Hansard Transcript 1988-Apr-25 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Swart: On the weekend, Brian Nash, the chairman of the Ontario Grape Growers’ Marketing Board, confirmed that at least 15 grape growers in the Niagara Peninsula have walked away from their vineyards because they were refused their normal spring operating loans. The greater loan risk this year is caused of course by the iniquitous Mulroney-Reagan free trade agreement and the weak-kneed Conservative government’s acceptance of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ruling before the European wine and grape subsidies had been dealt with.

At both the federal and this provincial level, there seems to be some willingness to trade off the grape and wine industry for some hope of preserving other alcohol, agriculture and lumber industries. Certainly, the banks deserve to be condemned for withholding the loans to grape growers. After all, the free trade deal is not yet a fait accompli, nor is the price undercutting of Ontario wines by the Europeans a certainty if we get a courageous federal government which will insist that heavy subsidies in Europe and the United States be factored into their prices.

Also, grape growers have been traditionally the very best of risk for the banks. To cut them off now is unconscionable.

This Liberal government had better prove itself too. Today, I am calling on the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to institute immediately a grape growers’ preservation guarantee fund which will assure the provision of normal operating loans to growers who cannot get the money from traditional sources. Further, this party demands that the Ontario government be much more vigorous in its battle to preserve the grape and wine industry. Its defeatist attitude must be reversed.

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ENFORCEMENT

Mr. Cousens: The fundamental cornerstone of our legal system is that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The rights of all citizens in this province have to be upheld. When the government of Ontario -- in particular, the Ministry of the Attorney General -- is presuming guilt with certain individuals, it is a matter of very serious concern, certainly to all people, and should be to members of this Legislature.

Thus, I have serious concerns about the support and custody enforcement branch of the Ministry of the Attorney General in undermining the fundamental rights of Canadians. They are engaging in the following: issuing written warnings to payers who are not in default. These are fathers who are paying alimony. They are receiving warnings from the Attorney General’s department when in fact they are not in default. The Attorney General’s department is refusing to hear submissions from accused debtors before imposing legal actions.

The Attorney General’s department is using heavy-handed enforcement methods, imposing the maximum penalty of 50 per cent garnishments routinely, without tailoring these actions to the degree of the problem. As well, this department is incurring the anger of provincial courts, which are expressing their distress at the errors that are going on from within this ministry. Disputes are not being settled out of court; in fact, they are being escalated by the Attorney General’s department.

We in this Legislature must all --

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has now expired.

1996 OLYMPIC SUMMER GAMES

Mr. Faubert: The year 1996 will be the 100th anniversary of the modern Olympic Games. In founding the modern era of the games, Baron de Coubertin, stressing what is known as the Olympic ideal and epitomizing the spirit of Olympism and culture, established what has become a mutual sharing of respect, sportsmanship and competition among the nations of our world.

Although that idealism has been somewhat bruised across the passage of time, it is only fitting that the 100th anniversary games of 1996 be held in their birthplace. Few people around the world will disagree that Athens, Greece, is a sentimental and emotional choice for 1996.

Although the overwhelming sentimental favourite, there has been a continuing question about the economic ability of Athens to host the 1996 summer games. I quote from Paul Henderson, chairman of the Toronto Ontario Olympic Council, in Saturday’s Toronto Star: “‘If the Greeks put their act together I think they’ll get it...All things being equal (between Toronto and Athens), the emotion will carry the day.’”

With the recently announced $2.5-billion infusion of capital assistance from the European Community to Athens, which will be going into improvements to the international airport, resolution of transportation problems and construction of new athletic facilities, Athens will not only be a sentimental choice but a practical one as well.

The Toronto Ontario Olympic Council bid continues to be an excellent one for Toronto and Ontario, but with the realization that it could also be laying the groundwork for a bid for the games of the year 2000.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mrs. Grier: In 1976, this province passed the Environmental Assessment Act. This act recognizes that the people of Ontario want projects with potentially massive effects on the environment to be subject to rigorous public review.

Ten years’ experience with the act showed that it had some major deficiencies. These were clearly laid out in a report by the Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation in 1986. Now, a year and a half later, nothing concrete has been done by this government to improve the Environmental Assessment Act.

Last week, the minister launched what he calls the environmental assessment program improvement project. This appears to be a tentative and long-drawn-out process of reinventing the wheel that the research foundation got rolling in 1986. Their report outlined specific recommendations for making the act more workable. They are recommendations that the minister could have circulated for comment at least a year ago.

It is vital that the current review of the act does not lead to compromises on its fundamental basis. Better still, the minister should announce immediately that he will implement a key recommendation of the 1986 report, i.e., that a mechanism be found to bring all private sector projects under the Environmental Assessment Act. That was the original intent of the act when it was passed 12 years ago. The environment does not distinguish between pollution from public or private sectors, and neither should our environmental assessment process.

WATER POLLUTION

Mrs. Marland: On Thursday, April 28, the Ministry of Natural Resources will introduce 20,000 pre-smolt Atlantic salmon into the Credit River. Atlantic salmon have been absent from the river for about 100 years. Each year, thousands of people from Canada and the United States come to Mississauga to fish for salmon in the Credit River and Lake Ontario. Mississauga takes great pride in its great salmon hunt and other fishing derbies.

While I am delighted that the Ministry of Natural Resources will be stocking the Credit River, I have some concerns. The Ministry of Natural Resources, by its own admission, warns that “until Lake Ontario is cleaned up, the fish will be inedible and should be thrown back.” This admission by the ministry is just another sad example of the lack of attention being given to the very real crisis of water quality in our rivers and Lake Ontario. While sports fishermen will come to Mississauga for the thrill of challenging the salmon, they are being deprived of one of the real joys of salmon fishing, and that is bringing home of the catch.

While the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) was quick to raise taxes and make great promises about environmental initiatives, we see the glaring reality of inaction on the part of this government to clean up its act. Pollution continues to flow, fish continue to die and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) continues to float helplessly upside down in a cesspool of dribble.

SUTTON DAM

Mr. Ballinger: As the member for Durham-York, I will later today be presenting a petition with 1,287 names on it and, much to the dismay of our New Democrat and Tory friends, it has absolutely nothing to do with Sunday shopping. This petition is from my constituents in the town of Georgina who have been fighting for years for the replacement of the now infamous Sutton Dam.

Yesterday, which coincidentally was a Sunday and a day on which most politicians do work, I met on site with the mayor of Georgina as well as many business people and residents of Sutton to formally receive this very important and worthwhile petition. Its purpose is to convince the Ministry of Natural Resources to allow the municipality to construct a new dam in the place of the original one, which was washed out several years ago leaving an unsightly and useless swamp in the heart of downtown Sutton.

1340

These constituents who collected the names for the petition are not asking for anything they are not already entitled to. They simply want what they had before, the dam on the Black River that for decades has not only enhanced the downtown core of Sutton, but also acted as one of the many tourist attractions of the Lake Simcoe area.

It is also my understanding that if permission to construct the dam is not forthcoming from the ministry, the residents of Georgina are going to rename the riverbed the Ballinger Bog.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SCHOOL FUNDING

Hon. Mr. Ward: Last Wednesday, my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) tabled the 1988 Ontario budget, and in so doing served notice of this government’s support for a significant long-term investment in the educational capital stock of this province.

We believe that education is linked intrinsically to the future wellbeing of Ontario’s economy. As the Premier’s Council has recently pointed out with great insight, the 21st century will be “a time when most new wealth will be found between our ears, rather than beneath our feet.” We must prepare our children today to perform and adapt well in a rapidly changing technological and communications-based global economy. If we are to display continuing leadership and maintain our pre-eminence in the field of education, we must invest and reinvest in our capital stock. This is a prerequisite to the excellence we expect. Our young people deserve no less.

Ontario’s population is increasing rapidly, a phenomenon complicated by demographic changes and geographic shifts. In many school boards circling Metro Toronto, for example, the student population is swelling at a rate of 10 per cent per year.

Years of capital neglect have left this government with an enormous challenge but, in response, this government has demonstrated its commitment to education by first doubling, then tripling, and now, in the 1988 budget, quadrupling the annual amount spent on school capital when we took office.

Last week, the Treasurer affirmed the provision of a $900-million, three-year grant commitment that will enable school boards to undertake $1.3 billion worth of capital construction. This three-year program will enable us to plan and build our elementary and secondary system in a sensible and confident manner. It will allow us to direct our resources to the area of most critical need, the creation of new pupil places.

Since taking office, this government has created more than 78,000 new pupil places, in addition to providing significant allocations for renovations and renewals. We take pride in this achievement, but it has only begun to address the true needs we observe. To meet these needs, we expect that our three-year capital plan will support the creation of a further 110,000 new pupil places.

Tomorrow we will announce individual school projects to launch the first year of this plan. These announcements will involve provincial grant commitments of $381 million and, when combined with local contributions, will produce $504 million worth of capital projects over three years.

About 91 per cent, or $347 million, of capital grant will be designated for new construction. We will therefore create approximately 45,000 new pupil places in Ontario in the first phase of our plan. Our first priority will be the creation of new pupil places in those growth areas where the need is the greatest.

As we allocate these funds, I wish to note that my ministry will work more closely with school boards to construct new facilities that will be adaptable to other community uses. Our schools can and must be accessible focal points for the communities they serve.

I would also like to reaffirm our commitment to the provision of child care facilities in every one of our new schools. I am delighted to indicate that more than $15.5 million of our allocations will be directed to the creation of child care spaces.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to address all of this province’s school capital needs at one time. With our major budget commitment, we will respect the priority of creating new pupil places in growth areas, and through careful long-range planning we will endeavour to ensure that needs not satisfied today will be addressed in a reasonable period of time in an atmosphere of fiscal responsibility. The process for determining which projects receive grants has been observed as follows: school boards rank their needs in order or priority, the ministry’s regional offices then rank them on a regional basis and, finally, the ministry ranks the requests on the basis of province-wide needs.

I am proud of our government’s major budget commitment to education. Our three-year plan will enable us to address our pressing space demands and permit us to continue with the challenges of assuring excellence in education in Ontario.

NORTHERN ONTARIO CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am pleased to introduce an interministerial solution to problems that have plagued children and families residing in the northern part of this province. My colleagues from the ministries of Education, Health and Northern Development have collaborated and jointly developed an improved method to provide professional services for northern Ontario children with special needs.

Together we have identified problems, reviewed existing resources and reviewed a number of other models of service delivery. The result goes a long way to providing a solution to the problems facing special needs children, especially those residing in rural and remote areas in northern Ontario.

Northern initiatives for children with special needs represent a long-term strategy which will improve assessment and treatment services for children in northern Ontario. Children with special and multiple needs will have co-ordinated and accessible services available to them. Northern children who experience physical, psychosocial, behavioural and educational problems will receive professional support and assistance as close as possible to their own communities. This initiative represents $4.17 million in government spending this year and $6.2 million annually.

Northern communities face severe shortages of professionals to respond to the special needs of children with physical, educational and emotional problems. The distribution and size of the population and long distances between communities create significant problems in relation to the allocation of scarce professional and program resources. In addition, the need for bilingual services in designated francophone communities challenges service providers.

