hospitals. I did not make that statement. I would appreciate it if the record showed that.

Mr. McLean: I want to take a brief time to speak on the budget, mainly about how it relates to the riding of Simcoe East, the riding I have the opportunity to represent. On the day the Treasurer delivered his budget, I was enthused to see the galleries almost full and enthused to see the results in the paper the next day.

I want to speak about agriculture and how it affects the riding of Simcoe East and what the budget is doing to help the farmers of the county of Simcoe. I agree with the increase that has been allotted in the budget, but I think the tile drainage program still needs improvements. I would like to see a 75 per cent allotment instead of the present one, but I agree with that.

My colleague spoke the other day about the gasoline tax on commercial vehicles, which has been a concern to me for some time. In my dairy operation, we have a one-ton truck that is used solely for farm purposes. We have to pay tax on the gasoline we use. The farm vehicles are usually hard on gasoline; we get four or five miles to the gallon. It would be a great boost for the farmers to have that tax removed from commercial vehicles.

It is important to note that the agricultural industry in this province needs all the help it can get. I do not think our farmers want loans increased that much. What they want is more money for the product they are producing. I do not think many people would disagree with that philosophy.

5 p.m.

Agriculture in Ontario is still the backbone of the province. We have more efficient people running the farms than in any business I know of. I believe help should be given in three areas. One would be a further tax incentive on the taxes that farmers pay. Another, as was mentioned, is farm fuel. The third is the hydro that farmers are using. Most farms now are very efficient, but they are heavy users of hydro. My hydro bills were about $1,000 every time we paid them.

There can be some help here for the farmers in this province if the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Ridden) will take those three items into consideration. As I said before, it is not always loans they want; it is more for their product and more help to keep their costs down.

Expanding the beginning farmers assistance program is a good policy. I hope the minister will consider the new research and education initiatives and further develop those policies so our farmers will get a better share.

I had the occasion yesterday to speak to a tile drainage operator, who indicated to me that he seems to be getting more work than he had anticipated he would get this year. That sounds good for our agricultural industry. There are farmers who are improving their lands by putting in more tiles. It is a program where, in five years, farmers will recapture the cost of those tile drains. Here in Ontario, with the number of people one farmer feeds, it is amazing when we look at other jurisdiction.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food could further implement some of those programs to make sure we keep the best farmers on the land. Not only that, but they will still be able to go to Earl's Shell and sit down and chat about what took place that day. It is so important for the community that our farms survive and prosper.

I want to speak briefly with regard to health care in Ontario and specifically in the riding of Simcoe East. Over the years, I have been indicating that what we need is more nursing home beds and more geriatric facilities built for those people who need them.

Over the years, the health care system in this province has developed into one of the best anywhere in the world, but I must say that over the past 10 months, that has changed dramatically. It does not matter which profession or person one talks to in the health care system, they all have a great concern at what has taken place over the past 10 months, and rightly so.

I was always a great believer that through negotiations and talking to people with whom one is dealing, regardless of which profession or business it is, most logical people can come to a reasonable consensus. It is unfortunate that did not take place here. More damage has been done to our health care system in the past 10 months than at any time in history. Until 10 months ago, our health care system in Ontario was getting better day by day and as time progressed.

In the area I represent, we have a very high population of people who are senior citizens. Statistics show it is one of the fastest-growing areas for senior citizens in the province. I believe the new study that has been completed by the district health council will indicate the need we have in that area for hospitals, acute care beds and nursing home facilities.

If people could get out in the community and see our nursing home facilities and senior citizens' complexes, they would be amazed at how great and how nice these facilities are. I remember when my mother was in a nursing home, I was so pleased with the care she received. That has been expanded upon, but I firmly believe we should let private enterprise build these facilities, because when one compares the cost of a day in a nursing home with the cost of a day in a chronic care unit, the type of facility we should build makes plain common sense. Not only that, but the facilities should be built in co-operation with our chronic and acute care facilities, so those people who need the extra care are close to where they may receive it.

I look at the other people in the community, such as the Victorian Order of Nurses, the people who go from home to home under the good program of home care that has been a successful operation within the Simcoe County District Health Unit and the other health units across the province. It gives our senior people the opportunity to stay in their own homes much longer.

It is interesting that the Treasurer speaks about a lot of money for seniors in the budget. I expect there is a lot of money in the budget, but I have not seen where any of it has yet been spent. He seems to be keeping it pretty close to the vest, and yet I have not seen the Treasurer wear a vest too often. So much for health.

I want to say that when the Treasurer was looking at the $850 million for capital funds, I would have hoped that would be money over and above what was already there. I listened very carefully the other day, and I believe the Treasurer indicated it was over and above. However, when I read the budget and looked at that figure, I was not so sure that it was. One thing is for sure: Time will tell, and when we get the phase 2 approval for the Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, I will probably feel that maybe it is over and above.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Tories promised that five years ago.

Mr. McLean: No, they never did. We just finished phase 1 five years ago, and now phase 2 is in the works. We had a commitment from the previous government to complete phase 2, and I am sure the Treasurer will see that the money is allotted to the Minister of Health so he will give the approval for that quickly.

The $850 million will build a lot of facilities, but I wonder whether we should not be allowing the private sector to build nursing homes for seniors, providing more money for them to build and paying them to look after some of these people who are in need.

5:10 p.m.

I would like to speak briefly on the environment. I see the additional funds that have been put into the total budget of the Ministry of the Environment, an increase of about 11.7 per cent, according to the figures.

When the spills bill was proclaimed, it was supposed to be the greatest thing that ever happened. We had some spills in this province not too long ago, and I asked the minister in the House how many charges had been laid in Ontario. To date, I have not received an answer to that question. There was a large spill up in MacTier and a lot of toxic waste went into the lake; there was a spill in Callander and one on Highway 401 at the famous James Snow Parkway.

There was also a spill in the riding of Simcoe East in Washago. Just last week the indication was that everything was fine; the spill was cleaned up and there would be no further problems with the water. Let us not forget that last week we had three inches of rain. People in that area get their drinking water out of the Green River. It so happened that they found there was a lot of oil from that spill coming out of the cracks in the rock and going into the river.

When I heard that, I immediately thought: "Our Minister of the Environment is telling the people in the United States that every waste disposal site there has to be cleaned up and dug to the bottom and every bit of toxic waste there has to be disposed of. Here we have a situation in Ontario where we did have a spill, all our Ministry of the Environment people were there, no charges were laid, and we have oil in the Green River." It is great to talk tough and to act tough, but that is a lot different from acting responsibly and doing what is right.

