Hansard Transcript 1988-May-09 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Ms. Bryden: I would like to draw to the Legislature’s attention the première of a National Film Board production entitled Mr. Nobody, which will be shown on Sunday, May 15, at 2 p.m. at the Bloor Cinema at 506 Bloor Street West. Admission is free.

This film is a real-life documentary about Jack Huggins, a 66-year-old senior who lives in my riding. It is pure cinema verité and is must viewing for anyone interested in the welfare of the elderly who live alone.

In the film, Mr. Huggins describes his encounters with various community workers and his neighbours after they complain to the public health department about his housing and lifestyle. All he wanted was to be allowed to manage his own affairs.

While the community workers who intervened were undoubtedly well-meaning, the film warns us that the feelings of their clients must be understood. More funding for support services in the home is essential to enable the community workers to do this and to deal with the situation described.

I hope the film will be seen by many and that it will be urged that it be shown in the regular commercial film houses; then the message will get across.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. Eves: It gives me pleasure to rise and make a statement not only about Nurses’ Week, but also, more important I suppose, the critical shortage of nurses throughout Ontario.

If we just look at the events of the past few months, such as the newborn critically ill child being flown from Toronto to a Buffalo hospital to receive proper treatment, two Ottawa hospitals being compelled to close their emergency departments to all but life-threatening cases and Toronto-area hospitals being forced to transfer 24 women with high-risk pregnancies to specialized facilities in other parts of this province and other provinces; when we look at the revelation in the last couple of weeks about cardiovascular surgery cases, the number of people on the waiting list and the length of time it takes to receive open-heart surgery in the province of Ontario; we can relate all those, directly or indirectly, to the nursing shortage within Ontario and the failure of our health care system.

The Ontario Medical Association has had to take it upon itself to commission a poll by Goldfarb, as we all know, and the results do not bode well for Ontario’s health care system. Some of the findings are that nurses spend, on average, 30 per cent of their working time performing non-nursing duties. Nurses are increasingly frustrated working in a system that prevents them from delivering quality care. The result of this frustration, for one part, is that one nurse in seven across the province is planning to leave the profession.

I think these frustrations are chronic and severe and the problem should be dealt with immediately by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan).

Mr. Keyes: I wish to draw members’ attention today to the fact that this is Nurses’ Week across Canada. It is a week when we salute our largest health care profession and celebrate the great variety of roles that nurses play in patient care.

The theme this year is “Nursing, a Tradition of Caring.” Those words, I think, capture the essence of the nurses’ contribution. Today in nursing, as in other disciplines, we live in an age of specialization. We have perinatal nurses, operating room nurses, psychiatric nurses, public health nurses, occupational nurses, visiting nurses and many others, but whatever the technical skills involved the common denominator is the human element of caring.

In order to meet the demand for nursing services here in Ontario, last year the Ministry of Colleges and Universities expanded enrolment in nursing diploma programs by seven per cent. I am delighted to report that young people across this province continue to enter the profession in record numbers, despite the doomsayers on the opposite side.

At the same time, we recognize that a number of career challenges are now facing the nursing profession, challenges related to education, specialization and staffing concerns in some hospitals.

DOW CHEMICAL LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: I hope the government recognizes the current lockout in Sarnia at Dow Chemical, part of the Midland Corp. of the United States, as a prime example of labour relations gone astray in the province of Ontario.

The 740 workers, members of the Energy and Chemical Workers Local 672, are seeing their work performed by scabs brought in from as far away as Alberta and Quebec. The plant manager, in from the US on a visa permit, boasts of his success in defeating the union in several strikes in the United States. The company has cameras on large construction booms at the gates which start to roll only when the scabs are going through the line or when trucks go in or out of the plant, often empty, in an attempt to provoke the workers on this well-disciplined picket line.

In addition, long delays, usually company-inspired, in handling a crucial grievance for the revamp workers have meant months have gone by without settling an issue that is really at the core of this particular strike at Dow Chemical in Sarnia.

What is going on on the picket lines at Dow Chemical and what the workers themselves are carefully trying to resist is a deliberate and calculated attempt by American owners to break that union and break that strike. Some of the tactics are not pretty; the use of scabs is not pretty. This government should be taking a look at the legislation we have to protect workers in such a lockout situation.

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

Mrs. Marland: While I am very happy that the Wheel-Trans workers are back at work this morning, I do not believe the real problem regarding transportation services for the disabled community here in Metro and across this province has been solved.

While the media and many of the public view the Wheel-Trans strike as a Metro issue, this was not the case. Disabled persons in neighbouring Peel were also affected. Transhelp riders in Peel were unable to go to Toronto because their connecting Wheel-Trans service was not available.

1340

I must also say that I am extremely disappointed in the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini). The Liberal government viewed the Wheel-Trans strike as a simple labour problem, but it was much more than a labour problem. It involved real people and real hardship, and the applause that I heard a couple of moments ago had nothing to do with the solution to this problem. Where was the minister for the disabled during this crisis? Nowhere to be seen; not one statement, not one word of hope or encouragement.

I think the minister owes the disabled community an apology and legislation that would deem transportation for the disabled to be an essential service. We must not allow the disabled people in this province to be used as pawns ever again, and deeming this service as an essential service is the very least that the minister responsible for the disabled in this province can do.

ALBERT FISH

Mr. Matrundola: In May 1986 in Taipei, Taiwan, Albert Fish of Guelph was elected the president of Fiabci, the International Real Estate Federation. He formally took office in Copenhagen last May. His term of office will expire at the closing of the 1988 Fiabci world congress, May 27, in Melbourne, Australia.

Fiabci, the Fédération internationale association biens et conseil immobilières, is a worldwide organization of real estate professionals with members in some 45 countries, as well as having two standing members at the United Nations in Geneva and New York.

Mr. Fish is the 38th world president of Fiabci, the first from Ontario and the second one from Canada. He has travelled throughout the world as an ambassador of goodwill, fostering good relationships between Canada and the rest of the world.