This is an innovative model of service delivery that crosses the traditional service responsibilities of four ministries: Community and Social Services, Education, Health and Northern Development. It includes three major components: the development of three professional resource groups to serve children in rural and remote northern communities; the expansion of existing community resources to serve children with multiple needs in the north’s larger urban centres, and the expansion of the highly successful northern bursary program.

Three professional resource groups will be developed and consist of an interdisciplinary core of professionals. These will include psychiatrists, speech pathologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, psychologists and psychometrists, speech correctionists and teacher diagnosticians. These groups will travel outside of the north’s major urban centres to offer needed assessment and treatment for children in remote and rural communities. Every effort will be made to ensure that children receive care in their own communities.

In the larger northern communities, existing professional and program resources will be expanded with the co-operation and consultation of northern community health and social service agencies. This effort will reduce the existing waiting lists and, in conjunction with the professional resource groups, serve children who experience multiple problems.

1350

The northern bursary program will be expanded to 60 bursaries to offer 30 more student awards to study at the doctoral level in psychiatry and psychology and the master’s level in social work and speech pathology. This program has been operating since the early 1980s to offer students one year or more of bursary assistance in exchange for practice in the north.

Other features of the model ensure that bilingual services are available in designated areas and that program development is co-ordinated and monitored through an interministerial administrative structure.

The northern initiatives for children with special needs represent a new approach to the way we do business. Northern children with needs that extend beyond the mandate of a single ministry, especially in remote and rural areas, will now receive appropriate professional assessment and treatment services. This represents an improvement to the quality of life for children in northern Ontario.

RESPONSES

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I rise to respond to the statement today by the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), to agree with him that it has been long overdue that the capital needs of the education system in Ontario were recognized, and to say that in some respects I believe his government has actually moved some way along the way to recognizing that finally. I think that is a good thing.

I would, however, remind members that they should put this in perspective and not be bamboozled entirely by the figures. The boards of education of Ontario have indicated that we need $1.7 billion now, right now, to house the kids properly in Ontario. This government is offering $900 million over the next three years. In fact the money declines over the three-year period, so that in the third year presumably there will be less money being put in than there is even this year.

What the government has not told the House today, and which we need to hear, is how many kids will still be in portables during this period and how many kids are not going to be housed appropriately at the end of this three-year period. We need to have that response from the government before we proceed much farther.

I am disappointed to hear that all this money, except for nine per cent of it, in this year is going to the growth areas. Of that nine per cent, a portion is going to the good initiative of adding child care facilities in the various new schools around the province of Ontario.

However, there is nothing spoken of here in terms of capital money that should be made available to boards, Catholic and public, that are having difficulty with the implementation of Bill 30, to assist them and their communities to avoid some of the divisions we have seen in this province already, and which we are going to see if the government does not come forward with some money to allow them both to be seen to be winners.

The final thing I would say is that while we look to the Toronto region and the hub around Toronto that is growing so quickly, I want to remind the Minister of Education that there are boards throughout northern Ontario which for years now have been starved of capital funds, which have not even got the money to replace roofs on their buildings that badly need replacement. If he is only going to be leaving something like a total of $30 million for the whole rest of the province, according to his figures for this year that he has just released today, he is not going to meet the needs of those northern and isolated boards which are so desperate for capital assistance at this time.

I implore the minister to free up the purse strings for them as well, not just where all the votes are now, around Metropolitan Toronto.

NORTHERN ONTARIO CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Mr. Allen: I rise to respond to the announcement of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) of a special program responding to the needs of special-needs children in the north.

Special-needs children deserve our special attention everywhere and always, no matter where they are; but I remind the minister, as he knows very well, that our members from the north have called for a response to the pressing problems of specialized needs of young people in our school system and out of our school system, whether it is psychiatric help or psychological testing of one kind or another, whether it is speech therapy or other deficiencies that children there, as elsewhere, have.

We are delighted the minister has responded to this problem in a highly organized way and in what would appear to be an effective way. One would only comment that the statement is rather long on superlatives in terms of its adjectives and perhaps is a little short in detail on how it is all going to be delivered and accomplished, but then we understand those uses of language around here.

Might I also say that it has been obvious for some time what the components had to be, so one wonders how really innovative this is. It was obvious it had to be interministerial. It was obvious there had to be expansion of resources in major centres. It was obvious there had to be travel involved. When we put all that together, it is obvious the minister has struck on the obvious and his fellow ministerial colleagues have struck on the obvious and are finally responding to the issue we presented to them.

So congratulations to the minister. We hope the $6 million is enough. We suspect it is not but we wish him well in getting on with the job.

Mr. Harris: I would like to respond briefly to the statement by the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister ends up, “This represents a major improvement to the quality of life for children in northern Ontario.” Of course it does not do that at all. This represents another statement from the government, hoping against all odds that it will evolve into an improvement in the quality of life for children in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Make that speech in the north.

Mr. Harris: The government has been good at statements. It has not been very good over the last three years at delivering on any of those statements or fulfilling any of the objectives it is so good at getting out.

As well, I want to say that it is a pretty sad day when a minister gets up to make a statement that essentially says, “Our ministries are going to co-operate.” If you really stop and think about it, the whole statement says: “We are not going to fight among ourselves. We are not going to argue who has jurisdiction here. We are not going to argue any more who gets his picture on the front page of the glossy brochure. We are actually going to try to co-operate.” It is a sad commentary and the public surely has to be disappointed that this is the statement, but in fact it is true.

Interjections.

Mr. Harris: If “Yappy,” the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine), wants to listen, I say it in a nonpartisan way because it is a problem. It was a problem when we were the government, it is a problem with the federal government, and of course it is a problem this government is facing as well.

For example, four years ago, the Nipissing Children’s Mental Health Services was formed. They were given funding. They got started. They used the interdisciplinary approach. It was a very co-operative approach. For the last two years, they have been crying for a modest increase in the number of dollars required to make it work, and that is why I say we have a statement of intent. We have not had commitment for the last couple of years; we did not have commitment last year when their request for funding was denied. It is a perfect example the minister might want to look at of a small, bilingual community in northern Ontario where they are co-operating and working together, and the government has denied them the funds over the past few years.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Jackson: I am pleased to respond to the announcement by the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) in the House today, his budgetary announcement this year for next year’s capital needs for Ontario schools. The minister quotes some interesting and somewhat conflicting statements in his announcement this afternoon. He indicates, of course, that this allocation of dollars is unprecedented, and yet the demands in Ontario are unprecedented.

Mr. Black: Cleaning up your mess.

Mr. Jackson: Well, there is no mess to the fact that all three political parties made a conscious decision that we would fund two public school systems in this province. We have a commitment to separate school education. We have recently reaffirmed our commitment to francophone education in this province. But there is the fact of the numbers: On a $1.7-billion request based on legitimate demands, the funding represents a 22 per cent commitment on their request, and 22 per cent is less than the percentage commitment last year and is on average the same commitment all governments have been making since the early 1980s.

In terms of the portable classroom spaces, the minister is painfully aware that there are 150,000 students in portables in Ontario. He says that his announcement will relieve the pressure for 110,000, and yet we have a 10 per cent increase in enrolment. In fact, the numbers of children in portables in the coming years will grow and will not be substantively reduced with those growth figures, which he admits in his statement. He announced that he has a new process in place for the selection of these capital facilities. There has been no change in the process.

1400

He indicates the priorities will be for growth boards. Does that mean the boards that have requirements under Bill 30 will do poorly? Did the children at Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School give up their school in vain as a result of his setting priority growth boards?

The percentage the minister has committed has not changed, the process has not changed and the timing of his announcements has not changed. It is only a one-year announcement. Only the optics have changed.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INCOME TAX

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions for the Treasurer about the theory that has been floated over the last few days, which is what I would call the devil-made-me-do-it budget, that he had another option which he was not allowed to undertake. I wonder if the Treasurer can give us some indication whether it is the case that he asked the Minister of Finance, Mr. Wilson, for permission to impose a so-called flat tax on some kind of income as per the income tax form. If so, I wonder if the Treasurer can tell us, was that to be a tax on total income -- at the bottom on page 1 and top of page 2 -- or was it to be a tax on taxable income, as per the bottom of page 2, on the form with which the Treasurer is, I am sure, as familiar as we all are, given the time of year?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Yes, it is the case, and it was taxable income.

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the Treasurer can confirm that for a family of four earning $40,000, the retail sales tax increase would mean an additional expenditure of $150, according to his officials, but this same family would pay about an extra $300 under the flat-tax scenario. Is he aware of that?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The flat-tax procedure is very productive.

Mr. B. Rae: Very productive. I understand it is very productive from the point of view of the government that wants to put its hands in everybody’s pockets, but not from the point of view of the family that is faced with a tax collector whose appetite knows no bounds, which is the appetite of the Treasurer.

I wonder if the Treasurer can tell us this: The stories that have been floated over the weekend say, for example, that the Treasurer is still interested in a flat-tax proposal for 1989-90 -- that is to say, next year -- that this is something he intends to discuss. I wonder if the Treasurer can give us the assurance that in the event he does go to a flat tax, he will, as a consequence of that, reduce the retail sales tax by a similar amount.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I know the Leader of the Opposition will be aware that our tax credit system, which was entirely restructured in this budget, has gone a considerable distance to remove the unfairness in the retail sales tax. He may have something further to say about that, but obviously it is only people who were not prepared to look at the alternatives who would think the flat tax would be applied in the way he so gloomily predicts.

The revenue we have established in this budget is sufficient for what we need this year and should adequately fund our programs in the foreseeable future, but I am not prepared to give any assurance to the honourable member beyond the budget, which I understand we will begin debating this afternoon.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Health. The minister will no doubt be aware that she has received in her budget one of the most extraordinary increases in the history of the province. The same week as the Treasurer (Mr.
R. F. Nixon) was announcing that increase, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which I am sure the minister will know is just a two-block walk down the street on University Avenue and which is a chronic care hospital in the province, announced last week that it was accepting no new patients as of May 1 for chronic care. In speaking with the director of the hospital, I was informed by him that there is a waiting list of 1,000 patients and that this makes a waiting list for some three years; it is a three-year-long waiting list.

At a time when her government is announcing the most extraordinary increases in capital, looking at the funding of a system the minister herself is describing as very expensive and the Treasurer is raising concerns about --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: --I wonder if the minister can explain how it is possible that hospitals would be making these kinds of announcements, causing what I am sure the minister would agree is incredible hardship for those families and those patients who are waiting to get into hospital.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The Leader of the Opposition will know that over the past three years we have made great strides in announcing additional chronic care beds -- some 3,000 in the province -- to meet the needs and that the capital budget of the Ministry of Health is second only to that of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. B. Rae: I guess the minister did not catch the gist of my question. What is the point of allocating beds if we do not have the staff to care for those patients? There is a 15 per cent nursing shortage at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which is so severe that the administration of that hospital feels patient care would suffer if it continued to admit patients on the current basis. Ten beds have just been closed at the Princess Margaret Hospital, which has only 202 beds, because it does not have the staff there. We can go through hospital after hospital and show the minister where there are patients who are having their care delayed simply because there are not enough nurses on staff to provide the care that is needed.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the minister can tell us how she can allow a situation where her capital budgets are expanding and she says she is creating new beds, yet patients are suffering more delays, and frankly, are having difficulty with their care precisely because there is a nursing shortage. What is the minister going to do to address that shortage now?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, this is an issue I expressed concern about very early on after my arrival at the Ministry of Health. I understand that the closures at the hospital he names are temporary and that the hospital is working actively towards solutions.