When we think of the environment and of the amount of polychlorinated biphenyls that are still around, the number of old transformers that are still around, I applaud the Ministry of the Environment for securing an extra unit that it can get to these communities and get rid of the PCBs that are still sitting around. However, I have not heard of any area they have been to yet to do what they have intended to do with regard to getting rid of the PCBs. When we talk tough about the environment and we talk tough about people having to clean up, the minister not only has to talk tough; he also has to be tough.

The other day I had the opportunity to be in the riding of Simcoe Centre looking at a proposed waste disposal site, because the Premier announced during the election that within one year the Pauzé site in Tiny township would be closed down. Not very long ago the Premier made an announcement that they had until October 1987 to close the site down.

We were looking at the proposed new site on 150 acres of land in the township of Tiny, south of Penetanguishene. I have never seen a better 150 acres of good clay soil, tile drained, which would produce 150 bushels to the acre. It is prime agricultural land. How could our Minister of Agriculture and Food ever approve of the Minister of the Environment proposing to put a disposal landfill site on 150 acres of what I say is class I agricultural land? It is beyond me how that could happen.

I see a lot of things happening with this government and the budget. There has been a lot of tough talk. We talk about all the budget allocations, but we do not see anything happening. If we look at the new ventures program, it is $15,000 per application if one qualifies. One has to have $15,000 to match it, in my understanding, and one has to have a line of good credit. I would think a person starting in business could very well borrow that amount of money from the bank and not have to go through all the complications of filling out the forms and everything else that goes along with it.

I would like to talk about tourism, which is a large revenue-maker for the province. For every dollar spent on advertising, we receive $8. That is money well spent; it has made tourism in Ontario what it is today.

The other day I spoke at a seminar on tourism. When we look at the people involved in the tourism business, we see they are very dynamic people. Facilities in this province have improved immensely over the past several years. The accommodation and the grounds and the water around these accommodations are excellent. We can attract a lot of tourists in most areas in this province with our clean water and our great highways.

People from south of the border love to come to the Muskokas or Simcoe East because we have places like the Martyrs' Shrine, where Pope John Paul visited two years ago. We also have the great Trent-Severn waterway system for the boaters and the 30,000 Islands, the greatest body of water anywhere in the province.

As we look at tourism, we all have to be salespeople to make sure that people are made welcome when they come here to spend their money. It is so important that the people and the operators of these resorts make them feel welcome so they feel they would like to return.

Tourism in this province is on the verge of a rapid expansion. With the facilities and attractions we have, people are going to want to come here. I urge the minister to continue promoting tourism rapidly; it is so important for our businesses to receive the dollars.

It was not too long ago -- I guess it was before the election in 1981 -- that I announced the approval of money from the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development for a marina complex in the city of Orillia. It was to be a major expansion. At that time it was a $3-million announcement involving the private sector. We had some problems with the private sector. However, the city was very involved and put its money up front; it was willing to invest its money. We were fortunate at that time to get a $1.5-million grant to proceed with the waterfront.

The amount of traffic created in our Trent-Severn waterway indicates more facilities like that one are needed. People like to boat for a few hours and they like to be able to relax. We need facilities, such as we have in Orillia now, for those people to be able to pull in and spend some time in other communities.

A surprising number of businesses have funnelled their efforts towards that waterfront because they want to attract those people who come in by boat. We have about 150 boat slips there now, where there were about 30 before. Last year, after it was opened June 22, hardly a weekend went past when every one of those slips was not full. The word on the waterway was of the great facility of the city of Orillia.

The Minister of Tourism and Recreation should continue that route of creating these facilities. I can think of another one in Midland where they have beautiful access to water right at the bottom of the main street. There is room to expand a facility. Boaters could come in to stay and spend some money downtown. I believe that is what the Minister of Tourism and Recreation wants. He wants these people to come in and have these great facilities and then to see the tourist attractions that are in those communities.

As I said, in Midland we have the Martyrs' Shrine. Millions of people have come to see that. I urge all members here, if they ever get the opportunity, to come to Midland, in the township of Tay, and see Ste. Marie Among the Hurons and the old fort. They can go to Penetanguishene and see the facilities there.

When we are looking at dollars from the budget for tourism, I say to the Treasurer, do not sell them short, because we need every tourist dollar we can get.

5:20 p.m.

I want to speak briefly with regard to the money in the budget for women's issues. I see the amount that has been allotted for the next fiscal year. It is within the current rate of inflation; it is only 3.8 per cent. This government was talking about promoting and helping the women in the work force, the women in the community, and 3.8 per cent does not go very far.

The office that is responsible for women's issues has an allotment for 1986-87 of $10 million. We may not say that we have gone far, but over the past several years, we have made women's issues something of importance in this province. Women feel, "Yes, we are looked at, we are being recognized, and the Treasurer has increased his budget to help that."

However, when we get to child care, that may be another thing. Child care in this province should not be underestimated, because the work force is realizing there have to be more incomes in the family and more money to help the single parent and the family look after children. I have some concerns about that, because when I talk to people involved in day care in the private sector, it appears to me they have some concern with regard to the funding of public sector day care. From where I see it, the private care is the best. It appears to me also that people would like to see more private day care spaces made available. Day care is very important, and I know the Treasurer has mentioned it broadly in his budget. I am sure there is major reform going to take place within day care centres.

I would like to speak briefly on the housing policy of this government. There have been a lot of questions asked in the House with regard to housing. Yes, we are working on a policy; yes, we are going to announce it very soon; but yes, I have to say I have not seen any money allotted in the area I represent for any new housing to take place.

Two years ago we had a convert-to-rent program; it worked very well. In Orillia, an old armouries, a church and an old YMCA have been converted. That was an excellent program; it got an awful lot of extra rental units on the market, and it certainly helped out with housing and the shortage we have had.

Now, we read about what their programs are and the new total of 16,700 additional units to be built this year. Of those, 700 to 800 are rent-geared-to-income units and 9,000 units are supposed to be subsidized to the same extent. When one looks at the 16,700 units that are being proposed and considers the number already approved, I cannot read anywhere that the number approved has been announced in any major speech.