Having served myself on a number of Fiabci international committees and as a member of the board of directors, as well as president of the commercial subdivision of Fiabci, I can attest to the fine job that Mr. Fish has done. The member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro), who also knows Mr. Fish very well, will echo my statements. I am sure all members here would like to join me in commending and thanking Mr. Fish for having freely and generously donated many years of his life to the real estate profession, promoting shelter for everyone, as well as private property rights, locally, provincially, nationally and internationally.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold, for 35 seconds.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Swart: Last week, my leader referred to a letter which I had received from a patient in the Welland County General Hospital, describing the conditions under which the patients there were suffering with regard to sanitation in the emergency area -- one washroom for 20 patients -- and a great number of other conditions that people in a hospital should not be subjected to. I do not have time to read that letter. I will content myself with sending it to the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), but I want to say that this is the kind of hospital care that this government not only condones and permits but in fact provides.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO-QUEBEC TOURISM MARKETING AGREEMENT

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: Today I am pleased to inform the House that last Friday in Canada’s capital region, I co-signed the Ontario-Quebec tourism marketing agreement with Quebec Minister of Tourism Michel Gratton. Under this agreement, our two great provinces will be marketed as a combined destination in targeted overseas markets until the end of March 1990. Initially, we are concentrating on Japan and the United Kingdom.

Japan is already Ontario’s fastest-growing international market, with 189,000 travellers last year, an increase of 55 per cent over 1986. With the Japanese government promoting foreign travel to cut its balance-of-payments surplus, the future looks even brighter. In Japan, we are promoting the Maple Route to encourage Japanese travellers to visit attractions in Ontario and Quebec.

We also see opportunities to encourage British travellers who have come to visit friends and relatives to do more touring in Ontario and Quebec. In 1986, a total of 349,000 travellers came from the United Kingdom, up nearly 30 per cent from the previous year.

The program features a new marketing theme, “Ontario-Quebec...Old World...New World...Our World,” to promote travel opportunities to both our provinces.

Partnership with the travel trade is a key feature of our new program. We are delighted that Air Canada is participating this year as a full cost-sharing partner in the United Kingdom campaign. We intend to involve other wholesalers and carriers in co-operative ventures in both markets. We believe this new strategy will help keep our overseas business expanding in the face of intense global competition.

RESPONSES

ONTARIO-QUEBEC TOURISM MARKETING AGREEMENT

Mr. McLean: I just want to respond briefly. Without knowing the contents of the agreement that was signed, it is very difficult to comment on it. However, when I look at the contents of the statement the minister made, I am concerned. Is there a Quebec office in Japan? Is there a Quebec office in the United Kingdom to deal with these matters with the ministry? What about Vancouver? We have a large Japanese population in Vancouver. Perhaps they could have been considered as one that we should be dealing with if we could also get them to come here in Ontario.

Without knowing the full contents of the agreement, it is pretty hard to comment, but I want to say that it is a step in the right direction when we are talking about all of Canada as one nation. I say to the minister that the further we look at the agreement, perhaps it should be expanded to other provinces.

Mr. Brandt: Very briefly on the same subject, I would like to compliment the minister for entering into this kind of agreement. It can, in fact, be a cost-saving measure when you have two provinces joining co-operatively in a program of this kind. I want the minister to know that our party supports the concept of what he has undertaken to do.

I too, along with my colleague, am a little concerned about the lack of detail with respect to the cost-sharing and how the implementation of the program will be brought about. But knowing and trusting the minister as we do, we know that those facts will be coming forward and that those details will be made available to us.

Certainly this province, along with other provinces in Canada, is going to require a great deal of initiative in order to present the best picture we possibly can with respect to Ontario in the Pacific Rim countries, and more particularly Japan because of the relationship of the Japanese yen versus the Canadian dollar. It is a tremendous opportunity for Japanese citizens to visit this country and this province at a huge discount. I think we have to take advantage of those built-in attractions that Ontario has at the moment, and we can do that through a joint effort, which I think is the kind of co-operative undertaking that we should be involved in with our sister province to the east of us.

I compliment the minister, I wish him well with the program and I want him to know that we will be monitoring the results and the success of this program very carefully with him.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions to the Minister of Health. On Friday my staff spoke with the chairman of St. Mary’s General Hospital in Timmins, which announced at the end of last week that it is planning to close 40 of its 184 beds; it is planning to send out layoff notices to some 40 staff on May 15; it is announcing the closure of four of 20 psychiatric beds, these being the only psychiatric beds that are north of North Bay; and it is planning to close surgical beds, paediatric beds, medical beds and one of four operating rooms.

Can the minister explain how it is possible that a major regional hospital serving northeastern Ontario has been placed by her government in this position; and how she can have one of her members stand up at the beginning of Nurses’ Week praising the government’s record on nurses, when the first day of Nurses’ Week in Ontario is marked by a decision by a hospital in this province to have to send out layoff notices to nurses in the province?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question and tell him that St. Mary’s is one of 22 hospitals which has been under review because of a chronic deficit problem. Ministry staff have examined the operational review on St. Mary’s and have learned that its deficit is due in part to the tremendous success of our underserviced area program. The funding requirements of this program in the hospital base budget had not yet been acknowledged. Let me assure the House that they will be and that the bed closures and staff layoffs will not be going ahead as planned.

1350

Mr. B. Rae: It says something about the state of play in the province when a hospital is forced to make the kind of announcement that this one was forced to make on a Friday and then on a Monday the minister can say, “Well, this particular situation may not happen the way the hospital announced.” Is the minister saying categorically, with respect to St. Mary’s hospital, that there will be no layoffs and that there will be no bed closures?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: What I am saying is that a ministry team is now in Timmins working with the hospital to ensure that that hospital continues to provide essential services to its community.

I have informed this House on a number of occasions that we have been conducting reviews of 22 hospitals to determine some of the chronic and root problems. It is our goal to ensure that all hospitals provide essential services to the community and that they are fairly and adequately funded. That is taking place in Timmins.

Mr. B. Rae: I did not hear an answer to my question but I would like to expand the question by asking the minister if she could deal with the situation at the McKellar General Hospital in Thunder Bay. I am sure she will be aware that the hospital has told the ministry, “If you want cuts to happen, you make the cuts.” That is the word from the hospital to the ministry, and one can hardly blame it.