As well, shortly after my arrival, I reactivated the nursing manpower committee, which is addressing this cyclical problem. Nursing manpower issues, as well as health professional manpower issues, are ones I take very seriously and expect over the next little while to be able to address.

Mr. B. Rae: The Doctors Hospital in Toronto has vacancies for 20 nurses, the Ottawa Civic Hospital for 25 and the Mount Sinai Hospital for 15. Wellesley Hospital is 78 nurses short; Toronto General Hospital, 38; and the Humber Memorial Hospital, 27.

The minister told us in January that she was going to be addressing this problem. She told us in January that she was waiting to hear later that month and in early February from her manpower committee. I wonder if the minister can tell us why there has been no specific action taken to assure the families of this province that not only will there be beds and bricks and mortar available, but also that nurses will be there -- able to work, wanting to stay in the profession and wanting to make nursing their career -- that in fact caring is going to have priority with this government, and not just buildings and continuing to pour cash into the system when it is not improving the quality of the system.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The member will know that the shortage is not because of any one single factor and therefore cannot be corrected overnight. This is a cyclical problem. For example, the Ontario Nurses’ Association has just negotiated successfully a three-year contract with the Ontario Hospital Association, making them the highest-paid nurses in Canada.

I will be meeting, in fact within the next two weeks, the Advisory Committee on Nursing Manpower to look at what other initiatives and undertakings can be brought about. I believe the discussions are appropriate and I have had those discussions with the Ontario Hospital Association, as well as with nursing associations and hospital administrators, to make sure we can respond to those manpower needs in the future.

I want to thank the member for his interest and I want him to know that these discussions will be ongoing.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier. It relates to the budget, which I am pleased to say we are most happy to debate in this House, contrary to the views of the Treasurer who indicated that he knew everything we were about to say with respect to his budget anyway and wanted to save us all that time and effort. But I am pleased to hear that we will be debating the budget.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Brandt: In our opinion, this budget, this unprecedented $1.3-billion tax grab, will shift the tax burden more on to the poor, the lower-income families, who have less capacity to deal with these taxes, than on to people at higher income levels. That, in our opinion, is what the gasoline tax increase, the retail sales tax increase and the sin taxes will do.

1410

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Brandt: Given the condition of the current economy in Ontario, how can the Premier justify the largest tax grab in the history of this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the Treasurer could give the honourable member a full answer to that question.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The leader of the third party indicated that this is the largest tax grab in history. I want to indicate to him that his good friend and former leader, when he was Treasurer in 1981-82, had tax changes that occupied fully three quarters of one per cent of the gross provincial product. This tax change has to do with only half a per cent. That is surely the way to base it, because the values of the dollars have changed substantially.

The honourable member is also concerned about gasoline tax.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Listen, the boys at Earl’s Shell Service were ecstatic. At least, that was one of the words they used.

Mr. Jackson: It’s now a Becker store. That’s why.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Once again going back to the bad old Tory years, which the leader of the third party seems to yearn for in his lack of foresight, the actual revenue increases in gasoline tax back in those years were: in 1982, a 23 per cent increase; in 1983, an 11.7 per cent increase, and in Larry Grossman’s only budget, a full 10 per cent increase.

We were very glad to get away from that ad valorem approach so that at least when the gas tax is changed, we will bring it before the honourable members so that we can hear their views and then have it settled in the democratic way by casting our votes.

Mr. Brandt: I too bought gas over the weekend and I know the impact of the Treasurer’s budget on ordinary consumers in this province. I am glad he went back to the year 1982, because I want to quote to him from a speech delivered in 1982:

“What we saw in that budget was a change in the philosophy of taxation. We saw a move away from the progressive system, which we as Liberals believe in passionately, taxation that is based on the ability to pay, and we saw a major move towards flat consumption and regressive taxes.”

In the light of that comment, which was given in this House in 1982, and the regressivity of the taxes that the Treasurer has brought in as a result of the budget he tabled in this House, how can he justify that level of tax increase, recognizing that it is a complete reversal of the position his Premier took in 1982?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It is not a reversal at all. The honourable member would know that because of good management in the government and in the Treasury, the sales tax, even with this one per cent increase, is not the highest in Canada by any means. Five provinces have higher sales taxes than we do. Even the government of Canada, in its rather strange manufacturers wholesale tax, increased the tax, and those related to it, in 1986 by an amount that raised out of Ontario for federal purposes a full $1.6 billion. These changes, taken in all, raise this fiscal year only $950 million.

Mr. Brandt: If the Treasurer is putting the province in the same economic position as other provinces that have a higher sales tax, then in fact I would like to see him put that position before the people of Ontario, because the economy here certainly justifies some kind of tax relief.

Let us make it clear by way of question that the one-cent increase in the sales tax is effectively a 14 per cent increase. That is what it is on the base. He took 14 per cent more in sales taxes. Now I have a very simple question. Based on the philosophy of the 94 Liberals as put forward by the 1982 statement of their Premier, does the Treasurer agree that an increase in the sales tax will effectively amount to an increase in municipal property taxes as well?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member would be aware that when we announced our transfers for municipalities last November and substantial enrichments in this budget, most municipalities, for reasons which I respect, announced tax increases below four per cent. As a matter of fact, North York, I believe, announced a tax increase of less than three per cent, which is a clear indication that the support we are giving the municipalities is allowing many of them to have tax increases substantially lower than inflation.

I think that, while no one is satisfied with this budget except perhaps myself, our support is seen to be fair and equitable, and the tax changes the same. Perhaps I should save this for the honourable member’s second question, but even having to do with the personal income tax, with the change that was announced, it really means that personal income tax payable in this jurisdiction for the lower spectrum of income and middle income is the second-lowest in Canada, and I am very proud of that fact.

Mr. Brandt: And it was the lowest before you were elected. It was the lowest before you came into office.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Harris: I can appreciate, after having seen the budget, why the Premier (Mr. Peterson) was sick on Thursday and also why he does not want to defend this budget in the House today.

Mr. Speaker: The question is to whom?

Mr. Harris: I had to get that in before I suggested my question is actually for the Minister of Northern Development, concerning his frequently announced but as yet unallocated northern Ontario heritage fund.

I wonder if the minister could tell us whether the annual commitment under his heritage fund is -- not in fact $30 million, when the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) indicated $5 million would go into the northern Ontario regional development program -- for this year, a new $25 million for the fund. Could he confirm that and could he also confirm that the amount of money the government is gouging out of the north as a result of gasoline taxes and the softwood lumber tax is far more than the amount for its vaunted northern heritage fund?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I am pleased about the question from the member for Nipissing. I would like to say that what the Treasurer said was that the amount spent on Nordev is around $5 million. What happened in Nordev is that it was a program that was brought into being by Mr. Bernier as a two-year program of $10 million. We ran out of money a few years ago and we took the money from the northern development fund. Then this year, about three months ago, we ran out of money again, and I committed some money from this fund to finish the year, first of all.

Second, I am asking for a sunset review of the program. When the board is formed, if it feels the program should continue, the board will decide at that time if the Nordev program shall continue.

Third, on the gas situation, we returned to the taxpayers of this province in the north last year -- for the next five years -- over $70 million that we put aside for the roads and we added more money, another $12 million this year, from the one-cent allocation. That is my answer to the member.

Mr. Harris: I assume that the minister did not want to comment on how much the budget is gouging out of the north; that he really does not have a clue as to the impact this budget has on northern Ontario.

We will leave the Nordev program and we will leave alone the fact that the new heritage program is a $5-million cut, from $30 million to $25 million. Let me ask the minister this: As the minister representing northern Ontario, can he tell us how much more in additional taxes a northern Ontario driver will pay to his government as a result of the tax increases to the leaded and unleaded gasoline?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Premièrement, je n’ai aucune révérence, aucune qualité à apprendre du député de Nipissing (M. Harris).

1420

I would like to remind the member for Nipissing that over all their years in power, they could not even move two jobs out of Toronto. When I arrived here, on the first visit I made to the Whitney Block, they were still doing the wire-cable testing for our mines, in this building over here. They could not even move that. I want to remind the members opposite that we are moving people from here to the north.

Mr. Sterling: How much, René?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: How much? Close to 2,000, and at a price of over $200 million in buildings.

Mr. Sterling: How much will it cost, René? How much will it cost the people in the north?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Maybe half a million dollars.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Response.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Second, I do not want to answer the member for -- which riding?

Mr. Speaker: Nipissing.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Carleton or the other one. They are just saying things and they do not know what they are talking about.

At one cent a gallon, it is about $70 million. That was what we had last year and we added $70 million for the next five years on roads. Plus, when I took over the budget for the road system it was between $55 million and $60 million. This year it will be $118 million, in three years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr. Harris: I do not know whether there is anything left in the briefing book, but we will see.

I would like to point out to the minister that $124 extra is what it will cost a driver in the north who drives a car using leaded fuel, $31 if it is unleaded. The $17-million figure the minister gave out is for those motorists in the north and does not count tourists, trucking or boating. It does not count any of those things.

I want to say to the minister very specifically that, in my view, he has given a new meaning in this budget to regional development. It appears to us that with all the tax increases and how they impact on the north, with the $5-million cut in commitment to the heritage fund, with the $30.4 million per year in softwood lumber taxes not being returned, he is now taking with this budget more money from the north to support -- I do not know
-- the south, I guess.

I think it gives a new meaning to regional development and I ask the Minister of Northern Development this: in view of the fact that by any objective opinion that is what this budget does, will the minister join with his fellow northern members and lead the fight against this budget that takes money from the north?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I want to remind the member for Nipissing that he always forgets about other funds. In the north, the Northern Ontario Development Corp. is still running, which this year will lend to northern entrepreneurs close to $50 million. He forgets about the rest of the development funds: the northern Ontario tourist information centres enhancement program, the tourism redevelopment incentive program, the waterfront program and the municipal economic development agency program. I could go on and on. These are all new programs.

He forgets about the Ontario mineral exploration program which, when we took over, was about $5 million. Today --

Mr. Harris: Those are all our old programs. Were you planning to take them away?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: That is fine. The money is still there, double the money. There is close to $20 million for OMEP this year, to help the small mining companies to survive.

The member forgets about the roads. When we took over, there was $55 million; today it is $118 million, but he forgets that too. He forgets that they were building only one little airport in the north. Now we are close to three airports a year for the small communities where there are no roads. He forgets about the new schools and he forgets about the health system in the north, too. He always forgets that.

I want to remind him that in the last two years the money has been well returned to northern Ontario because we are caring for the northern people, instead of waiting --

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Treasurer, whose party, as I recall, allowed the bells to ring for four days back in 1982 when the Tories broadened the retail sales tax base. This year, the Treasurer has increased from seven to eight per cent the retail sales tax on that broadened tax base, I might add.

Why did the Treasurer increase the retail sales tax credit for everyone else except seniors and, given the fact that seniors are the poorest group in our society, why did he not double the sales tax credit for seniors in this budget?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We examined the program that is available for seniors at the present time, beginning with the payouts that assist seniors to the extent of $600 each in paying the tax on --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It was $500 for 10 years.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No, $600 for each year to pay their land taxes and their local property taxes. We have a wide array of programs involving free Ontario health insurance plan coverage and free drugs. We have a payment to assist in their sales tax, which stays the same as it was -- the honourable member is correct in that -- and we feel that the array of programs is adequate and appropriate.