When we are looking at our housing policies, we have to deal with the rent controls that are on them. Not long ago I indicated there is a better way. Some of the people who come into my office are single parents or elderly. Some elderly people never made $10,000 or $15,000 in their lives. They are in an apartment with the rent going up every year. They are at the stage now where their cheque does not cover it. I firmly believe we need a policy that subsidizes the needy and our senior citizens who are in need.

There is another way of doing it. I look at the policy in British Columbia. It is a safer program; they subsidize only senior citizens. About $8.8 million a year goes into that program. It is helping about only 10,000 people. In Ontario, it would be much broader and larger, but I have a real concern for these people on low incomes. With the rents the way they are, I know they cannot afford them.

Mr. Martel: Oh God, don't make me sick.

Mr. McLean: The only difference between myself and the fellow who just interjected is that I knew what it was like to be poor. I worked for $2 a day. It was not an eight-hour day either. There were seven in our family and we did not always have food. The member probably never knew what it was like to be poor; so he should not interject when I am talking about these people who are in need.

I think there is a better way than the rent controls we have. I have pretty well finished my comments

Mr. Martel: Your party was in power for 42 years and did nothing about it. Do you want a crying towel?

Mr. McLean: I can tell my friend I do not need a crying towel because I earned what I have today and I earned it in the private sector. Until I got here, I never got a paycheque out of the public purse, such as the member has been drawing for many years.

With those few comments, I will conclude.

Mr. Martel: What a load of horse stuff. Tommy Douglas used to talk about horse manure. That is what it was.

Miss Stephenson: He used to spread it quite widely.

Mr. Martel: He spread it well. I was alluding to a government and a back-bencher from a government that had been in power for 42 years and did not do enough to make sure there was adequate housing, adequate protection and jobs for people in this province. For the member to get up here with a crying towel is enough to make one's stomach sick.

I recall his party being opposed to rent control. It was only in the middle of an election that Bill Davis got the hots for rent control. Prior to that time, he was opposed to it. In fact, he started out fighting an election on his opposition to rent control. When the issue got good, all of a sudden little Billy Davis decided we needed rent control. Those beggars opposed it every inch of the way. As we tried to improve that bill, those beggars, along with the Liberals, fought to prevent the best piece of legislation we could possibly have.

5:30 p.m.

They need a crying towel when I see these crocodile tears being cried about people who were poor. It has been a constant fight and it was a constant fight with the Tories to introduce even half-decent minimum wage. They fought minimum wage all along the line. Now they get up here with these crocodile tears. It is enough to make me cry just listening to them. They were impoverished; they were starved to death; they were the only ones who knew what it is like to work. Yet they sat with their party in power for 42 years and did virtually nothing to help the poor of this province.

Mr. Gregory: I was listening very carefully to the member for Simcoe East, whose remarks were very intelligent and well thought out.

I somewhat resent the remarks of the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Mattel). It is a well-known fact that we Conservatives pulled the New Democratic Party chestnuts out of the fire in the 1975 election. They had promised something they could not deliver and knew it at the time they promised it. In a mood of compassion, the government-elect in 1975 decided to provide rent control with no other motive in mind but to pull the NDP chestnuts out of the fire, so they would not be in trouble in their own ridings.

The only problem with rent control, as we all know, is that it is not a healthy thing on a permanent basis, and certainly it is counterproductive. We worry over on this side about rent control; not about rent control itself, but about the people who are currently administering it and totally screwing it up.

Mr. Breaugh: I was not going to get into this high-toned debate, but a response is necessary. The record should show that the 1975 election produced a minority government, and there were some chestnuts pulled out of the fire. A group of Tories managed to retain their seats as members of the cabinet and their limousines and all their perks and privileges. Their little chestnuts were pulled out of that fire.

It is interesting that prior to that time the record is pretty clear. The Conservatives in Ontario hated rent controls and would have nothing to do with them. In the middle of an election campaign they were born again. In a minority government they had to produce them. Now that they are back in opposition, they appear to have lost some of their fervour and zeal.

Member after member in his or her little budget speech seems to get up and give the true feeling of the Conservative Party about rent controls. They do not like them; they would like to get out of them; they want to abandon the tenants of Ontario. That message seems to be coming across clearer and clearer.

Miss Stephenson: The member's logic is impeccably bad.

Mr. Breaugh: More and more members -- even the member for York Mills is jumping into the fray now -- are opposed to rent controls.

Miss Stephenson: I do not understand the member's logic because it is illogical.

Mr. Breaugh: I understand why they might have some reconsiderations, but it seems to me that to abandon the tenants of Ontario at this moment in history when the Conservatives were the government that got them into such difficult circumstances, when the Conservatives were the government when the supply of rental housing virtually dried up

Miss Stephenson: No one is abandoning anyone.

Mr. Breaugh: It seems to me the Conservatives are abandoning them, if the member does not mind, at a most critical moment. It is totally inappropriate for the Conservatives to abandon ship and leave the tenants to their own resources at this time.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I cannot help but comment on the situation in 1975. If the two opposition parties had had their wits about them back then, we could have accomplished all this progressive change 10 years earlier, and we would still be here progressively changing.

I do want to make a comment. The member for Simcoe East referred to child care. I appreciate that because probably in Simcoe East just as in --

Mr. McClellan: This is the member who would have been Premier. That was the problem.

Miss Stephenson: They were the third party.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This is my time she is using up. That is all right. I am not Premier now either. I am quite satisfied being the measly, parsimonious Treasurer.

I do want to say something about child care in the few seconds that I have. I admire the honourable member for bringing that forward as an important issue and one that is growing in importance in his area and in mine. I should make it clear that the commitment to child care in the budget was not a substantial number of dollars, unless members recall that last October we committed the funding of 10,000 new places. We had hoped those would have gone even more quickly than they did, but on the basis of that 10,000, there has been a commitment of about $4.5 million. The remainder will be spent during this fiscal year.

In addition, we have committed substantial additional dollars, an amount of approximately $16 million, for strengthening child care facilities, rural and urban. Even in some Indian reserves, I believe, there have been applications. As well, there is an indication that I, as Treasurer, have been asked by my colleagues to consult with the federal officials; so as we move forward into this very important, new, alternative program and as we strengthen and expand it, there will be federal dollars involved as well.

Mr. McLean: If I had some of those comments a little earlier on, perhaps I could have proceeded with better comments. I want to pick up where the Treasurer left off with regard to child care. With the farming community the way it is today, with the help problem, I would hope there would be more money allotted to the rural people in this province. For the husband and wife who both work on the farm and the actions that take place, there should be somebody there to look after the children.