Can the minister give us, first of all, an assurance -- and I repeat my question with respect to St. Mary’s hospital -- that the hospital will not have to lay off staff and cut back on the number of beds providing services to people in northern Ontario? Can she make a similar commitment with respect to the McKellar General Hospital in Thunder Bay?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I personally visited Timmins. I was also in Thunder Bay. As well, the deputy minister visited Timmins specifically. We are very aware of the needs of northern Ontario and have made a major commitment in our underserviced area program to bring physicians to the north. The result is that in Timmins, we know that the success of this program has strained the hospital’s base budget and that it is appropriate, following the review that was done, to adjust that base budget.

I expect the hospitals will be able to manage within the adjusted budget that the ministry will provide.

Mr. B. Rae: We now have 22 hospitals which are being placed in this invidious position by the government, each of them having to scramble to make decisions, and we have decisions announced on Friday in which the minister, as I have heard her today, has not stated categorically that will not in fact be taking place. I stand to be corrected by the minister, but I never once heard her say that there will be no bed closures and no layoffs in either Timmins or in Thunder Bay.

I would like to now turn my attention again to the Minister of Health and to the problem, the particular crisis which is affecting cardiovascular surgery in the whole province. I had a call on the weekend from one of Ontario’s and indeed Canada’s leading cardiovascular surgeons who phoned me, as he put it, not because he was a New Democrat but simply because he wanted to make sure that I was aware of how unfair the minister’s characterization of the situation was and how serious, indeed, the situation in the province is.

A statement made by Dr. Salerno -- who was not the doctor who phoned me, I want to make clear -- he is a university head of cardiovascular surgery who, in February 1988, in a submission to the district health council said, “The situation is morally, ethically and professionally unacceptable to patients, surgeons, cardiologists and referring physicians.” I wonder if the Minister of Health can tell us whether she agrees with that statement.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have acknowledged in this House on numerous occasions in the past that advances in cardiac surgery in this province have allowed doctors to treat a wider range of people. There are a greater number of patients now recommended for this surgery and it has resulted in a waiting list. I am as concerned as the honourable member about ensuring that people requiring the care have it available as close to home as possible and when needed.

Mr. B. Rae: We have surgeons who are saying categorically that this situation is not morally acceptable to them. We have patients on that waiting list who are dying and the minister knows that. The waiting list is getting longer every day. The waiting list in the home territory of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is as long as six months and, in some cases, longer than six months. In the Toronto area it can be as long as three and four months, and the people who are providing these operations tell us clearly and categorically that patients who are on a list for that length of time can get worse and some of them can die.

I would like to ask the minister, when a doctor who is head of the university department of cardiovascular surgery tells her that this situation is morally unacceptable, does she agree with him that it is morally unacceptable?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Our system is designed, and the Leader of the Opposition knows this, so that those in life-threatening situations get priority. When the doctor determines that his patient requires urgent surgery, the patient can be moved and is moved to the top of the list. That does not mean that there are not waiting lists. I acknowledge that there are.

Ministry officials have been meeting with experts in cardiovascular care. I myself will be meeting with them, in the very near future, to hear their suggestions for some short-term adjustments in Metropolitan Toronto. But as I stated previously, we have, over the past two years, doubled the funding for life-support systems and we are moving to ensure that we have the capacity available to meet the needs of the people of this province.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister will also know, if she talks to anybody involved in the field, that patients who are on the list at one time as not seeming to be urgent suddenly can become urgent. There can be a very quick deterioration in care. People who respond to drugs during one week may not respond to medication in the next week. She is putting doctors in the impossible position of having to decide, from week to week, and to make very difficult judgement calls every day of the week in terms of whom they are to operate on. She is asking doctors to perform the impossible in terms of making these decisions.

The minister says she is looking for some short-term solution. Is she saying that this is a short-term problem? Does she not realize that in fact we have a structural problem with respect to the quality of care for heart patients?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Whenever we look at the system of health care delivery in the province, we look at planning for what the identified needs are going to be in the future, as well as what the needs are at present. In this particular situation, we are looking at some short-term solutions to what we believe can be responded to.

For example, we are looking at a central bed registry in Metropolitan Toronto to make sure that patients requiring care get to the closest available bed. But I would say that there are other things that we can do in the short term, and we are exploring them. As well, we want to make sure that our planning for the longer term is in place and that is why I have asked the district health council to review the need for a fourth cardiovascular unit in Toronto, as well as for expanding existing services outside of Metropolitan Toronto. We are looking at that as well.

The other thing that I would like to say to the member before I conclude is that this is a situation which is constantly under review by the ministry. I share his concern. We want to make sure that we are able to respond to the health needs of the people of this province.

Mr. Brandt: My question, as well, is to the Minister of Health, and it relates to the decision of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) in connection with the moratorium that he has placed on the leaseback of certain equipment for various hospitals.

The Ministry of Health should be aware of the number of leasebacks that were being contemplated by the various hospitals because, in fact, as I understand it, the ministry was aware and had approved of certain leaseback arrangements as a result of the shortfall in the extension of funding that was provided to those particular hospitals.

They entered into those leasebacks with the minister’s permission, as I understand. The minister is shaking her head and denying it, and I would like her to put that on the record.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Brandt: I would like to raise this question. Would the minister indicate to us how many hospitals had, in fact, in their 1988-89 budgets, contemplated leasebacks? What amount of money was involved and, as a result of the moratorium on the leaseback concept that was placed on the various hospitals by the Treasurer, is the minister prepared to make up the shortfall in funding?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The question asked by the leader of the third party sounds to me like a question in Orders and Notices, given the number of details that he has asked for today. Surely he realizes that the specific numbers would not be available at my fingertips.

I would like to talk specifically for a moment about the question that he does ask; that is, the ministry at no time gave formal approval to hospitals using this funding arrangement. What the ministry has done in the past is acknowledge the proposals from the hospitals and inform them of specific criteria, as well as its concern.

We are very pleased to have this moratorium, because it does give us an opportunity to review what is in place at the present time with those hospitals, to make sure that, as public institutions, their funding in other than government sources is appropriate and in the best interests of the taxpayers.

1400

Mr. Brandt: As the minister is aware, the leaseback arrangement was being used by hospitals in order to provide for some very essential services. It was to provide in some instances for services relating to acute care beds.