Mr. Laughren: I am sure the Treasurer does feel that they are appropriate. The Treasurer should know as well that since those programs were put in for seniors, they have been devalued by about 40 per cent simply by the cost of inflation.

Given the fact that the Treasurer’s new retail sales tax is going to bring in close to $1 billion in a fiscal year, could the Treasurer tell us in plain and simple terms, since the value of those credits for seniors has been depreciated over the years and since there are enormous new revenues in this budget, why he singled out the seniors and discriminated against them in a way that he has not for people under the age of 65?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The question is the same as the first and my answer is somewhat similar to my answer to the original question, which is that we have assessed the value of the programs available for seniors, which are very rich by any kind of account, and we think they are adequate and appropriate. We feel the commitment made by the government from the budget for the support of senior citizens in the province is a good one. We are very proud of it and feel it is sufficient at this time.

Mr. Harris: I have a question to the Premier. The Liberals were full of advice and beating on their chests about what they would do in 1982 if they had been the government. Back then, they wanted an exemption on sales tax on items purchased by municipalities, boards and agencies for public purposes.

In fact, I have a letter here to mayors, reeves and school board chairmen of Ontario municipalities signed by David Peterson, which said, “My colleagues and I are deeply concerned about the implications of this budget, with the further shift to the property tax base and the impact it will have on the cost to municipalities and school boards across the province.”

Back then, the Premier wanted an exemption on sales taxes to municipalities and school boards and agencies like hospitals. Can he tell us what has changed since the Premier’s letter of 1982?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer can answer the honourable member.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I remember the letter well. It was in the days when the support for school boards from the government of the day was totally inadequate. It was almost unbelievable that under those circumstances the then Treasurer, Frank Miller, would impose sales tax on the materials purchased for educational purposes.

We have felt that it is much better to go forward with an appropriate funding of the school system. The school boards are able to meet their commitment. We should remember that since that time salaries have assumed a much larger proportion of the cost of education and that while we are always prepared in the future to review the position of sales tax, particularly since the government of Canada has indicated that it is going to go very strongly and firmly into sales tax at that level, there will be plenty of opportunity to review it in the future.

Mr. Harris: I know the Treasurer would not want the House to be left with anything other than the absolute facts. Back in 1982, as he talked about, education funding from the province was well over 50 per cent. Now it is down around 41 per cent. So the Treasurer’s argument about the impact surely must mean that it is a much bigger hardship today than it was back in 1982.

1430

Back in 1982, the honourable member was very concerned about sales tax. In fact, he wanted an exemption of sales tax on labour for repairs and maintenance of personal property. He is a member of the government now and has been for three years. This is his fourth budget. He has come in with a sales tax hike. Is he no longer concerned about an exemption of sales tax on labour for repairs and maintenance of personal property?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We have made substantial changes in the base broadening that the Conservative Party was responsible for back in 1981-82. I have already indicated that it was the largest single tax grab in the history of the province, amounting really to 50 per cent more, on the basis of its share of gross provincial product, than the rather restrained approach taken by the budget last week.

Interjections.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Well, comparatively constrained.

I simply refer the honourable member to a statement made on June 1, 1982, by his present leader, who was in those days a rather junior member of the government caucus, when he said: “What we must face is the reality. What we are prepared to face on this side, in support of the increased sales tax, is the reality,” whatever that meant.

Mr. Brandt: Is that the best quote you can come up with?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

PREPAID SERVICES

Mr. Matrundola: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister is aware that more than 40 fitness clubs have closed down in Ontario in the last four years, affecting thousands of people, the most recent one being the Sheppard Club. According to a major daily newspaper last week, the Sheppard Club left over 2,000 prepaid members angry, confused and demanding refunds. No reason appears to have been given as to why it closed, and the club appears to have no financial problems.

As this club is in the heart of my riding, I would like to ask the minister if he is investigating why this club suddenly closed and if there is anything the ministry can do to assist the members of the Sheppard Club, many of whom may have lost considerable sums of money.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I thank the member for Willowdale for that question. I know a number of those who were victimized by the closing of this club have been in touch with him and with his office. I can tell the honourable member that the investigation into the closing of the club is still under way. It appears that the closing has more to do with the failure of the club ownership to negotiate a new lease on the site, but we continue to look into that.

We will endeavour to mediate where appropriate, to attempt to get refunds for the 500 or so members of that club who are active; but I can say to the honourable member that unlike many of the other closings in the past, there do not appear to be large sums of money in that the longest lease was one year and some were working on a month-to-month basis.

Mr. Matrundola: Can the minister advise the House as to when we can expect Bill 26, An Act to regulate Prepaid Services, to be in place to protect the members of other such clubs who may be in a parallel situation?

Would the minister support an amendment to this legislation: (a) requiring these clubs to file annual financial statements with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations in order to identify potential problem areas; and (b) that those members whose membership expired more than six months after the expiry date of the lease be so advised in order that a member or prospective member will be aware of the potential sudden termination of his membership?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I can say to the honourable member that the government House leader is certainly aware of the fact that we are prepared to proceed. I am certainly prepared to proceed at any time. The bill is before the House now. At the appropriate time in our very heavy legislative agenda, I hope we can get on with the passage of the Prepaid Services Act, 1987.

In response to the member’s question on a financial statement, I can tell him that in this very, very loose industry with many, many members, we took a look at that, and I am not sure we would not be creating a bit of a regulatory nightmare. This is why the legislation that now is before the House attempts to limit the liability of any member to a certain number of maximums. Members of these clubs are advised not to sink too many dollars into them. It may be very difficult to follow the procedure the honourable member desires.

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities who fared so badly with the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) in this budget. I wonder if I can remind the minister of the fact that on March 23 she received a report from the six presidents of community colleges in the western region of the province, who were worried about their deficits and suggested that perhaps as many as 18 of our 22 community colleges may be in a deficit situation this year because of inadequate funding from this government.

Can the minister tell me, in answer to these three associated points, what is the total projected deficit that she knows of, how many jobs are in jeopardy and how many programs may be cut?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: It would be impossible to provide the specific answers to the questions the member has asked because of the very nature of college governance and management and the fact that the board of governors of each of the colleges is dealing with its particular operating situation. Some of those colleges are facing some difficulties this year.

I can certainly address the fact that there are colleges which are experiencing some problems. There are problems related to the fact that certain colleges are experiencing declines in enrolments and have been over some years. There is also pressure created for the colleges because of the fact that federal program support for skills training programs has changed dramatically. A specific statistic I can give the member this afternoon is the 4.5 decrease in federal support for the colleges. Their guaranteed support is more like 20 per cent down.

The fact is that those colleges that are facing difficult situations are looking at ways in which their budgets can be adjusted and at ways in which their programs may have to be adjusted to reflect changing needs.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister is also aware that it is pretty hard to match salary projections when her ministry passed along only a two per cent increase last year for those colleges to meet their salary needs.

Can she tell me just how many colleges are in the same position as Niagara College, which is now listing cutting programs in September for survey technician, mechanical engineering and drafting design, bilingual secretary, theatre arts, dental hygiene, library technician, labour studies in college and vocational programs; especially when she, in her response to a question on accessibility, suggested that perhaps the colleges are the place for kids to go? How can they go there when there are no programs?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I would like to remind the honourable member opposite that we have increased operating support for colleges in the past three years by some 35.6 per cent. I do not think that reflects a lack of commitment to the college system.

I would also like to stress the fact that there is a very different factor operating from college to college across the province. While some of the colleges are experiencing declines in enrolment, there are other colleges that are experiencing increases. One of the ways in which we attempt to provide differential support is through a funding formula that provides a college with two years to recognize whether a decline is an ongoing pattern or whether there can be an increase in enrolment, before the funding formula begins to shift.

We are working very carefully with Niagara College, which the member has mentioned, because of the specific problems it is identifying. We are also undertaking, on a longer term, a review of the weighting factors that it may be necessary to change in order to protect certain programs.

The honourable member was quite right when he indicated that I am concerned about the viability of a total spectrum of post-secondary education. It is in that context that the Council of Regents is reviewing the role of colleges and making recommendations to us.

1440

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ENFORCEMENT

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Attorney General. It concerns the support and custody enforcement branch within his ministry. There are several gentlemen in the gallery today who have received threatening warnings from this branch for being in arrears of child support payments. In fact, some have had their wages garnisheed by 50 per cent; that is, 50 per cent of their wages or salary has been subtracted from their take-home pay. The fact is that they were not in arrears and have proof of this, proof which the minister’s officials refuse to believe. What action is the Attorney General taking to redress these actions by his officials?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Of course, these issues come before the court in enforcement matters, but if my honourable friend is concerned and would be good enough to give me the names, I would be glad to look into it and see that no injustice is done.

The honourable member will want to remember that the orders we are talking about enforcing are orders made by a judge after a full hearing in which both sides have been heard. When we came into office, it was a shocking fact that these orders, which in 90 per cent of the cases involve minor children, were unpaid to the extent of 80 per cent across the province. We elected to see what we could do to remedy that situation.

The honourable member will be interested to know that, in the 10 months of operation of the program, 25,000 people, 90 per cent of whom have minor children, have voluntarily registered under the program. We want to do no injustice to anybody who is wronged, but I am proud to say that in those 10 months over $25 million has been collected.

Mr. Cousens: It is not a good scene now because the branch is assuming guilt when it goes after payment from those they are told are behind in their payments. Provincial judges have gone on record as being very concerned with the actions of the Attorney General’s ministry, with the extreme measures it is taking to follow up for money from those who are already paid up.

On the one hand, while these men have faced major problems with his ministry, at the same time they are being denied access to their children; and to be denied access to their children is exceedingly unfair and frustrating. What is the Attorney General doing to right this situation and to enforce the access provisions that these men are legally entitled to?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not know the individual cases the honourable member refers to. If he would like to give me the names, I will be glad to see what I can do. I do want to emphasize one thing that I think most members of the House agree with me on, and that is that it was critically important in this province to break the connection between access and maintenance and support. That has now been done. As I say, we are not enforcing the will of some creditor; we are enforcing, for the most part, a court order, made after full hearing, which has not been paid.

The judges, the honourable member will want to know, are not critical of that. What they are critical of, interestingly enough, is the refusal of the program to modify or reduce the entitlement and thereby avoid the necessity of going to court. I do not hesitate to say that my instructions to our staff are that these court orders, in so far as the law allows, are going to be enforced, because 90 per cent of them involve young children. I do not hesitate to say that this is an important program that I think all members of the House should support.

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. Dietsch: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister will be aware that there is a committee headed up by his ministry to negotiate a transition program for the grape industry in Ontario. My understanding is that that committee has not finalized its report. However, the federal member, Rob Nicholson, explained to a number of grape growers in my riding that there was a federal commitment to this transition program already in place. Can the minister please clarify that position?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: In the midst of ongoing negotiations by this committee, composed of a federal member from Agriculture Canada, a provincial member of my ministry, representatives of the grape growers and also the Wine Council of Ontario, this Conservative federal member decided to release a report that did not seem to have any origin. I say that, for I made a call to the federal Minister of Agriculture, John Wise, asking about this report, and John stated quite emphatically that the report did not emanate from his office.