I should mention that the last newsletter I sent out contained a questionnaire asking whether the people would look favourably upon a housing subsidy for the needy in place of universal controls. I got an interesting response. More than 60 per cent of my respondents indicated that is what they would sooner have. That was from more than 1,000 people across my riding. Perhaps it would be different in Toronto, but that is the response I got from the riding of Simcoe East.

When we look at the shortage of housing we have, at the people who are looking for accommodation and the prices being asked, I think there is an alternative. The entrepreneurs and private investors want to make a 10 per cent return on their money, and I see nothing wrong with that. They should have the initiative to be able to go out and build apartments and be able to charge a rent that is reasonable to reclaim what they have invested in their apartments. I believe there are people who need subsidies. We should help the ones who are in need, but those who are not in need should pay the freight.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is most enjoyable to participate in such a vivid and interesting debate. I have to comment a bit on what the member for Sudbury East had to say. He made some comments, as he always does. He always has some answers. Sometimes I am rather pleased that all these answers do not actually get into legislation because we would be in deep trouble.

Mr. Martel: I have two minutes.

Mr. Villeneuve: Yes, I know the member for Sudbury East has two minutes, and I hope he takes his two minutes. He sometimes needs a lot more than that. However, that is a subject for another time.

The Treasurer has had a very good situation handed over to him by the previous government. It is one that brought him windfall revenue from the excellent management of the province by the previous administration. Almost $3 billion will be found money by the time this fiscal year is over. These are largely blue dollars. They are dollars that were allowed for and managed by the previous administration. The windfall is now in the hands of the Treasurer and it is for him to decide where it can be spent most advantageously in Ontario.

I would like to touch on a few of the areas where these dollars might have been considerably more advantageously spent, particularly whenever we look at situations faced by tourist operators, farmers and other areas of eastern and northern Ontario.

One area that can be questioned in this government's commitment to tourism is in eastern Ontario. Lancaster, the gateway to and from the east, which happens to be in the riding I very proudly represent, was mentioned during the budget speech as a situation where it would be spending money towards improving the eastern gateway to this province. The very first thing that occurred was the cutting back of one of the best tourist promotion situations we had by cutting off the harvesting of aquatic weeds in Lake St. Francis, immediately adjacent to Lancaster, Summerstown and Glen Walter.

I was in Lancaster yesterday afternoon. The volunteer fire department was celebrating its 35th anniversary of providing volunteer fire services to that community. Person after person came to me and said: "What is this government at Queen's Park doing? It mentions it will be spending money in our town to promote tourism. The very first thing it does is to cut back something we had wanted and were very pleased to have."

In 1984 and 1985, aquatic weeds were harvested in Lake St. Francis, promoting and facilitating the watercraft travelling from Quebec and New York state to the many commercial establishments along the shores of Lake St. Francis. It very much promoted the sport fishing industry. I know all the members of this Legislature are familiar with Lancaster perch. If one is ever in eastern Ontario in the vicinity of Lancaster, we have several restaurants that specialize in serving Lancaster perch, and one will not find a better seafood anywhere in Ontario.

With respect to road signs, one issue concerns signs that should have been up on our highways by now for smaller tourist attractions. Today, the government announced further action on its tourism signage policy. Local tourist councils had been made aware of a new signage policy as early as mid-February. The throne speech on April 22 promised the same thing. The problem is that we have had promises, announcements, declarations and statements for four months now. The government seems to forget we are now in the middle of the tourist season. It is the end of May and tourists are flocking to and through eastern Ontario, and that latter is what concerns me. They are going through eastern Ontario without stopping at some of the very fine tourist facilities we have.

The Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) or the Minister of Tourism and Recreation should realize we are now at that time of year when the people who are travelling through are looking for places to visit and to spend some dollars. There could be no finer place for that than eastern Ontario. As of today, the United States Memorial Day weekend is coming to a close. We have had many American cars travelling our roads. The signs have not improved. Some rhetoric and some symbolism are what we have had from this government to this point.

In the riding I represent, the previous government improved the signs along Highway 401, particularly indicating the tourist facilities at the town of Iroquois. We have an area overlooking the locks and the St. Lawrence Seaway at Iroquois. We take the St. Lawrence Seaway somewhat for granted, but when it was built about 25 years or more ago, it was considered the eighth wonder of the world, whereby engineers diverted water by damming many areas and came up with an electric generating station that can produce up to 10 per cent of the power requirements of Ontario. In so doing, they created considerably more shoreline and improved boating facilities. We have all these facilities in the riding I represent.

The government has promised to improve the signage along the highway, and we are all awaiting with much anxiety the promise it made, both in the speech from the throne and in the budget.

We also have, along the very same Seaway, Upper Canada Village and the Thousand Islands. As well as the St. Lawrence Seaway, getting away from the river, we have the ruins at St. Raphaels. We have some historic towns, including Williamstown, which is truly 200 years old and did celebrate its bicentennial in 1984. Of the 14 bicentennial farms across the province, half of them are in my riding. It is the cradle of Ontario, where this great province all began. People migrated to northern, western and southern Ontario from the great riding I so proudly represent.

In my own riding there are two attractions that have lobbied the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. They need the benefits of signs, but to my understanding their attendance still does not meet the new requirements.

One is the Upper Canada Playhouse, which last year attracted 10,000 visitors and requires better signage along the highway. It is live theatre, which is being supported very actively by the local community in the Morrisburg-Ingleside-Iroquois area. However, the government is still waiting to put up signs to indicate that Upper Canada Playhouse exists and that it is looking for new, more permanent facilities than those it works out of at present.

This government promised additional dollars to eastern Ontario. We are waiting for those dollars to come and improve one of our uppermost industries, that of tourism, one of the cleanest industries we have. The dollars that are left there are left without any strings attached. Let us not forget that.

The other attraction is the Prehistoric World, again in the immediate location. Last year some 20,000 visitors went through this attraction. It also has to be advertised, not only along Highway 401 but also along Highway 2.

Both attractions have the potential to attract many more tourists as well as some of the local people. We have to put our best foot forward and tell the world that they are there at their beck and call at very reasonable cost.

This budget provided a 10 per cent increase in the budget of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. I hope that the signs start going up very soon and that the ministry re-examines its attendance requirements for tourist attractions in eastern Ontario.