If the minister is indicating that there were no approvals given to any hospitals, if that is my understanding, then will the minister indicate to this House, if in fact hospitals are deemed to be operating efficiently as a result of her study and as a result of consultants’ reviews of hospital operations, whether she is prepared to forward them to those particular hospitals, the 22 that she has mentioned and, I might add, others in the province that have some problems as well? And is she prepared to extend any funding to assist those hospitals in alleviating their chronic underfunding problem?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The leader of the third party refers to a chronic underfunding problem. I have to significantly disagree with his portrayal. Since 1985 in hospital-based budgets in this province, we have increased by some 39 per cent. That is just since the 1984-85 budgets.

By world standards at the present time, Ontario as a percentage of gross national product is putting in 8.5 per cent of GNP, second in the world as a proportion of gross national product. On a per capita basis we are second in the world and have just surpassed Sweden. What this tells me is that there are adequate resources within the system. What we must do is make sure that we are using those resources as efficiently as possible.

Mr. Brandt: By way of a final supplementary to the minister, the one question that the minister fails to respond to is the question that is being asked by fully two dozen hospitals across this province.

Surely she and the Treasurer could come to some agreement with respect to how she is going to deal with this particular matter. On one hand, we have the Treasurer indicating a moratorium on the leasebacks. On the other hand, we have the minister indicating quite clearly that she is not prepared to make a commitment with respect to funding deficits.

Third, the minister now has hospitals out there which are indicating very clearly to her that they are going to have to cut services. It is going to have to be one or the other. If she will not allow leasebacks and if she will not provide them with additional funding, they are going to have to cut back on the services they are now providing.

Simply send them a clear signal. Tell them what it is that the minister intends to do. Are they in fact going to have to cut back on their services? That is certainly what they are telling us.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me point out to the leader of the third party that the majority of the hospitals in this province do meet their budgets. Some 25 per cent of them in fact have had surpluses in the past few years. Hospitals provide excellent care to communities. However, the majority of them do so in a fiscally responsible manner. It is our goal to make sure that hospitals are firmly and adequately funded. It is our intention for those who are experiencing difficulty and chronic problems to find out what those problems are.

As I have said before, there are no white hats and black hats. Every hospital and every member in this House has the same goal that I have, which is the provision of essential services to communities. We want to help those experiencing difficulty. We want to make sure that whenever the ministry approves a program, those hospitals are adequately funded.

Mr. Eves: I have a question to the Minister of Health as well. Last Thursday the minister said, in response to one of my questions, “The life-support funding for cardiac surgery in this province has doubled” since 1985.

Life-support grants for cardiology have increased from $2.8 million in 1985 to $4.6 million in 1988. That is an increase of 64 per cent, not doubled. Overall designated life-support grants have increased from $15.4 million in 1985 to $19.1 million in 1988. That is an increase of 24 per cent, not doubled.

The funding of designated life-support grants remains unchanged in total dollar terms from the 1987-88 year to the 1988-89 year; in real terms, a reduction of $1 million in spending by the ministry this year. According to the Ontario Hospital Association, life-support funding is already below --

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. Eves: My question to the minister is, that being the case, how can we expect a reduction in waiting times for those people waiting for cardiovascular surgery when the ministry is down $1 million in real dollar terms from last year in life-support funding alone?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am trying to find a polite way to say that the member is wrong. I think “wrong” is the most polite way. The other word that I had in mind was not quite as polite.

There are four components to hospital funding that perhaps it is important for me to share with the member. One is an increase for inflation; two is an increase for life support; three is an increase for workload, and four is for new and expanded programs after they have been prioritized by the district health councils.

The amount for inflation funding goes to all hospitals. The amount for life support -- which the last time that I calculated 2.1 to 4.8 was more than double, but I must get a calculator out to do that --

Mr. Eves: The difference between 2.8 and 4.6 is 1.8. I know it is a difficult one.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I cannot believe the member cannot add.

To complete the answer to the question, the life-support funding is done in negotiations between the Ontario Council of Administrators of Teaching Hospitals, the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ministry of Health.

What I have stated in a number of answers to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) today is that our intention is to work to ensure that we have the services available in the short term as well as planning for the long term to respond to the needs. It is important to note, and let me underline again, that the system is designed to ensure that those --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Eves: In conversation last Friday morning with Dr. Tony Graham, the chief cardiologist at Wellesley Hospital, he indicated that the waiting time for getting a diagnostic test done, a catheterization process by a cardiologist in Metropolitan Toronto, right now is two to three months long. The number of people on that waiting list is at least two or three times, according to Dr. Graham, the number of people who are on the waiting list for cardiovascular surgery. So now we have patients having to wait two to three months to get the diagnostic tests done, two to five months to get cardiovascular surgery done in this province.

Does the minister think that is an appropriate state for the health care system in Ontario to be in in 1988?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It might be interesting to point out the number of centres where cardiac care is provided in this province: University Hospital in London, Victoria Hospital in London, Hamilton Civic Hospitals, Hospital for Sick Children, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto Western Hospital, Kingston General Hospital, Ottawa Civic Hospital and Sudbury Memorial Hospital. What is significant about that list is Sudbury Memorial because it shows that we are trying to provide these services right across this province, in northern Ontario, and we have expanded treatment right across this province.

We can do better. There is more to do, but the point I would like to make is that while our system of health care delivery is reputed to be second to none in the world, the reason it is so good is that we are constantly striving to do better. We sometimes have to be cautious and careful that we do not cross that line when we criticize our system and recognize that we are always attempting to improve and do better.

Mr. Eves: If the minister insists on answering questions that were not asked, she could perhaps provide us with a set of her cue cards before question period starts and we could ask her the questions that she has some answers to.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your request?

Mr. Eves: In further conversation with Dr. Graham on Friday morning, I reiterated to him that the minister understands that, if deemed necessary, critical cardiac surgery is available in Ontario when needed. I cannot tell the minister what Dr. Graham’s response to her comment was because I would be ejected from the House if I told her his comment about her reply to that question.

1410

Dr. Graham suggested an immediate solution to the problems is to crank up every cardiovascular unit in Ontario to its maximum capacity today and for the Minister of Health to commit today to the fourth cardiovascular unit at Sunnybrook Medical Centre, which her ministry acknowledged a need for four years ago. She does not need any more reviews; she does not need any more studies. We just need a commitment from the minister today. Will she give us that commitment?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I will commit to the House today that if it is determined that a fourth cardiovascular unit is required, it will be provided.