I must also say that the officials of the Department of Agriculture are more than annoyed at this federal member’s releasing information when he really did not have factual information to release.

Mr. Dietsch: After reading in the Toronto Star this morning what the federal government has done to British Columbia growers and to some of the growers in Ontario, can the minister indicate to me if there has been any federal commitment or if there will be a federal commitment to this transition program?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: All I can say is that there has been no policy submitted to the federal cabinet. As a matter of fact, according to the record of the House of Commons debate, this question was asked in the House on April 21 by Mr. Riis: “Since the Prime Minister identified that there would be compensation packages for those who are hurt by the deal” -- and I trust he meant the free trade deal -- “will the Prime Minister explain just what the compensation package will be and when the actual details will be made known?”

The Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable John Wise, responded to the question. After commenting on this one family that was being driven out of business in British Columbia, he ended his comments by saying, “We should be in a position very shortly to make some recommendations to the government.”

It is obvious that decisions are being made in Ottawa based on a pending election. I sincerely hope the Prime Minister does not play politics with the grape growers of this province.

SENIOR CITIZENS’ TAX GRANTS

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Treasurer. As he knows, we have over a million seniors in this province, many of whom live below the poverty line and have great difficulty in making ends meet.

In his billion-dollar, post-election tax grab last Wednesday, why did the Treasurer let the corporations off with no tax increase and give them all sorts of grants and concessions when, at the same time, he hit all seniors with a 15 per cent increase in sales tax -- and only a token increase in the sales tax rebate -- and did not substantially step up funding for services to help seniors stay in their own homes and out of costly institutional care? Why did he do that in his budget?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member, with her professional background in finance, particularly at the government level, should be able to observe the program that a variety of ministries offers to seniors in a more comprehensive way. She would know that last year the budget increased seniors’ grants for property taxes to $600 from $500, and they have a wide variety of assistance involving free OHIP and free drugs, as well as access to the programs that are available to most other citizens in this regard.

It is true the sales tax credit for seniors was left at $50, because we felt, on balance, looking at the value of expanded programs that the last few budgets brought forward, that it was fair and equitable so to do.

Ms. Bryden: The Treasurer has confirmed that there is no increase in the sales tax rebate for seniors. That was not clear from the budget. It said $100 for every man and woman and $50 for every child, subject, of course, to very strict income tests.

1450

The Treasurer mentioned the property tax credit, which is a special credit for seniors and is supposed to help relieve them from the burden of property taxes and school board taxes due to inflation and the shifting of more provincial responsibilities to local governments. Property taxes are going up every year. Why did the Treasurer not include in his budgetary largess an indexing of the property tax grant to seniors, so that as taxes rise at the municipal level, the seniors will not be forced out of their homes and into expensive institutional care?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Last year we improved the property tax grant by 20 per cent. We felt that would be a useful improvement for a period of time. We also have a program, one of the better ones that we inherited from the previous administration, for senior citizens’ housing, which up until recently was substantially funded by the federal government and is now largely funded provincially. As well, in most communities senior citizen facilities -- small apartments which are designed to keep them in independent living with, in some instances, specific assistance -- has been well accepted and well received.

Most people who look at the programs available federally, provincially and municipally for senior citizens feel that, compared with most other jurisdictions, we are fair and equitable in our responses to their requirements.

ONTARIO SHARE AND DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORP.

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. It is a question that was asked last week and still is unanswered. For the minister’s benefit, I will repeat it. Can the minister explain why he and the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) have rejected the suggestions of the Ontario caisses populaires regarding the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corp.?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I want to turn up some details, but I will be able to provide them in a letter to the honourable member. Members may recall that when the question was asked last week I was critical, perhaps needlessly critical; it was asked with five seconds remaining in the question period. I fully expected the question to be asked the next day, but it was not.

In response to the question by the honourable member, I can tell him that the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corp. acts independently in dealing with credit unions and caisses populaires and that, in the instance of Caisse populaire Windsor, after the independent assessment of the circumstances, it was seen by the officials at OSDIC that it should not be further supported but in fact it should be wound down; that this began two weeks ago; that every deposit is fully insured; that there will be no further deposits taken but it will be open for business for as much as 12 months; and that they are assisting it in every way they possibly can to get the services of other credit unions and caisse populaires or banking institutions nearby.

Mr. Villeneuve: There are still many, many unanswered questions revolving around this particular issue. In view of the answer the Treasurer has just given, would he not agree now to appoint an independent audit to see exactly what happened in the case of the caisse populaire in Windsor?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member, having followed it rather closely, will know that the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corp. moved in to assist Caisse populaire Windsor as far back as 1982 with $3 million; still the caisse populaire showed its support in the community and its administration to continue to have some problems, and I believe at the most recent audit last August it had gone into arrears by about $1.5 million. It was on that basis that the decision was made by OSDIC to wind it down.

I say again that no deposits are at risk and that, in that instance, all individuals will be safeguarded.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Solicitor General. For many months, the opposition has been trying to show that this government is taking a province that is closed on Sundays and trying to give the responsibility of opening on Sundays to the local municipalities, and yet across the whole of Ontario we have many examples of municipalities that are already open; some have been open for many years. I can only assume from what the opposition is saying that we are trying to take a situation where the municipalities are open illegally --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Owen: My question to the minister is, if we are trying to throw this responsibility on to the municipalities, if they already open legally, how on earth did these municipalities ever get opened up in the first place? Who was responsible for doing this to us in the first place?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would have to point out that, indeed, the local municipalities do already have an option to open their municipalities to a large degree or a small degree, as they wish, but they have to do it in a rather back-door way which they do by proclaiming themselves or some part of the municipality to be a tourist exemption.

I believe there is one municipality in the member’s own area, Innisfil, which has declared itself a tourist exemption. This is obviously an abuse of the intention of the law as it was, and we are trying now to make it a fair, more meaningful approach so that municipalities can indeed use the option they now have in a fairer and more open way and decide either to open or to close as they see fit for their proper municipality.

Mr. Owen: Again, the opposition has been trying to portray this government as --

Mr. Harris: Incompetent nincompoops.

Mr. Owen: They are giving the perception that this government is trying to force everyone to be open.

Mr. Harris: He was stumped for a word. I was trying to help him.

Mr. Owen: I would like to ask the minister, is this government going to leave these municipalities which have already opened under legislation introduced by a previous government, or are we going to say to these municipalities under the proposed package, “You still have to readdress what you have done in the past”? Are we showing from what we are proposing --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard a question or two in there.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Yes, indeed. Within five years from when the bill is passed, municipalities will have to address the problem of whether they have allowed abuses to come in and may indeed end up closing rather than opening stores where these abuses have occurred. Furthermore, we have attempted to make the law much more enforceable. Municipalities will be able to collect much increased fines, and in fact if their own bylaws are broken they will be able to keep those fines. The law will permit stores to be closed down when they break the law, which is not presently permitted, and roping off and other such abuses will be done away with.

HOME CARE

Mr. Allen: I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services with regard to the homemaker program. I note that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) stated in a release in September 1987: “This year we have committed ourselves to introducing the program to 28 centres that serve communities and their surrounding areas; 18 of these are already operational.” The minister will know that at this point in time there are only 18 such centres being served. Already the government has broken its own promise of September 1987. At the same time, I have a memorandum that went out not long back to co-ordinators in the integrated homemaker program from Gerald Duda, assistant deputy minister, community services division, in which he refers to “prematurely capping this new program before it has become well established and mature.”

Will the minister tell us that in fact a promise has been broken, but also, secondly, whether he will not endeavour in some fashion to meet that promise in this coming year? Will he be adding new centres to this program despite the fact that the system has been capped?

1500

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I believe that if the honourable member examines the whole statement, he will notice that the Premier indicated that the 38 centres would be completed by 1990, I believe the date was. He also will be aware of the fact that because a number of the 18 centres presently operating in fact ran short of money before their last fiscal year was out, they individually capped the program. We turned around very quickly after that, flowed extra money to them and told them to uncap it from that point.

I am not able to tell the honourable member how quickly we will be able to move into new programs, but my understanding is that the commitment of the Premier of 1990 for the entire program is still there.

Mr. Allen: It is interesting that we got only less than two thirds of the way to the initial program commitment for this year. We will have to take the minister’s word for it as to what the longer-term objective will be and we will have to measure him against that. But he knows that the health care system, and the seniors care system in general, is bottled up at the point where it meets the emerging home care system. There are something like 382 people in some eight hospitals that we surveyed recently who are needing chronic care and extended care beds. A recent report from the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) tells us that half the people in nursing homes and homes for the aged should not be there. There is a backup, which obviously leads us to the home care system and the homemaker system.

Mr. Speaker: Would you have a question?

Mr. Allen: We know that is not even serving the people in the community who are demanding it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Have you a question?

Mr. Allen: How can the minister and his assistants be requesting, and I quote, “that you instruct your staff to flat-line admissions and case load, limiting new clients to those who urgently require service in order to avoid imminent institutionalization,” when the need is so apparent across the whole system for these services?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will recall that the priority reason for introducing the integrated homemaker program was in fact to prevent or at least to delay the movement of seniors and disabled people in the communities into an institutional setting. That was the first purpose of it. There were others, but that was the first one. Therefore, it does not seem unreasonable that we would advise the various municipalities that have the program that if they are having funding problems, surely their first clients would be those who have a most imminent possibility of moving into an institutional setting.

I do not apologize for that. That is not enough, but certainly if the total money flowing to them is not enough to meet everybody’s needs -- and it is not -- then surely that is the priority group to deal with. It makes sense to me.

PETITIONS

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. Adams: I have a petition from health care workers and others who are concerned about an open forum to be held by the College of Nurses of Ontario in Peterborough on Wednesday. It reads as follows:

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

‘We strongly disagree with the college of nurses’ proposed standards and levels of nursing practice. The college has been conducting information sessions around the province the past several months and will be in Peterborough on April 27. Many questions and concerns have not been addressed following these sessions.

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

“We urge the college of nurses to cease and desist in promulgating such divisive acts.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Swart: I have just one short petition on Sunday shopping, which comes from a group that we have never heard from, I think, in this House to date. It is a petition which reads as follows:

“To the Lieutenant Governor, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and Premier Peterson:

“We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to stop Sunday shopping now.

“Our hearts hurt a lot to think you people forgot about us children, who will suffer if our mommies and daddies work on Sundays. We are very proud of our mommies and daddies working in the stores, even though they sometimes work till 9 p.m. and we are in bed.

“How many of you people have children they like spending time with? Don’t we as children have any rights? Us children have lots of responsibilities. What about times with our mommies and daddies? Sundays are days that me and my family spend time together, biking, playing catch and tickle time. If you say yes, that is just taking away all our fun.

“We beg of you to stop and listen to the children crying. Stop and remember us children before you say yes to Sunday shopping, so none of us will be hurt.”

They have done some real artwork here showing the children crying. This is signed by eight children in the Welland area.

Mr. Speaker: Have you added your own signature?

Mr. Swart: I might add it now.

SUTTON DAM

Mr. Ballinger: The folks in the town of Georgina in my riding are sick and tired of the petitions on Sunday shopping. I have one here on another topic.

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

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

“We, the undersigned, petition David Peterson, Premier of the province of Ontario, to intercede with the Ministry of Natural Resources to allow the Sutton dam to be replaced.”