The budget situation regarding tourism is more contradictory and confusing. As I mentioned, it is symbolic at best, particularly when we look at the cutback in the weed harvesting program, which was the first thing this government did. The message going out to the people in eastern Ontario is, "We told you we would help you, but we are cutting you off at the pass right off the bat."

The Treasurer said new funds would also be available to boost tourism in the region. We are talking about going outside the immediate region and telling the people in upper New York state, in Quebec, in Toronto and in western Ontario: "You can go to eastern Ontario. You will enjoy yourself. The facilities are there." We are looking for this government to do the promotion that is very badly needed to put us on the map.

I thank the Treasurer for making the remark about tourist dollars. However, the cut of $27 million in the tourism budget, compared to the 1984-85 budget, goes somewhat against the grain. I am worried about that. I wonder whether tourism will be promoted as it is supposed to be in northern and eastern Ontario, where the dollars will come from and where the cutbacks will occur.

Ottawa and Kingston seem to be doing reasonably well. As a matter of fact, on the tourist side, Ottawa is doing very well. It could be because of the government up there; I do not know. But on the whole, smaller centres are being hurt by this government, which is being somewhat inconsistent when it makes rhetorical statements and then acts in the exact opposite direction.

5:50 p.m.

While I believe the upgrading of the travel centre in Lancaster is not only needed but also welcome, it is ironic that the government at the same time has decided to drive cottagers and boaters out of the Lancaster area.

I come back to the weed harvesting, and it is not only the harvesting of weeds that are growing; it is the gathering up of some of the floating islands of dead weeds, fish, eel, etc., which find their way to the shore and get anchored in bays. We have a situation where people who own lovely summer homes, and some people who own all-season homes, along the St. Lawrence River in the area of Lake St. Francis are not even able to open their windows in July and August because of the stench.

This is a major problem, and the weed harvesting program had alleviated it considerably over the past two years. Now we will be going back to a situation where the bays will be filled with dead seaweed and dead eels and the smell will be unbearable. That is the project that has been cut off by this government.

While the Treasurer and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation talk of boosting eastern Ontario, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) has stated unequivocally that the weed harvesting, because it was only a temporary project, would be cut off. The former minister advised me, and he advised the present-day minister when he made that statement, that this was not the case.

I must go back to the year 1981, I believe it was, when the harvester was used on a trial basis. It was not used permanently until 1984. After receiving numerous requests from the local residents, I was able to convince the then Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) that this should be initiated on a permanent basis, and it was. Therefore, the harvesting of these weeds occurred in both 1984 and 1985.

Because of a certain arrangement that was made by the Liberal Party and its friends on the left, we had a change of government, and the first thing that occurred was the weed harvesting was very promptly and abruptly discontinued. Three people who would have obtained employment working on that equipment will now be out of work, and the equipment will be sitting idle on the shores of Lake St. Francis. I can assure the Treasurer that every time the boaters or the residents of that area look at that equipment sitting high and dry on the shore, they will remember the promise he made and its breach immediately after.

I want to talk a little about agriculture, which is an area that could have been addressed in a very positive fashion with the almost $3 billion of found blue moneys by this Treasurer. However, the Treasurer chose to operate in a somewhat shifty, slippery salesman approach.

Going back to a couple of years ago when the Treasurer happened to be on this side of the House, he made numerous statements regarding the plight of agriculture and what he as a member of government would do to fund agriculture properly. We are now in the most critical time that agriculture has ever faced, possibly with the exception of the lowest of the days of the Depression. Agriculture did not fare well in this budget. Three programs received additional funding and were expanded. Of these, two were introduced by the previous government.

This seems to be the clear evidence that this government is not capable of providing the programs our farmers need in an ever-deepening crisis. When I say crisis, the crop planting that has just been completed in rural Ontario in most cases will not cover the operating expenses required to put in those crops, leave alone make a profit. If one takes the time to look in the financial papers to find out the December future grain prices, it is a very depressing scenario indeed.

Over the past year, other provinces have increased agricultural spending massively. In spite of this government's self-congratulation, Ontario has not kept up. What is most antagonizing to our friends in rural Ontario is that they visit their friends in the more urban parts of Ontario, or the people who are not involved in agriculture directly, and everyone else seems to be doing quite well financially. The recession of the early 1980s is over, interest rates are at a bearable point and everyone except those involved directly in agriculture is doing very much better.

I will get back very shortly to what the Treasurer did in this budget to send a signal to rural Ontario not only that he does not really care what is happening but also that his government is not prepared to do anything but bail out situations for agriculture and that it will not promote confidence and provide rural Ontario residents with a little bit of hope that in the next few years they will get their fair share of the fruits of this great, booming economy that started on the upswing back in 1984 and continues to do so.

Saskatchewan and Alberta have added hundreds of millions in new expenditures for agriculture to keep up with an international trend. Ontario has not. I have suggested on a number of occasions that, in view of the very depressed grain prices, Ontario could be producing a percentage of its own fuel requirements by turning some of the grains into gasohol. This would be a clean-burning octane substitute for what is being used now. This government has not seen fit to even touch on that aspect in the budget. This would have provided rural Ontario with some hope and confidence that we would be channelling grain into non-food products, thereby diversifying agriculture and providing some incentive to try to keep going in times when it is very difficult just to make ends meet and one is not covering all of one's expenses. No, the Treasurer did not see fit to do anything such as that.

Real estate values are in free fall and no end is in sight.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Is that so in Cornwall?

Mr. Villeneuve: Yes, and I believe they may be that way around St. George.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No, they are going up.

Mr. Villeneuve: Real estate values are going up around St. George? I would like to make sure Hansard has recorded that. These words may come back to haunt the member, because those who are buying are not those who earn their living from agriculture.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: You may be right there. A lot of doctors are moving out of Toronto and buying the best farms.

Mr. Villeneuve: I must again remind the Treasurer that whenever farmers do not have any prospect of covering their cash costs, let alone their total costs of operation, they are not in the mood to expand their operations. That is the problem in rural Ontario right now, and this budget did not address that at all. The problem of providing confidence did not occur.

As a matter of fact, members may recall I brought in a private member's bill which has been on the Orders and Notices paper since last December. It was only a small item, but it would have given the rural community the confidence that the Treasurer might have recognized they were in trouble. All we were asking for was the removal of the tax of 8.3 cents a litre on gas and 9.9 cents a litre on diesel fuel that is used in farm licensed commercial vehicles. Lo and behold, who was one of the people to vote against it? It was the Treasurer himself, the farmer from St. George, the man who says real estate values are rising but then admits they are rising because of nonfarming people purchasing land. That will do nothing but make this a reality and ensure it continues in that fashion.