UNDERSERVICED AREA PROGRAM

Mr. Hampton: My question is to the Minister of Health. I was struck, in the minister’s answer to the leader of the official opposition, by the fact that she said the reason Timmins hospital was having a problem with its budget was because the underserviced area program has been so successful in attracting doctors to that community that it has placed pressure on the budget.

What does the minister say to the 33 communities from northern Ontario that were on the underserviced area list in December 1987, when 29 of them are still on and two more have been added? How successful has the underserviced area program been for all those communities?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Every indication we have is that the underserviced area program has been extremely successful. On other occasions I have given the specific numbers both of general practitioners and of specialists who have moved to the north. In fact, because of that program, in Timmins, for example, we have allowed the hospital there to become a regional hospital. I believe, while we can always strive to do better, that we are making great progress in providing specialists and general practitioners to serve in northern Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: I am intrigued again by the minister’s answer because one of the general practitioners I spoke to in northwestern Ontario said to me that in his 24 years there, he has seen an attrition rate of 21 doctors under the underserviced area program. In other words, 21 doctors have come under the program, have taken the grant money and then have left. That, to me, does not sound like success.

Furthermore, a community like Rainy River has been trying to recruit a doctor under the underserviced area program for a year, has been to every medical school in Ontario and now has to fight with this bureaucracy to get a doctor from the United States. How successful is the program when there is that rate of attrition and that rate of unsuccess for a whole year?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Since 1969, when the underserviced area program first came in -- I will acknowledge it was the previous government that brought in this program -- there have been more than 1,000 health professionals, including some 600 doctors, 338 of whom are still on the program in the north. I believe that the purpose of the program is to encourage doctors to settle in northern Ontario for whatever period of time they can. When a permanent physician is not available, temporary physicians called locums are.

We recognize, as well, that this is an ongoing program. The needs of the north are unique and special and we are attempting through three programs -- the northern medical specialist incentive program, the underserviced area program, and medical programs at both McMaster and the University of Ottawa -- to respond to the needs of northern Ontario.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Eves: I have another question to the Minister of Health. St. Mary’s General Hospital in Timmins has gone to great lengths over the past couple of years to attract specialists to northeastern Ontario. In the last two years alone, they have attracted another obstetrician, an orthopaedic surgeon, another urologist and another radiologist. One of the reasons St. Mary’s needs these specialists is because it is a regional hospital. Patients from across a vast area of northeastern Ontario are referred to St. Mary’s in Timmins.

However, as the minister knows from the chairman of the hospital board’s statement over the weekend, the hospital is now intending only to treat local patients. As a local hospital, many people are concerned that it will not have the number of patients to justify these specialists and, as a result, will lose many of these specialists the hospital worked so hard to obtain. Doctors, nurses and the hospital board --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Eves: -- are in complete agreement that the quality of health care in northeastern Ontario is in serious trouble --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Eves: -- in light of the St. Mary’s announcement. Does the minister share that concern and what does she plan to do about it?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: What I am discovering is that not only does my critic in the third party not always have his facts right; he also does not listen.

I answered that question today. The answer is that we have acknowledged -- in fact, in the previous answer I acknowledged -- that Timmins is designated as a regional hospital. I want to congratulate not only the Timmins hospitals but also the district health council for the ongoing meetings and the leadership they have shown in bringing those hospitals together to make sure they are making the most efficient use of resources in those areas. Because of the success in the designation as a regional hospital and because we have been able to attract specialists to the north, the people of Timmins and surrounding area will not have to leave the area to seek health services.

I want to again stress that the funding for St. Mary’s in this case is because it has met programs that have been approved by the ministry. I am delighted we are able to work with them to secure the kind of base funding to allow them to adequately meet the needs of the people in that area.

Mr. Eves: I am sure the minister is aware that the deficit at St. Mary’s last year was $1.3 million. The projected deficit for this year, I believe, is in the neighbourhood of $2.2 million. The chairman of the hospital board estimates that with a cutback of 40 beds and 40 staff, the hospital would save approximately $1.5 million a year. Is the minister today making an unequivocal statement in this House that she will fund the deficit of St. Mary’s General Hospital so that it can still provide these services and there will have to be absolutely no cutbacks in its services whatsoever? Is she making that commitment?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Again, clearly the member is not listening. The deficit at St. Mary’s is in large part due to the success of the underserviced area program. A ministry team is now working in Timmins with the hospital to ensure the hospital continues to provide essential services. We recognize there will be an adjustment to their base budget to allow this to occur. I expect that will be forthcoming and I do not expect the projected layoffs and bed closures will occur. They will not occur.

MULTICULTURAL SERVICES

Mr. Adams: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. I represent a riding that has a very large variety of ethnic groups, but none of these groups is really large enough to establish a fully fledged, independent, cultural and social organization. What is his ministry doing for ethnic groups in this particular situation?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I thank the member for the question. Frankly, it is not a situation unique to Peterborough, in that the changing face of Ontario I think means that virtually every community now has a rich multicultural diversity, and I think it is good.

The best thing I might suggest to the member is that what seems to work in other communities is to form a multicultural association. The Ministry of Citizenship does what we call core funding for those associations. We have a number of programs available, particularly in the language program and the immigrant settlement programs; plus we have several grant programs for facilities.

The last point I will make is that it is a policy of this government that every single ministry must respond to the diversity, so it is my hope that in addition to our ministry responding, each ministry is also responding to his needs in Peterborough.

Mr. Adams: In the case of Peterborough, many of the ministry’s programs seem to be operating quite well, but several of the local ethnic groups have for many years wanted a centre of their own. This now appears to be impossible because none of the groups is large enough to develop one. Does the ministry have any programs that would support such a centre?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Yes. I am aware of the desire of the city of Peterborough for such a facility. We do have such a program, and frankly, I would welcome a proposal from the city of Peterborough and the multicultural group there with that in mind. It has worked well in other communities and I happen to think the city of Peterborough has a substantial need for such a program.

1420

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Reville: My question is to the Minister of Health. We on the opposition benches have had our ears perked right up trying to detect an answer in the Minister of Health’ s boiler-plate in respect of St. Mary’s General Hospital, so I want to ask her again: Given all the talk about ensuring essential services and given the fact that the Medicus Review says the St. Mary’s hospital is underfunded by about $3.3 million, will the minister provide that additional $3.3 million?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me try once again. Let me assure this House that the bed closures and staff layoffs will not be going ahead as planned at St. Mary’s in Timmins.