There are 1,287 names.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Harris: I have six petitions on Sunday shopping, similar to the ones I have tabled before on behalf of a number of residents of Nipissing. One has about 50 or 60 names; one has about 25; one has about 100 or so; another one has about 25; one has another 52; and one has approximately 30. They all petition the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas Premier David Peterson’s plan to change retail store hours,” etc. Some of them are a little different, but really they are all the same. To save the time of this House, I would like to table those, all on the issue of Sunday shopping.

Mr. Philip: “To the Lieutenant Governor and members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas Father O’Malley has expressed grave disappointment with the actions of young Sean Conway, a former altar boy, in voting for Sunday shopping;

“Whereas we share this disappointment, we urge the government not to pursue in its action and we urge Mr. Conway to confess his transgressions. “

I have signed the petition, along with others.

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads in part:

“It is very seldom that I write letters to elected representatives, but at this time I feel I am compelled to let you know how disappointed I am in the Liberal government and their approach to dumping the controversial seven-day retail issues on to the municipalities. When one travels to the United States as much as I do, I see the effect an open Sunday has on society. It makes you proud to come home and to be a Canadian. Now that I have voiced my concern, I hope that the provincial government will act responsibly and makes a decision in favour of no seven-day retailing.”

It is signed by R. Merle Zorbe, 1505 Glenburnie Road, Mississauga, 15G 3C9. I am happy to lend my support to this viewpoint.

Mr. Speaker: It sounded like a letter. Was that an original petition?

Mrs. Marland: Yes.

Mr. McLean: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I was just curious if the Legislature will be adjourning according to the clock on the end.

Mr. Speaker: There is a little trouble with the clock. I think we will go by the clock on the side of the chamber.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Fleet from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr5, An Act respecting The Chartered Institute of Marketing Management of Ontario;

Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the Ontario Municipal Management Institute;

Bill Pr29, An Act respecting The United Church of Canada and The Canada Conference The Evangelical United Brethren Church;

Bill Pr37, An Act respecting the University of Western Ontario;

Bill Pr67, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Your committee further recommends that Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the Driving School Association of Ontario, be not reported.

Motion agreed to.

1510

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Sorbara moved first reading of Bill 114, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

1530

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Sorbara’s motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Bradley, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cordiano, Curling, Dietsch, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Fontaine, Furlong, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Hart, Henderson, Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, Kwinter, LeBourdais, Leone, Lipsett, Lupusella;

MacDonald, Mahoney, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, R. F., Offer, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Oddie Munro, Owen, Patten, Pelissero, Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Ruprecht, Scott, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Ward, Wilson.

Nays

Allen, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cunningham, Eves, Farnan, Grier, Harris, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, McCague, Philip, E., Pollock, Pouliot, Rae, B., Reville, Sterling, Swart, Villeneuve.

Ayes 76; nays 25.

TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT CONSTRUCTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Sorbara moved first reading of Bill 115, An Act to provide for Construction Work in Connection with the Toronto Economic Summit.

Motion agreed to.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND ACT / LOI SUR LE FONDS PATRIMONIAL DU NORD DE L’ONTARIO

Hon. Mr. Fontaine moved first reading of Bill 116, An Act respecting the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund.

L’hon. M. Fontaine propose la première lecture du projet de loi 116, Loi concernant le Fonds patrimonial du Nord de l’Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

ONTARIO LOAN ACT

Hon. R. F. Nixon moved first reading of Bill 117, An Act to authorize the raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. R. F. Nixon moved first reading of Bill 118, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act.

Motion agreed to.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. R. F. Nixon moved first reading of Bill 119, An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act.

1602

The House divided on Hon. Mr. R. F. Nixon’s motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

MacDonald, Mahoney, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, R. F., Offer, O’Neil, H., Oddie Munro, Owen, Patten, Pelissero, Phillips, G., Poole, Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Ruprecht, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Wilson.

Nays

Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cunningham, Eves, Farnan, Grier, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, McCague, McLean, Philip, E., Pollock, Pouliot, Rae, B., Reville, Sterling, Swart, Villeneuve.

Ayes 72; nays 27.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 120, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.

Motion agreed to.

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 121, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act.

1609

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Grandmaître’s motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

MacDonald, Mahoney, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, R. F., Oddie Munro, Offer, O’Neil H., Owen, Patten, Pelissero, Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Ruprecht, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Wilson.

Nays

Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cunningham, Eves, Farnan, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, McCague, McLean, Philip, E., Pollock, Pouliot, Rae, B., Reville, Sterling, Swart, Villeneuve.

Ayes 73; nays 26.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 122, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

1656

The House divided on Mr. Grandmaître’s motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Bossy, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cordiano, Curling, Dietsch, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Fontaine, Furlong, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Hart, Henderson, Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, Kwinter, LeBourdais, Leone, Lipsett, Lupusella;

MacDonald, Mahoney, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, R. F., Offer, O’Neil, H., Oddie Munro, Owen, Patten, Pelissero, Phillips, G., Poole, Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Ruprecht, Scott, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Wilson.

Nays

Allen, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cunningham, Eves, Farnan, Grier, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland, McCague, McLean, Philip, E., Pollock, Pouliot, Rae, B., Reville, Runciman, Swart, Villeneuve.

Ayes 71; nays 27.

INFORMED CHOICE BY PATIENTS ACT

Mr. Dietsch moved first reading of Bill 123, An Act for Informed Choice by Patients.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Dietsch: The bill establishes several administrative procedures governing the performance of abortions in Ontario. The bill requires that a patient be provided with information concerning the life condition of an unborn child, the risk that may result from the abortion and the social services available to care for the child before consenting to the abortion operation. The bill also provides that no physician or nurse shall be dismissed or disciplined for the refusal to participate in an abortion because of objections based on moral or ethical grounds.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET RESOLUTION

Hon. R. F. Nixon moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Conway, that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

BUDGET DEBATE

Hon. R. F. Nixon: This would be an appropriate time for some of the honourable members to undertake other business without offending me in any way.

I had thought at one stage of reading the budgetary address and then, out of mercy for all my friends and colleagues in the House, I decided that perhaps I would leave it as deemed, a public document, and perhaps make a few informal comments about the advantages of support for the motion, which we think is going to be an extremely valuable one indeed.

Mr. Laughren: Why is the cabinet leaving?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Because they have very good judgement.

Mr. Laughren: Why is Sterling leaving?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Does the official opposition not have anything else to do at all? All right. Actually, I am delighted they are staying because I feel the debate can be quite constructive and useful, much more constructive and useful than the tactic the official opposition has used until the present time. It seems to me that democrats, old or new --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It happened in 1982.

Mr. Laughren: His neck is getting red.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to remind some of the members of standing order 24(b). I think you have heard that before. If a member is speaking, no other member shall interrupt, except on a point of order.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: But Mr. Speaker, you should remind them of what they did in 1982.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I feel that when one party interrupts and obstructs the business of the House, it is tantamount to a hijacking of democracy. I think we are aware that no party is without fault in this connection, but that does not mean we can base the future on past mistakes. Now that the New Democratic Party has joined all of the unwashed partisans who have experimented with undemocratic procedures in the past, we can all join together as thinking citizens and members of this Legislature and undertake some sort of reasonable approach to the conduct of public business.

We are here as a government to propose, and the members of the Legislature to dispose as they see fit. It is up to us in serving the crown to put forward a program both of legislation and for taxing and expenditure, and all honourable members then have an opportunity to support it with their views or criticize it as they choose, and finally to vote for or against the program of the government.

There is nothing the matter with that process and I heartily recommend it to the honourable members. The arbitrary use of arcane aspects of our rules to hold up the public business of this House should certainly be stopped. As soon as the honourable members on all sides can reach some sort of suitable agreement, then I would suggest it come forward.

I want to commend the third party for its sensible approach to this situation.

Mr. Brandt: Stop, stop, Bob.

Mr. Jackson: You’re on TV. Stop right there.

Interjections.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Well, I think it is quite appropriate that the House leader for the New Democratic Party is retreating in embarrassment since it appears that he and the overpaid minions of democratic socialism who worked up this particular plot should suffer some embarrassment at the hands of the public.

I just want to recall an occasion some years ago when the Liberals as official opposition did something similar. In those days, the NDP had third-party status. It is quite easy to be holier than the rest of the members of the Legislature when you are at the bottom. That was the position of the NDP was in those days. I remember their righteous speeches about any party that would ever ring the bells and therefore impede the proper unfolding of the business of the House.

I guess my point returns to the original one: None of us is pure in this, but I think that perhaps it would be wise, now that we have put all those puerile and banal alternatives behind us, that we could then approach the solution to an improvement in the rules of the House that would benefit all sides. I believe that most earnestly and I hope the honourable members would give it that consideration.

There are three things about the budget that I would like to deal with in particular during my brief remarks. The purpose of the budget was threefold. The first purpose was to prepare the province for the future in the increased competitiveness that has been brought to public attention by the Premier’s Council on technology.

The honourable members who have read the statement as carefully as I know they would, realize that the budget includes at least three specific initiatives recommended by the Premier’s Council. He has gathered in that council representatives of the academic community who are capable, independent and outstanding in their abilities; a number of individuals representing the business community who, once again are quite independent and put forward rather strong views as to what the business community and the economy of the province would benefit from particularly; and a selection of cabinet ministers whose policies would affect the matter particularly and directly.

They have indicated a certain weakness in the economy of Ontario based on our lack of productivity. We have been extremely fortunate during the past few years that there have been offsetting circumstances that have masked our rather unproductive manufacturing basis. The fact that the Canadian dollar until the last few weeks has been very cheap vis-à-vis the American dollar has meant that our competitive stance has been advantageous in the extreme. The world price of petroleum, which took a dramatic fall two and a half years ago has also been advantageous for our industry. As a matter of fact, in the $6-billion bill for petroleum resources utilized in Ontario, almost $2 billion was saved by the reduction in oil prices and almost all of that went into the capital expansion of our manufacturing and business capability.

1710

These two features came together with growth in the world economy to allow the economy of this particular jurisdiction to grow as fast as or faster than any of the noncentrally planned economies. We have been particularly advantageous because the costs of manufacturing have been extremely low here.

Although our workforce has been well qualified and productive as individuals, still the investment in the manufacturing community has left a good deal to be desired. Compared with most other countries and many industries in those countries, our advantage, based on the low Canadian dollar and low energy prices, has outweighed this lack of productivity that the Premier’s Council has brought to our attention.

In order to at least begin the compensation for that, the budget brings forward a new program in support of research and development which is funded in the first year to the extent of $45 million. This may or may not be adequate, but at least it is a substantial impetus to the improvement of research in Ontario and the utilization of the research in the industries concerned.

We have also put considerably more resources into skills development and training and at the university and college level, so that the research that is going on in this jurisdiction and in other jurisdictions can be passed on in a practical way to young people who are just now completing their education. Only by having a large number of these people adequately educated can we really pass on the information and improve the productivity and competitiveness of our industry.

In order to strengthen that, we have a new program which assists industry, particularly small industry and emerging industry, to hire these technicians coming out of our colleges and universities. The cost of the program is large but, we think, reasonably balanced with the need to see that the economy in general has access to this emerging technology.