This government worries about preserving farm land but totally forgets about the farm families who are out there trying to earn a living and make ends meet. If we do not save the farmer, who cares about the land?

6 p.m.

I must also remind the Treasurer what happens in our sister province, which my riding happens to be right alongside. As the Treasurer well knows, Quebec is the eastern limit of my riding. Quebec, with a Liberal government, I might add, has $514 million for less than 48,000 farmers in its province. Here in Ontario, we have considerably more farmers and considerably less money to service them. It is a difficult thing to explain when the same gentleman who is now Treasurer sat on this side of the House and said on many occasions that he would double the agricultural budget.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We have gone only 40 per cent in the first year.

Mr. Villeneuve: It went up by 13.4 per cent in the past budget, when there was $2.3 billion of recognized increased income and likely more than $3 billion when it is all cut and dried. The Treasurer had the most golden opportunity to do it of any Treasurer in the past 20 years, and the man from St. George overlooked it.

My colleague touched on the spills bill a moment ago. It is very symbolic legislation at best. It tries to let the urban area of Ontario get the notion that this government is doing something about the environment. When I say symbolic, that is being somewhat generous.

Mr. Martel: Was that not a Tory bill?

Mr. Villeneuve: Yes, and the reason third reading did not occur was that it did not make a lot of sense. However, the government, with the assistance of its friends on the left, thought it might be good politically. What it did was increase the cost of liability to farmers, and it made it look good on paper. That is exactly what it is, and we are still waiting to find out how how many people have been charged who let spills occur or who owned the product that was spilled. No one really knows.

Another thorny issue in rural Ontario is the length of time it takes for an individual who wants to upgrade his drivers' licence to an A or B licence. As members know and as I have just described, farming in Ontario is far from profitable. Many farm wives want to drive school buses on a part-time or full-time basis. For these ladies to upgrade to a B licence from what is probably a standard D or G licence or whatever, they are now taking appointments in Cornwall for September. Winchester is trying to pick up some of the spillover; it is booking into late July. A number of others are in the same situation. This government says it wants to help. For goodness' sake, at least it should bring in some staff that can handle these applications.

We have seniors who, once they have reached 80 years of age, have to go for an annual road test. We have a number of young people who are going to be licensed for the first time; they do not always pass the test on the first go round, so they have to go back. It is sheer nonsense to have farmers' wives who want to improve their family income by driving a school bus on a part-time or full-time basis having to wait until September. That means those ladies will not know whether they have jobs. They will not know whether they have been upgraded to a B licence. This government sits idly by. We made statements on two occasions in this House regarding this situation. The newspapers are now catching on to it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Why did your party not fix it when it had a chance?

Mr. Villeneuve: It has just happened. I have quotes. It has never been this serious before. The photo on the licence is slowing down the process considerably. The government has not addressed the problem; it has overlooked it totally, and it is almost a shame.

Mr. McLean: It is a shame.

Mr. Villeneuve: I am being kind.

I must touch on the fuel tax rebate before I finish. It was a new program where again a signal or a message could have been sent to rural Ontario by this government and by this Treasurer. Literally, it would have cost them nothing.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: They are getting it all tax-free now.

Mr. Villeneuve: That is not the case; they pay tax on farm licensed commercial vehicles. All farm-produced goods have to wind up on the highway. Rural Ontario produces goods, and they have to be moved to the great parts of Ontario that are urbanized, such as this city and others.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Montreal.

Mr. Villeneuve: And Montreal, of course.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Quebec's gasoline taxes are much higher than ours.

Mr. Villeneuve: Quebec does its share for agriculture.

Again, I must say this budget did not give any clear message to the people of Ontario in agriculture who are desperate at this stage of the game. The Treasurer went as far as reinstating the seven per cent sales tax on heavy trucks. What mode of transportation moves farm produce from where it is grown, where it is produced, to its eventual markets? It is all done in trucks.

For example, the cost of haulage to the dairy farmers, who are not in quite as bad shape as the other segments of agriculture, is based on a formula that covers the expenditures faced by the milk haulers. A seven per cent increase in the cost of a bulk milk truck will simply mean that the hauling costs to dairy farmers -- and these trucks are written off in about two years -- will rise by four or five per cent. Four or five per cent here, four or five per cent there.

In the red meat industry, animals go to market primarily in cattle trucks and wind up in cold storage vehicles. Trucking brings all our food from the farm to the city, and everything will be up by seven per cent, thanks to this budget.

I could go on with a number of other very appalling situations that came from a government and in particular from a Treasurer who knows better but who did not have the intestinal fortitude to try to convince his cabinet colleagues that agriculture needed a little bit of special attention.

I am not simply talking about people who are in financial difficulty. I am talking about sending a message to the most basic industry in this province; the industry that has three per cent of the population producing for 100 per cent plus another 50 per cent of its production being exported. That is how important agriculture is to this province. This government is letting it go down the tube without even addressing the problem.

I look forward to the Treasurer correcting the errors of his ways and some of the sins of omission in this budget. I hope he will do that and address the areas I touched on that affect this province and my riding in particular.

6:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I want to make one comment without repeating arguments made previously. The honourable member referred to the tourism industry. He and I agree about its importance in eastern Ontario certainly but also right across the whole province. I am prepared to predict to him that we will have the best year in our history as far as visits from around the world and from the United States are concerned because of the careful planning made by my colleague the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins). We will have the best year in history, bar none.

More specifically, I also want to say that his comparison of the dollars committed to tourism this year as compared to last year struck me rather personally until I thought about it and looked up the figures. The thing that makes a certain disparity that might concern the member and myself was the extraordinarily large commitment to Wintario payments during 1985 as compared to 1986.

We went back to the standard allocation of about $15 million plus the continuing allocation this year. Last year, for some reason, the commitment to Wintario payments was extraordinarily large. I had a feeling it might have been because the Conservative government was trying to hang on to a political position that it realized was eroding very rapidly. I do not want to attribute motives in this House, because that is not allowed under the rules. In fact, by comparison, the budget for actual support of the tourism industry is better this year than it was last.