Mr. Reville: The minister has gone on at us about the success of her underserviced area program. She has suggested somehow that if this program is a success, then hospitals are going to have to cut services, which is a really spooky way of approaching this situation. They are worried that they are going to lose their orthopaedic surgeon. They are worried that they are going to lose urologists, radiologists, thoracic and vascular surgeons, and speciality nurses. They already have a nursing shortage and cannot seem to hire nurses to fill the vacancies. The minister has consistently refused to answer the simple question, will the minister provide the additional $3.3 million that has been determined to be necessary to fund this hospital at an adequate level?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Funding for approved ministry programs will be forthcoming for St. Mary’s hospital in Timmins. It is clear. It is simple. The bed closures and staff layoffs will not take place.

Mr. B. Rae: Any of them?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have been very clear.

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Premier (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. B. Rae: I asked her if there would be no layoffs and she did not answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Nipissing; new question.

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr. Harris: One of the options the select committee on constitutional reform is considering is to bring forward companion resolutions, along with the Meech Lake accord resolution, to deal specifically with two problems most people have identified: those of guaranteeing the rights of women and the aboriginal people’s desire to be at the table and on the agenda in the near future.

Last Wednesday, the Attorney-General (Mr. Scott) told the committee that if the companion resolutions dealt with future amendments only, he would leave that option with the committee. Will the Premier support that view and be willing to look seriously at companion resolutions, on those two issues in particular, that the committee might bring forward?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can assure my honour-able friend, and it is a reasonable question, that the government will look very seriously at all companion resolutions brought in or any suggestions made by the committee. I do not think it would be fair for me now to say yes to those to the exclusion of others, because some of our colleagues have raised other concerns as well. But I can assure my honourable colleague that I take very seriously the report that will be forthcoming from that committee, as I am sure all members do, as we wrestle collectively with the problems inherent therein.

Mr. Harris: Let me go one step further. We know the Premier has given his word to promote the signing of the Meech Lake accord unamended and we understand the difficulty that may cause him if some proposed change comes forward, even if it is simple and even if it makes sense. It is ironic that this committee, which he originally opposed, is now, in my view, a safe political vehicle for Ontario to propose a couple of changes that may in fact break the logjam that is occurring in some jurisdictions.

My question is this: If the Premier is prepared to entertain companion resolutions which really will show good intentions -- we can all say, “How good are we because we are proposing these for the future” -- but which practically will not help sell the existing accord to those problem jurisdictions, would he be willing to look at single resolutions that the committee might go forward with immediately, before we ratify Meech, to see if we can get the ball rolling, take the lead without prejudicing Meech itself? In other words, they go forward on their own; no “all this or nothing” to them. They would simply be resolutions to go forward, to see if we cannot find some unanimity among the other jurisdictions and help sell Meech itself to the rest of those jurisdictions.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the spirit in which the honourable member raises the question. He, as am I, is obviously very interested in what is happening across the country in the way the various provinces and the federal government are dealing with the Meech issue. Admittedly, it is a difficult issue for lots of parties across the country. I understand that.

The critical question really is how the other provinces and the federal government would view these matters. I think it is the kind of issue, and I say this in a completely nonprovocative way, on which the third party should have meetings with its federal party. I understand that perhaps his caucus will be meeting with Senator Murray. He will explain his views of how this thing is being seen in the rest of the country.

Then we all have to make a judgement at the end of the day based on our collective information about the nature of the debate right across this country.

I can assure my honourable friend that I value the committee hearings that are going on here. I think it has been, to the best of my knowledge, a full hearing, that people who came with delegations have felt they were extremely well treated and time was accorded by all members of the committee. I think that is important. I am very interested in what the committee has to say.

I am sure my honourable friend would agree with me that there is the issue of Meech and then there is the issue of subsequent constitutional meetings that will be created as a result of Meech. On questions my honourable friend raises -- aboriginal self-government, for example, and those kinds of things -- we have had conferences and progress was not made. But I think my honourable friend would agree that the question of aboriginal self-government is not affected by this particular agreement. In other words, the general amending formula in that regard, the 7-50, is not affected, and I would argue that we have a better chance of making progress in that regard with Meech.

All of these issues my honourable friend raises are individual in nature. I think we have to get the collective advice from the committee in this regard so that we can share it with the rest of the country. Whether in fact --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that is a fairly full answer.

DEVELOPMENT OF HYDROGEN FUSION

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The energy history in this province has been one of nuclear fission, and now the discussion is switching from that area over to one of nuclear fusion. You apparently must have a substantial supply of tritium and I understand this province does have that. I understand that nuclear fusion might be safer.

What I would like to ask today is, what are Ontario’s plans with regard to the nuclear fusion discussion and the nuclear fusion plans for the world? Do we have opportunities in that direction?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I thank the honourable member for his question. What we are talking about here is hydrogen fusion. We have a lot of hydrogen in the world. A lot of it is in the waters and the oceans of the world, of course.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced last week that he has offered Ontario as a potential host site for the new experimental reactor that the superpowers are planning to locate. This would put us in the forefront of energy research, because it could answer many of our energy problems 10 or probably 20 years from now.

A lot of experimentation and dollars are required to reach commercial viability, but if the experimental reactor were sited in Ontario, this would result in approximately 11,000 jobs for Canada, many of which, of course, would be in this province, and an estimated $1 billion in federal and provincial taxes.

As the honourable member has indicated, as we are putting together hydrogen atoms, the scientists feel the easiest ones we can put together are the heavy ones. This would create helium and some energy, and of course that would mean that we, Ontario Hydro, could use up some of the tritium we have.

Mr. Owen: As I understand it, large sums of money are involved. I understand also that the four major world powers are also involved: the United States of America, Japan, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the European Community. Will they give us the opportunity to participate? Will they give us a role? What are our chances of participating in this thrust?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I believe our chances look fairly good. I think these four major superpower blocs that the honourable member referred to have recognized the special expertise and knowledge that Canada, and Ontario in particular, have in this field. When, through its organization, this group of countries decides, it will be deciding on a $5-billion project where the funds will be expended approximately over a 10-year period.