In addition, we have a program to assist in the development of new technology in Ontario that can be used in the public sector. The province alone commits many of its resources, a good number of dollars of its resources, to the purchase of specialized computer hardware and software, communications technology, all of which costs a lot of money. While these are purchased on open and competitive bids in the time-honoured tradition, still we feel that some local industries and research capabilities could be strengthened to make them more competitive in that regard.

We feel that one of the most important thrusts of this budget is to spend money to improve our competitive stance. Members are aware that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has taken a very effective lead in this, not only as chairman of the council but also in moving around the Pacific Rim and in Europe, stimulating the ability of the province to compete in international markets.

We think this is important. While we support an improvement in trade with the United States, as long as it does not involve the present free trade deal, which we think is inadequate, we are also looking much more strongly towards improving trade with other nations in the world. We think that is our future, that we in Ontario are the traders in a trading nation and that the basis of our economy rests on our ability to compete both now and in the future.

The second thrust in the budget was to pay for the costs of improving the quality of our public structures and facilities associated with modern education and the provision of health services. Those are the two principal ones, and perhaps I should add a third as one of the important ones -- certainly it is important -- and that is the provision of housing.

The list becomes very long when you see the initiatives in the budget, including strong new measures to improve the environment, to provide support for the agricultural community and to develop the north, where we are spending very large additional sums of money in order to give northerners their place in the emerging economy of Ontario and Canada. This particular commitment, particularly in post-secondary education and in grades 1 and 2, is costly, and we are doing it not just over a one-year period but on a planned basis over four to five years.

For too long the universities and school boards have had to deal on a year-to-year basis with the budgetary decisions dictated from Queen’s Park. We feel that, particularly for capital purposes, it is essential that school boards and the boards of trustees of universities and hospitals as well know what their capital commitment will be for three or four years in the future.

I look around for the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), who is even now preparing an announcement in the near future for the capital that will be available to the communities in building new schools in this fiscal year and next. We think it is essential that the school boards and those with community responsibilities have a longer planning spectrum in order that they can consult with the community and perhaps even object to decisions taken at the centre if they feel they do not recognize the needs in their specific area.

These programs have been expanded substantially in the last three years. I have tried to indicate in the budget statement itself the rate of expansion based on a per cent growth going back three years, and in many instances the per cent growth is very impressive indeed.

There are those, in fact, benighted enough to think these expenditures are perhaps higher than they might be. We are concerned about the efficiency of the expenditure of public dollars, of course, but we also feel that we could not continue at the rate of spending that we inherited.

As a matter of fact, in the case of post-secondary education, on a per capita basis the expenditure in Ontario was 10th out of 10 in Canada. While it is not fair for us to compare ourselves with Prince Edward Island or perhaps some other provinces where the situation is entirely different, still it is strange indeed that when we compare ourselves with British Columbia and Quebec, we are somehow still far behind in the application of public dollars for these essential community requirements.

I have been much struck by the view of the third party that somehow we in Ontario are still spending too much money. On a per capita basis in the totem-pole of provinces in Canada, we are number seven. I pointed that out in the budget, indicating that six provinces are ahead of us in per capita expenditure across the board. We have moved a little bit in that particular level of comparison, but not very much; in my view, not as much as we should and not as much as I hope we will in the future. It is not necessary for us to spend more than any other province, but I do feel that when the pressure is on us, as members of the Legislature, to properly and adequately provide for our schools and for our hospitals, our roads and our environmental programs, our farmers and northern development, we should be seen to be making appropriate allocations.

The second thrust, then, is to properly maintain the funding for quality education and good health care. Perhaps I should dwell on that for a moment. I was quite struck by an article by Orland French in this morning’s Globe and Mail which read quite carefully the budgetary paper on health expenditure. That paper was not designed to draw any particular conclusions except those inherent in the figures that were provided. They show the rapid growth of health care in the cost and, actually, in the quality of what is provided.

With an ageing population -- and I know all about that, since I am sort of on the leading edge -- there is more and more requirement for things which 10 years ago were medical miracles. Today these are routine, and people my age and with my particular proclivities tend to accept a triple bypass as being as ordinary as we used to accept tonsillectomies, except that they are a lot more costly, and that is the sort of thing that is adding to these costs.

The doctors themselves have accounted for a very large, substantial increase in the costs of the provision of medical care. Members are aware that last year there was a settlement with the doctors of just over four per cent. We provided for a seven per cent utilization increase factor, which meant that in last year’s budget there was about 11 per cent for increased costs of the provision of medical services, doctors’ services. In the event, these costs have actually increased by about 13 per cent.

1720

Members will notice, in the fourth quarter report that is part of the budget, that we have overexpended last June’s budget by about $180 million. If we were to criticize the doctors and say they should not be billing so much, their appropriate response would be that they bill for services from residents of Ontario who go to the doctors for the services that are available. These services are much more extensive and certainly more expensive.

The costs of the drugs involved are rising very rapidly. This is a matter of concern to the whole community, and certainly to members of this House, not the least the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan).

I think it was worth while putting those numbers forward in the same way that the costs of education, without drawing any particular conclusions, were placed also in the budget papers, an indication that now in education 80 per cent of the money made available is used for salaries. We have teachers who are among the highest paid in Canada, and certainly in this large jurisdiction that amounts to a good deal of money indeed.

Our pupil-teacher ratios vary depending upon the community. I was interested to see that not all our communities have as low pupil-teacher ratios as I expected, but if we combine high salaries, which is appropriate with well-trained and competent teachers who are effective in providing educational leadership, with a low pupil-teacher ratio, we certainly have a formula for very high education costs.

This is the sort of thing we are interested in here: being sure that the quality of the education this buys is satisfactory. I find that most parents are substantially satisfied, just as I find that most individuals are satisfied with our provision of Ontario health insurance plan services.

I was interested in reading this weekend an insert in the Wall Street Journal. I read that just about as regularly as I used to read Farm and Country. The Wall Street Journal has lots of interesting ideas on developments, but one of the most interesting ones, which I commend to the honourable members, was an article on the provision of health services.

One article, which I might very well quote at length, but I will let members read it themselves if they are interested, pointed out the advantages that Canada has over the United States in the provision of those services. They said that, on the average, medical practitioners in the United States are paid about 30 per cent more than doctors in Canada. They are not talking about Ontario but about Canada in general.

They were also pointing out that in the United States about 11.2 per cent of the gross national product is applied to the provision of health services -- hospitals and doctors -- whereas in Canada, and certainly Ontario would be typical of Canadian jurisdictions, the commitment is about 8.2 per cent. It is one of the few statistics in the provision of health services that gives me some comfort.

That does not mean the efficiency in the provision of these services cannot be improved. I believe it can be, and I think the improvement can take place once we get a report from the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy. Then I believe the members of the Legislature can give some consideration towards utilizing the $11 billion, $12 billion, $13 billion that we have for health services in an even more effective way.

I am sure the honourable members are aware that the Premier’s council has the co-operation and participation of a wide range of citizens of Ontario, including the past president of the Ontario Medical Association, Dr. Hugh Scully --

Mrs. Marland: Now a Liberal.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: --who is considered to be a very competent and capable person, as well as other representatives of the medical practitioners. There may even be a dentist. I trust and hope there is, I say to the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland).

Mr. B. Rae: Why, is she a dentist?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No, but she eats Crunchie bars, and it is very bad. I do not know where that little diversion came from, but it happens every now and then. Her husband is a dentist.

Anyway, on the provision of these medical services, in winding up this rather brief segment of my address, I also point out that the Minister of Health has a group that is looking at the provision of drugs under our Ontario drug benefit program and across the board. I think it would be appropriate that the members of the Legislature, when that report is available, give advice to the minister and the Treasurer so that we will feel free to take action to improve the efficiency even there.

Press reports and public reports in the last few months indicating the numbers of prescriptions written, particularly for our senior citizens, give some indication that there may be some overutilization that could be corrected for the benefit of all, including the concern the Treasurer feels in meeting the cost of a program that is growing at a very rapid rate indeed.

The last of my three points -- and that does not mean I am about to finish my speech -- is that I felt it was necessary in these prosperous times to bring our cash requirements down somewhat. The honourable members will be aware that there exists a certain confusion between the terms “net cash requirement” and “budgetary deficit.” In each of the budgets I have brought forward, I have included the number of budgetary deficit, which in my view is the most important and effective one.

The budgetary deficit is reduced in size because the audit function in the government of Ontario permits, and in fact requires, that we consider the payments made from the public service pension, which is internal to government, as a source of revenue. It also allows deposits made into the Province of Ontario Savings Office to be considered revenue, even though they obviously have to be paid back eventually, with interest. But since those are considered revenue, it means the cash requirement is lower because we have that money that we can use to finance our ongoing programs and do not have to borrow the additional money from external sources, such as the teachers’ superannuation fund.

That is the short explanation. If members want the long explanation, I have a number of officials who would be glad to tell them about this rather confusing --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Exciting.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: --matter. I find it exciting, I really do.

Three years ago when we took office -- and members have heard me talk about this -- the net cash requirements on that day, looking into the future, were $2.2 billion. The budgetary deficit was almost exactly $1 billion more, $3.2 billion.

I am sure members are aware -- and many of them have had almost a compulsion to support us in this, but they have been able to fight it off fairly well -- that we have been able to reduce the net cash requirements and the budgetary deficit on a phased and planned basis. If you were to plot it on a piece of graph paper, you would find the downward slope to be significant. As long as the community and the economy remain buoyant, I hope to be able to continue that slope. It might even hit bottom some time, God willing.

I think the point is that we should start to think, at least, about net cash requirements and budgetary deficit as we discuss these things. I hope, as we go through the quarterly reports this year and on into next year, it will be possible for me to talk about budgetary deficit more than cash requirement.

As a matter of fact, the term “cash requirement” was brought into common utilization by our mutual friend Darcy McKeough. He did not bring it into use because it was a number lower than the budgetary deficit. As a matter of fact, it was reversed in those days, and it may very well reverse in the future. We have a report now that comes from the learned person who provided it --

Mr. Breaugh: Memory loss, one of the first signs.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: That is right. I do not want anybody to cut back on those OHIP services.

The report indicated that we ought to be contemplating putting the resources that come from the teachers’ superannuation, public service superannuation and Canada pension plans into separate funds, partially outside the control of the Treasurer and the government in general, for investment in marketable securities.

Mr. Pouliot: Not too far away.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It would mean that we would not reach into that money automatically and use it to finance our ongoing governmental requirements. Most of the time, interestingly enough, it would be cheaper for me as Treasurer to borrow the money downtown or elsewhere in the world -- but from my point of view downtown -- than to borrow it all from the teachers, the Canada pension plan and the public service. Under the law at present it is necessary for all of the contributions from the teachers to be taken in by the government of Ontario, and the interest is payable under a formula which is very advantageous to the teachers. During the last few months it has been at least one per cent more than the interest that would have been paid on the open market, so all the stuff about the teachers sort of paying the price of --

1730

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Get those teachers.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Get them? I am a teacher and may very well be again, if l get lucky.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There are new standards in the school system.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Yes; well, I may have a little trouble with that, although any sensible teacher my age has long since retired on a full pension, indexed. So my friends should think about that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Is there anything you can do with this mob, Mr. Speaker? I am about to lose the train of thought here, but it has to do with cash requirements and budgetary deficit.