Mr. Villeneuve: Of course, the Treasurer spoke with tongue in cheek about tourism. We know full well that with the hijacking of aircraft, with the explosions that have occurred on aircraft and with the differential between the American dollar and the Canadian dollar, we will have a good tourist year, in spite of what the government has done to things in my riding.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If spending money will help, we are helping.

Mr. Villeneuve: Spending money will assist, but not the kind of symbolic gestures that are made. The Treasurer makes the point of mentioning the town of Lancaster, and that is the very first one that was axed. It is beyond this member's understanding and comprehension.

Regarding Wintario funds, there are some small, rural Ontario towns -- the largest one I represent has a population of slightly more than 3,000 -- where Wintario funds have been very well spent. I see some ball diamonds that would not be there, and some curling clubs and arenas. I live next to some towns that do have such benefits that came from Wintario projects. They are most welcome.

If the Treasurer is insinuating that this was money poorly spent, he should think again. Those dollars have a ripple effect in rural Ontario; they go through the community and they are very welcome. If the Treasurer thinks he is going to make some political brownie points, which his government seems to be always looking for, he had better not forget about small-town, rural Ontario and Wintario.

Mr. Jackson: I know the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) laments the fact that I was present in the House earlier to ask him a question, but I also know his enduring patience will prevail this afternoon as I share with him many of the concerns expressed by the people of Burlington South. It is important that the member for Burlington South, speaking on behalf of his constituents, share those concerns directly with the Treasurer in the House today.

As all members of this Legislature are fully aware, I share the great privilege of representing the city of Burlington with the member from Halton-Burlington (Mr. Knight). As I see this government embark on its many promises and commitments, I am sometimes fearful that it has failed to recognize the needs of the city of Burlington. I sometimes wonder whether the Treasurer is getting any feedback, whether he is listening in the House or from his caucus member directly, on the needs of our community.

The people of Burlington South were not thrilled by this budget document; neither were they extremely upset. In the main, they are rather cold towards this budget and merely very disappointed that it fell short of what it could have done. They looked to this budget as an indication of what this new government could do for the people of Ontario.

For some, this was to be the budget that proved we had a new government with vision and understanding of what the brave new world would be for Ontario. They believed the Liberal propaganda machine that had been cranked up prior to the days leading up to the budget announcement, which said this was a government with courage and conviction, one that would embark on a path that was clearly defined with coherent and cohesive sets of policies for this new age. They looked to this government, with a year of experience, to set out clearly how it was different from the previous government, with a definite spending plan that showed a vigour and responsiveness to their needs.

They were disappointed to see none of this in the budget. They were disappointed in the Treasurer, who had all these years of experience in the House, having represented his community in opposition as a back-bencher, as the leader of his party and now as the Treasurer. He and he alone had one of the best perspectives in all of Ontario to take an objective look at what the governments in past days had done and had not done, yet nowhere in the document do we see the evidence of those years of thoughtful representation and thoughtful observation.

What do we see in this document? We see that spending went up in almost every ministry without defining the goals. For the most part, it is simply throwing new money into old programs. Perhaps the Treasurer is telling us that most of the programs of the previous government were good programs. If that is the case, I thank him for that observation and concurrence that the previous government's programs in large part were meeting the needs of Ontario.

The citizens in my community were disappointed that this government, for all its rhetoric and promises, did not come to grips with the changing world that is around it. Many others, knowing the government is receiving more than $2 billion in additional income courtesy of the previous government's stewardship of the economy, expected it to show its responsibility and make a determined effort to bring down the provincial deficit.

Burlington is a city with a very large small-business sector. Statistics will probably show that there are more small-business persons per capita in Halton region than in any other region in the province. These are the people who are driving our economic growth. They know that the boom years cannot be expected to continue indefinitely, and they believe that when times are good, one saves for the leaner times.

Those who did business through the recession know that good times are not guaranteed for ever. One does not suddenly expand based on one good year if it requires continuous good years to maintain that expansion. If one does that, once the lean years hit, the business will go under. With more than $2 billion in windfall tax dollars, the citizens fully expected to see the deficit whittled down significantly. They know one does not just spend the money one gets and set up a new baseline of expenditures and expectations that cannot be maintained if growth slows or stops.

In the budget document, it says the government will "target the areas that will encourage continued growth and give the business people the climate in which to do business so that we can continue to generate the wealth in this province that will enable us to maintain those who are less fortunate and need our help at a level a compassionate society such as ours knows is necessary."

Clearly the Treasurer has indicated his understanding that there are long-term commitments to maintain in any budget. But do we see that in his fiscal policies? We are disappointed that this government does not recognize its responsibility in handling our public money. To increase expenditures at double the rate of inflation almost across the board without making any significant dent in the deficit is not the way responsible governments handle the inevitable ups and downs of any given economy.

Overall, given the expectations this government has raised and given the opportunity it had to make a forceful move to show its understanding of its role and responsibilities, the government, through its budget, has demonstrated its inability to do any more than meet the challenges of the future with the practices of the past but without the understanding of the needs for management of finances for the future.

In that sense, this budget is very much like the first time one orders chopped steak at a restaurant: one builds in all those expectations but still ends up with hamburger. It is a disappointment but, with the benefit of hindsight, it is something one should have known right from the beginning.

6:20 p.m.

Last year at about this time the members of the third party, behind the piano-playing abilities of the present Premier (Mr. Peterson), were regaling people throughout the province with one of the most successful cover versions of the Poynter Sisters' big hit, Jump For My Love. It was so successful that a whole new group and a whole opposition party in this province were able to dance across the floor to the beat and continue dancing for several months.

Today there is a new song. I understand the government whip is very interested in what she should be playing at caucus meetings. Today there is a new song climbing the charts. Already we are hearing the Sons of the Social Pioneers, the wonderful New Democratic Party, doing a follow-up version of -- and she is no relation, I assure you -- Janet Jackson's new, big hit, What Have You Done for Me Lately?

It is a song almost the whole province can sing, especially those in need of retraining and skills development. This government's program for employment, particularly related to retraining and skills development, seems very haphazard, to say the least.

The budget is said to be based on sound, fiscal management. Certainly, the Treasurer has a very well established reputation as a man who is careful with our money. I read the budget spending plans for the Ministry of Skills Development with great interest because he is careful. He is so careful that in the budget, he is not going to give our young people any more money this year than he did last year. However, he says he is going to give it back to them in estimates.