1430

PLANT CLOSURES

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. The minister will be aware that last Thursday approximately 190 workers at the Greening Donald Co. plants in Hamilton and Midland learned that theirs were but the latest plants to close a major part of their operations in Ontario. The closure, effective June 30, affects many workers with more than 25 years’ seniority.

Inasmuch as we have no procedures in place to justify plant closures or any public audit board, can the minister tell us what kind of advance notice he had of this closure? Did he have anything beyond the May 4 letter that was delivered to his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: While the member for Hamilton East suggests that we have no plant-closure justification legislation, he will be aware that Bill 85 provides perhaps the strongest notice requirements of any jurisdiction in North America when it comes to plant closures. In fact, within the notice requirements of Bill 85, there is a requirement for a company laying off more than 50 people at any one time to provide a full explanation of the plant closure and, at the same time, to set out what steps have been taken to provide for the workforce that is going to be laid off.

Under the circumstances of the plant closure the member mentions, a form 1 would have to be submitted to the Ministry of Labour before any notice to any employee would be effective notice.

Mr. Mackenzie: In that respect the minister will be aware, I presume, that the president of the company, in his releases, and even more emphatically on television to the local community, made it clear that in spite of the best efforts of the workers over the last few years, one of the main reasons for the closure was dumping; if not actual dumping, the export of very cheap imports, largely from Korea. In spite of their best efforts, they were not able to compete with this kind of dumping. I believe there have actually been court cases involved as a result of it.

Can the minister tell us if this information was available to his ministry over the last period of time and if there was any monitoring going on whatsoever by the Ministry of Labour in an effort to protect jobs in Ontario, or does he even feel he has any responsibility when these kinds of products are brought into this country at such cheap prices?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think the member for Hamilton East makes a very good point. The essence of the point he makes is that if our industries and our workforce in Ontario, and indeed in Canada, have to compete with products that are being dumped in the Canadian and Ontario jurisdictions, things are going to look very bleak indeed.

I think it is appropriate for me to say, and to remind members of the House, that issues relating to the dumping of products by other countries are a federal responsibility. I tell the member quite frankly that within the Ministry of Labour we do not have the capacity to monitor that kind of dumping activity. It would be a federal tribunal to which the case was taken.

Notwithstanding that, I think it is an important point, an interesting point and one worth repeating: If Ontario is going to be able to succeed in a very competitive global market, we have to have trade laws that give us fair trading, not the unfair trade practices the member for Hamilton East referred to.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Education. Now that the Metro school board negotiations have been resolved, there are many questions which remain unanswered. Last Friday, at his press conference at the Royal York Hotel, he responded to the question of Sandro Contenta of the Toronto Star, which was whether the public boards are responsible for all the student accommodation needs in the separate system or just those needs of students who transfer. The minister answered that question, “Neither.” This is the very question Metro wished to refer to the courts for clarification. The minister’s answer last Friday has helped no one in this province.

What is the position of the minister’s government? Is it his position that Ontario public school boards are responsible for the accommodation of students who transfer as a result of full funding? Must they also provide for the previous shortfall of spaces in the separate school system?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am happy to respond to the member by indicating that it is the position of the government that public and separate school boards in this province are responsible to ensure that all available school space paid for by all of the taxpayers of this province is utilized to the maximum extent.

Mr. Jackson: The minister is still evading the essential question which brought him to the table, brought him into the negotiations with Metro Toronto. He has stated that he is going to make the same offer to everyone else in Ontario, yet he remains silent, or at best unclear, as to what his government’s interpretation is of Bill 30.

He has been aware for months. He and his entire cabinet has been aware for months. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) himself went before the Supreme Court and cogently argued all elements of Bill 30. Could the minister provide this House or make public the Attorney General’s interpretation of the responsibilities of school boards under Bill 30 with respect to accommodation?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I do not know how I can be more clear to the member than to indicate that it is the position of this government that all school space be utilized to the maximum extent. I think the member errs in assuming that the fact that this particular issue was raised by both boards during the course of their joint negotiations is, in fact, what led to the ministry’s involvement in those negotiations. In fact, that is fundamentally incorrect. What brought us to the table was a request by the boards to enter into negotiations. There was a very clear indication by the public board that it was willing and anxious to come up with a long-term resolution of the problem and that it was prepared to ensure that its surplus space was made available to the separate board.

INDUSTRIAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr. Neumann: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The minister is aware that, with the Massey-Ferguson Corp. in receivership, the receiver, Peat Marwick, has the responsibility for disposing of the assets of that corporation. Among the assets is the 350-acre site with modern plant capacity on that site. What is his ministry doing to work with the receiver to ensure that a productive manufacturer occupies that site?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the member for the question. I am sure members will all know that, up until May 19, it is in the hands of the receivers, and they have widely advertised it, seeking proposals for that site.

In the meantime, my ministry has prepared an information package. We have sent it to our offices throughout the world, we have made known to potential combines manufacturers the availability of the site and we have also made it known to other major industrial users. I should tell the member that, to date, we have had three serious inquiries through my ministry. Two of those inquirers have actually visited the site. Unfortunately, they have declined, to my knowledge, to make an offer.

We are working with the receiver. I have met with the mayor, with the industrial development commissioner of Brantford and with the federal government to see if we can, in fact, create some activity that could take up the site and also utilize the skilled workers who are in Brantford.

Mr. Neumann: The minister is aware that the closure of Massey Combines is only part of a process which has affected our community of Brantford. With the closure of White Farm Equipment in recent years and the several thousand jobs that have been affected, a major industrial restructuring is necessary in the community. What is the ministry doing to work with the community to ensure that a diversification of industry occurs in Brantford?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I think the member should know that what we try to do is apprise anyone looking to establish an industrial facility to go to communities in Ontario, and Brantford is one that we have at the top of our list. We have several other communities that we also encourage manufacturers to go to.

But I think if the member takes a look at Brantford’s development over the last couple of years, he will see that they are diversifying. There is no doubt it has not reached the same level of employment it had when Massey and White were in full production, but it is certainly improving and I am quite optimistic that with the continued efforts of my ministry, with the efforts of its industrial development commissioner and with everybody working together, we can get that employment level back up to where it was.