It was my view -- and this is the third thrust in the budget, which from my point of view, frankly, is and was number one. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) would not agree with me. He likes the recommendation of the Premier’s Council as the main thrust of the budget, and I agree with him, of course, that it is extremely important. But as for me, I wanted to get the cash requirements down on the basis to which I had committed myself, and we are just about on track.

It would have been possible, frankly, for the cash requirements to get down near the zero point, but it would have required a certain amount of fudging and a little smoke and mirrors, which I certainly would not contemplate for a moment. The numbers that are before you are tough, they are ironclad and they are going to be followed as rigorously and strictly as possible.

Members understand that, in a $38-billion budget, even a change of up to $300 million is well within the ambit of rational error or, let us say, in projection. I should say that in order to cover what may happen 12 months from now, when I am justifying what has happened rather than explaining what is about to happen.

I have the greatest confidence in the officials of the Treasury, who in almost every respect are the same worthy people who advised the predecessor government. I have made my speeches about their capabilities, their academic backgrounds and experience, their disinterested approach to policy for the good of the province, which frankly -- and I am not joking about this at all -- I regard very highly. We could not possibly be more fortunate than we are in this regard, and I think all of us owe them a great vote of thanks, not just in the Treasury but right across the public service.

Mr. Villeneuve: What about the boys at Earl’s Shell Service?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The boys at Earl’s thought this was a marvellous budget, actually. Well, there were certain aspects --

Interjections.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Well, to tell you the truth, I had to throw my hat in the door Saturday morning before I went in to buy gas, but members will be interested to know that the prices in St. George that were listed for gasoline were 42.1, 42.1, 45.1.

Mr. Harris: It is 52 cents in North Bay.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: In some areas the competitive instinct is not as sensitive as it is in others.

I have already indicated to you that it was quite important that we reduce the cash requirements. I think the honourable members will know that we are the only triple-A credit-rated province in Canada. Moody’s Investors Service, which is the largest and one of the most influential rating agencies in the world, has maintained that triple A. The Canadian Bond Rating Service also gives us triple A.

That leaves a couple of others. One of them, the Dominion Bond Rating Service, is about to derate us, according to what it has said. It is very concerned that we are spending too much money. I do not believe that myself. I believe we are fulfilling our responsibilities as a government, and I remind members, a Liberal government. We are not just warmed-over Tories. We have a responsibility to assess the needs of the community and provide the money for it. Some members of the Legislature may feel there are areas where we have made errors in allocation, but we have the responsibility, for now, to make those allocations and we feel they have been done with fairness and equity for all.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Really, I am not a Tory.

Interjections.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Yes, but how far left are you?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I may look like a Tory and I may talk like a Tory, but I am not a Tory.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Johnston’s parents are the best Liberals to come out of Renfrew county, so he should not --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: He should never have come out of Renfrew county.

I just want to say that because of the efforts of restraint, which everyone recognizes, and on the basis of increasing our revenue, which members talk about from time to time, we now have the lowest net cash requirement of any Ontario government in 19 years. As a matter of fact, one has to go back to the sainted, much-missed John Robarts for a period of time when the cash requirement was any lower. To tell members the truth, if one were to equalize the value of the dollars, our cash requirement would probably be as low as at any time in the province since 1907. I am not sure about that number and I will stick with the 19 years, if members do not mind.

The spending per capita -- and this is important
-- is below that of six other provinces. We are seventh; so anybody who has the impression that somehow our expenditures are too high must surely have an extremely conservative view of the world, and I understand that there are a few of those around.

I would also say that the spending is well below the growth of the economy. That really means that as the wealth of the community of Ontario expands, as we have more factories and more services offered, naturally we have more taxes collected, and our expenditure is below that growth. That is a goal I believe is important and I hope I can maintain it.

We have the third-lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and, in fact, if one focuses on low income and middle income, and that includes almost all members, it means we have the second-lowest personal income tax rate in Canada. So if they are trying to sell to their poor constituents, as oppositionists sometimes do, the fact that somehow or other that tax has got too high, well, they are just wrong.

I want to say something about the personal income tax, because I read in the Globe and Mail that Michael Wilson was displeased by the fact that we raised our share of the federal tax payable by one per cent. I understand that our situation under the federal-provincial tax collection agreement means that we do not have the right nor the power to levy a tax on taxable income or anything like that, other than we can levy a tax that is calculated as a percentage of the federal tax payable. Right now we are at 50 per cent. After the Legislature --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Fifty per cent?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: This is the problem, because there are certain benighted people who think about their place in the political spectrum, who think a 50 per cent tax is high. It is half what the federal people take, so please try to get that.

Mr. Breaugh: I hope you didn’t need a calculator to do that.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: OK, all right.

So with tax reform, the government of Canada reduced the layers of the progressive tax regime to three levels. That really meant there was a substantial windfall for high-income people and, in fact, at the lower end of the spectrum people were paying more than they had before.

Mr. Pouliot: Question.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Wait a minute.

Michael Wilson, when he first became Minister of Finance, abolished the old Liberal tax reduction program. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) in a previous incarnation would have spoken about the inadequacies of that tax reduction program, but at least it was there. The Tories abolished it with the idea that they had to widen the base of personal income tax as much as possible. In reducing the nine levels to three, Mr. Wilson very properly -- and I commend him for this -- reintroduced the tax reduction program.

In so doing, we found our revenue from the personal income tax base of Ontario would be reduced by $510 million. If he were here, he would say, “I gave you other money,” and that is correct, but I am talking about the source of revenue from personal income tax.

1740

With the demands on this government and my requirement that we reduce our borrowing, at least significantly, if not completely this year, I felt we would have to allow the water to rise in that well at least part-way. By increasing the personal income tax rate one per cent, we still leave $238 million in the pockets of our Ontario personal income tax payers. They have more there, left over from the reductions at the federal level, but it could be that the government of Canada will adjust that next year so that it really means that, come July 1, the reductions from the paycheques of working people in Ontario will be lower than they otherwise would have been. Our revenue from personal income tax, as members know, has been reduced.

Mr. Speaker, I seem to be timing my speech from the wrong clock. I would also say, in completing my remarks, which I thought at one time were very brief indeed, that I sometimes notice when the Leader of the Opposition is speaking that the clock goes very slowly, but this one has stopped all together.

The corporation taxes have not been raised, but as members know, the base has been dramatically increased. Certainly, there are those who might be listening or hearing a report of this speech who would say, “You certainly should have reduced that rate.” I think the honourable members, having perused the budget carefully over the weekend, would be aware that corporations pay a larger share of the total revenue of Ontario this year than they did last.

The one section that is smaller is the contribution from the government of Canada. That is because the payments under established programs have been substantially reduced in the rate of increase, to be fair. I think the members are aware that not too many years ago the government of Canada, in endeavouring to pay half the costs of medicare and half the costs of post-secondary education, in fact transferred something over 50 per cent in established programs financing to the provinces. This has been reduced this year until it is only about 38 per cent. The rate of growth is about seven per cent from the government of Canada, but in the costs we are undertaking, the rate of growth, particularly for health, is over 11 per cent.

This provides substantial pressure on all of us, as legislators, to see that the tax base is productive enough to pay the bills, and that is what we are endeavouring to do. On the economic side, I want to list a few of these important facts. The economy continues to grow at a phenomenal rate, 8.9 per cent this year, with real growth about 3.7 per cent. Record job creation is expected in this year, 180,000 net new jobs, and these are not all frying hamburgers.

Mr Breaugh: That is in the Premier’s office alone.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: This is good. The inflation is down to 4.7.

There are those who say the budget is inflationary -- the Minister of Finance has implied that himself – but one has to remember that since 1986 the tax take from Ontario to the federal level has increased by $1.6 billion. This rather modest expansion of the revenue production in Ontario in this budget will be only $960 million this year and about $1.2 billion when it is mature, so they are taking more than we are.

He has indicated that the sales tax increase might very well be a spur to inflation. My own view is that it will not be a continuing spur to inflation and that if he thinks so, the contemplation of large new consumer taxes a year from now, perhaps after a federal election, should be set aside, unless, of course, another party is managing the affairs of the nation, which could happen.

Just in running down this rather rapidly, I think the honourable members should see the salient points in the budget. Business investment will be up $28 billion. Housing investment from the private sector will be up $20 billion. Growth in the north will be a net 27,000 jobs and in eastern Ontario 47,000 new jobs. Eastern Ontario is actually growing faster than the rest of the province as a whole. For low-income people, we have already spoken about the advantages that are there. Some 1.8 million people will benefit from the property and sales tax credit, and the maximum property and sales tax credit has been doubled.

The Ontario tax reduction program will affect 350,000 people who still pay federal tax but will pay no provincial tax. OHIP premium assistance for 30,000 more people, for a total of 265,000 singles and 85,000 families, is another rather timid step, but a real one all the same, to fulfilling the commitment that we would get away from the dependence on premiums to support OHIP. Shelter subsidies have been strengthened. Two billion dollars in financing has been made available from Canada pension funds for low-income housing.

Mr. Speaker, I think you are aware that during these brief remarks I have tried to set out for the honourable members what we have attempted to do in this budget, that we are attempting to improve the opportunities for the people of this province to put themselves in a competitive position vis-à-vis the markets of the world, but, more than that, to see that our young people have the sort of opportunities in their own community that we had when it was our turn to come out of education and into the world of productive involvement in the community. We feel that without that we will be failing the young people who are coming forward.

This involves a substantial commitment to the quality of education, to all the people, but particularly the ageing sector, which is growing in size. We want to maintain and improve the quality of our medical and hospital services. We have substantial responsibilities on a regional aspect in the province for the north and the east, and in a sectoral area particularly to the farmers. We feel that in each instance this budget responds to those requirements.

In closing, I feel I can work well with the government of Canada. Mr. Wilson chairs a panel of treasurers. While he may not be fully satisfied with the initiatives in this budget, I think the members are aware from comments that I have made I am not fully satisfied with his; but both of us understand that we have, under our Constitution, responsibilities in our own jurisdictions.

From my point of view, it was necessary to provide the funds to lead Ontario into the educational requirements of the future. We want to respond to the requirements of competitiveness that have been set out by the Premier’s Council and, from my own personal requirement, we want to see that the bills are paid and that revenue is strong enough to support us as we move with confidence into a great future.

[Applause]

Mr. Laughren: I thank the members for their applause.

On motion by Mr. Laughren the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.

April 25, 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WINE INDUSTRY

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ENFORCEMENT

1996 OLYMPIC SUMMER GAMES

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

WATER POLLUTION

SUTTON DAM

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SCHOOL FUNDING

NORTHERN ONTARIO CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

RESPONSES

SCHOOL FUNDING

NORTHERN ONTARIO CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

SCHOOL FUNDING

ORAL QUESTIONS

INCOME TAX

NURSING SERVICES

TAX INCREASES

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

RETAIL SALES TAX

PREPAID SERVICES

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ENFORCEMENT

WINE INDUSTRY

SENIOR CITIZENS’ TAX GRANTS

ONTARIO SHARE AND DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORP.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HOME CARE

PETITIONS

NURSING SERVICES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SUTTON DAM

RETAIL STORE HOURS

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT CONSTRUCTION ACT

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND ACT / LOI SUR LE FONDS PATRIMONIAL DU NORD DE L’ONTARIO

ONTARIO LOAN ACT

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT

INFORMED CHOICE BY PATIENTS ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET RESOLUTION

BUDGET DEBATE