Today, I asked the Treasurer a question and I showed him the differential. There is an $18-million difference between last year's estimates and this year's estimates with respect to moneys targeted for skills development. That is a shortfall of $18 million. Yet in this House earlier today, the Treasurer made specific reference to the fact that he had seen an increase from his government in this area. Perhaps the Treasurer will go back to the books and have a re-examination and come clean with the House on which junior minister or which member of his staff made this error.

This budget of sound fiscal management promises to double the allocation for skills training to $100 million from $50 million. Yet, as I said, these estimates show no such increase. If we believe this budget, the 120,000 young people out of work in our province are also out of luck in terms of having promises made to them last year for an extra $25 million carried out. Perhaps one of the skills the Treasurer wants them to develop is the skill of taking anything a government says with a grain of salt.

In Burlington, as the local member of the Legislative Assembly, I have helped with the establishment of a new youth employment centre for some of our young people who, because of being burned by the system or by a lack of many of the necessary skills to go job hunting, are in need of assistance. The centre's director, Cathy Thomas, works daily with these young people, with assistance and support from the Burlington Chamber of Commerce, small-business persons, the guidance offices of all our local high schools and the Burlington Young Men's Christian Association. I am sure they are asking questions about what they can believe from this budget, based on the dollar amounts fixed for skills development and skills training.

It is not just young people who are affected and asking questions. We know there are many older workers, women and members of minority groups, who also need immediate attention. They need skills training or retraining to regain their spot in whatever economic future is held for Ontario.

In this House, we have heard the litany of the laid-off workers from Algoma Steel, the iron ore workers in Wawa, Canada Smelting, International Harvester and various other companies; the list goes on and on. These people were led to believe they would be receiving an extra $50 million from this budget. However, the estimates for the Ministry of Skills Development say they will not get that money. That money could be used to help many people in northern Ontario and many other groups, who are going to find they are out of employment, to be retrained and seek meaningful employment. Maybe they will get it, and then again, maybe they will not. Even in the budget, the best they could have hoped for was a program, the details of which were to follow.

The details in estimates seem to be that there is no additional money. There is actually a forecast drop in allocation, as I referred to earlier, of $18 million. Maybe in this case the budget will prove correct and there will be an extra $50 million for them in time. The problem is that many of them need retraining now. They need to know what kinds of programs will be available for them now, while the companies are making plans to shut down. They need more than "details to follow."

It is an excellent exercise in public relations to space out one's announcements, dress up old programs, put new titles on them and then take credit for them, but when people are in need of help, it is no comfort to be part of a public relations exercise. If the money is going to be provided, then the government should tell the workers in this province. Why should those who need help have to wait for an otherwise slow news day so that members across the floor can re-announce plans to help them? Why can we not make headway for people instead of headlines for this government?

Speaking of headlines, I would like to talk about the environment. The people of Burlington care about our environment especially. They know about water quality because they are situated right on beautiful Lake Ontario. What have they seen in this budget? Spending $5 million to do more tests is all well and good, but the people of Burlington would like to have seen some more initiatives and some money towards cleaning it up instead of only studying it all the time.

Burlington is a community that expects environmental action, not merely continued studies. When the throne speech proudly stated there would be more money for an increase of about 60 per cent in testing, we would have expected there would have been a 60 per cent increase in the quality of our water. That would have been far more appropriate, and there should have been a long-term program for this government to explain exactly how we could achieve that. Testing the water to death is not going to improve the health of the people drinking it. We expect action and commitment from this government in the environment field, and we were shocked and disappointed that there was only $5 million allocated in this area.

I should not forget to mention that there was a further $15 million in new environmental programming. However, that belongs to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), who, being unable to handle the doctors' problems, has been asked to handle their laundry. Now we have a case of environmental initiatives and statements in the budget being so embarrassingly slight in the panel for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) that the Treasurer has transferred this political credit to a minister who continues the decline as a priority for this so-called new government, for its leader and for its cabinet.

In looking at health care in Burlington, one looks immediately to the fact that Halton is the second-lowest area in the province for the availability of chronic care beds. We are at less than half the provincial average, and we need 90 new chronic care beds immediately. We needed them when they were promised to us last April, and they were promised to us by a previous government. We have waited more than a year, and still we have nothing but words. However, and I see the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health is with us in the House, we did get our computerized axial tomography scanner, although the citizens had to raise all the money to pay for it.

We will presume for the moment that somewhere in the $170 million a year for hospitals, the needs of Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital for more beds will be addressed this year. The hospital staff, its foundation and doctors and the community have recently raised $4.5 million. They would appreciate some sign from this government that it is going to support the local hospital with its operating budget.

We have a long-standing infrastructure of senior citizen support in our community: programs such as Helping Hands, Meals on Wheels, Tele-Touch (seniors) and others. The burden on these institutions is increasing, yet we have no clear direction from this government.

The Deputy Speaker: Might I draw the member's attention to the clock?

Mr. Jackson: I have 30 seconds.

I have to make reference to a particular constituent, a young person by the name of Amy Elizabeth Jackson, who had a specific request for the Treasurer. In his previous budget, he removed the tax on car seats for children. When Amy Elizabeth was here during the throne speech, she looked with great anticipation to get some indication from the Treasurer that he would remove the tax on disposable diapers. On behalf of all the children in this province and their parents, we had hoped the Treasurer would have considered removing that tax as it is a necessity for the children in this province.

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

The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

May 26, 1986

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROLLING THUNDER THEATRE COMPANY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

LIBRARY OPENING

CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD

INSURANCE RATES

PRESENTATION

VEGETABLE PACKING PLANT

TIME FOR MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

UNIVERSITY EXCELLENCE FUND

TILE DRAINAGE

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

FOREST FIRES

TOURIST SIGNS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

GOVERNMENT BUDGETS

EXTRA BILLING

SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENTS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

EXTRA BILLING

SKILLS TRAINING

GASOLINE PRICES

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

LIFE INSURANCE

PENSION FUNDS

TOBACCO IMPORTS

RELEASE OF PROSTITUTE

ONTARIO HUMANE SOCIETY

RIVER BANK EROSION

MINIMUM WAGE

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

HOLSTERED GUNS

GO TRANSIT

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

PRISON FACILITIES

NUMBER OF QUESTIONS

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

COURTHOUSE

GASOLINE PRICES

SUNDAY TRADING

ABORTION CLINICS

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SHORELINE PROPERTY ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 106

OTTAWA LITTLE THEATRE INC. ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

ROYAL ASSENT

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)