1440

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. A report released on May 3 by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) confirms that Metro Toronto’s Ashbridges Bay sewage treatment plant in my riding is the largest polluter of Toronto’s shoreline waters and a large producer of dioxins. It also spews out heavy metals, organic chemicals and contaminants such as DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls.

It is not surprising that the 350 workers employed in the plant have been complaining for years about skin rashes, nausea, fevers, headaches and respiratory problems. Some allege that the poorly regulated toxic intakes from the sewer system in Metro Toronto might also be part of the cause.

When is the minister going to pay attention to the very serious occupational health hazards in the Ashbridges Bay plant and the other Metro sewage treatment plants? Specifically, will he provide assistance to speed up the computer processing of the health data being collected by individual employees of the Ashbridges Bay plant over the past few years so that he will know exactly what the problem is and can take steps to remedy it?

Mr. Speaker: The two questions have been asked.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I appreciate the member’s concern. She did mention that the facility is in her riding and, obviously, she would have a special concern.

It is an interesting situation inasmuch as, from the point of view of the Minister of the Environment, the minister did comment on this the other day. Obviously, the real and ultimate solution to the discharge of substances into the environment is the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program, which he has worked so hard to put into place, and the reduction of those chemicals coming into the sewage treatment plant.

In addition, I think appropriately, the member says that inside the treatment plant, obviously, workers are going to be working in an environment where chemicals are present. That is why we have put programs in Ashbridges, as we have in other treatment plants, to deal with the issue -- monitoring programs and control programs that I hope and expect will appropriately keep workers from being exposed to those kinds of chemicals.

Ms. Bryden: To put another part of the problem right in his ministry, a considerable number of the workers in Ashbridges Bay have applied for compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act after undergoing medical tests by their family physicians and specialists which indicated that there were serious health problems. To date, almost none of these have been dealt with, and compensation has been denied in some cases.

Will the minister supply us with figures on the number of claims received to date in the past five years and on the number where compensation was awarded? Will he review the criteria for deciding what kinds of illnesses in this plant should be compensable?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: There are a number of questions there. Let us deal first with the request for information. I will certainly pass along to the board her request for that information: that is, the number of claims and the number of claims that have been acknowledged.

The member raises an issue that is obviously of great difficulty to adjudicate, and that is the exposure to substances which may give rise to industrial disease. The difficult problem here is to determine whether or not there is a link between an individual’s health condition and exposure to a particular substance. It certainly is not an easy linkage to make. On the one hand, we want to be sure that every single person whose health has been affected is appropriately compensated. On the other hand, we want to ensure that only those whose health has been affected have been compensated.

Mr. Speaker, just before you rise, I want to say to my friend the member for Beaches-Woodbine that I think the real answer to this problem is the effective implementation of the workplace hazardous materials information system program so that workers will have far better information as to those chemicals they are exposed to when WHMIS comes into force on October 31.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Skills Development. I am pleased to see the government’s efforts to heighten awareness through Ontario’s bright and hopeful young builders this week at the Future Building ‘88 expo here in Toronto, a wonderful program.

My concern, however, is with what happens when 50,000 young students and adults go back to their homes. These young people return home with tremendous expectations and hopes for apprenticeship programs, but they are confronted by problems such as waiting lists, having to quit school, moving away from their home, and regulations that do not make any sense, which the minister is very much aware of.

My question to the minister is, when can we expect a long-overdue overhaul of the apprenticeship program in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Curling: As the member knows, the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen’s Qualification Act is about 60 years old, and my government has made a commitment to revamp and look at it in detail again to make it very relevant to today’s economy and today’s workplace.

What we are doing is to make sure that we approach this in a very intelligent manner and make sure that the consultative process is in place. We have done a lot by working with the unions. Members saw, too, that on the Premier’s Council on technology, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) indicated that it will be meeting and setting up a system of looking at the training aspect of it in the Premier’s Council. I think the consultative approach is in place, and we will be proceeding very carefully to assess the apprenticeship act.

Mrs. Cunningham: We have been listening for a long time, and 1,200 students from the city of London will be coming to Toronto this week.

They have raised expectations; they want to be involved in apprenticeship programs when they go home in the near future. The question is, when will they be able to be involved in these programs? Program delivery is important. When will they be able to be involved?

Mr. Speaker: I think the question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am glad the member raised that question today. Future Building ‘88 was put on by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and is a tremendous success. Thousands of students are coming from all over the province just to see the building industry and the opportunity that is afforded them there.

We know there is a shortage in the skilled workforce within the construction industry. We know too that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has put an adequate amount of money in the community colleges so that those people can be trained. We will be responding to that. We hope this will be followed through, and we hope we will get the co-operation of all members of the opposition when we come through with some very assertive programs.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Kozyra: I have two petitions here from the citizens of Thunder Bay stating their opposition to Sunday shopping and wishing a common pause day.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Miss Roberts: I have a petition here to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly, a petition against day passes for the criminally insane. There are approximately 200 names on the petition. I have signed my name at the bottom of the same.

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr. Velshi: I have a petition here from the national office of the Voice of Women, signed by about 15 people, a petition against the Meech Lake accord:

1450

“To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

“Canadians must ensure that women’s equality rights are clearly written and well protected in our Constitution. The risks we see in the proposed Meech Lake accord should and must be removed before ratification. For women, any risk is too much risk. We reject any proposal for companion resolutions to ‘fix it up later’ because we cannot trust all provinces not to exercise the veto.

“The accord must be revised to read that nothing in it will abrogate or derogate from any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

I have attested my signature to this.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO STATUTE LAW ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved first reading of Bill 130, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act and the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This bill deals with three important issues in the regional municipality of Waterloo.

The first is the updating of the assessment base for purposes of property taxation. The legislation will help correct existing inequities by permitting the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) to undertake a uniform region-wide assessment update. It is similar to legislation enacted for Sudbury region in 1986 and for Haldimand-Norfolk region in 1987.

The second issue is waste management. The legislation will provide regional council with expanded powers to implement a comprehensive waste management plan.

Third, the legislation will authorize the region to collect an industrial development charge on certain lands in Cambridge and Kitchener. This will allow the region to recover certain specific servicing costs from those benefiting properties.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION AMENDMENT ACT

Ms. Bryden moved first reading of Bill 131, An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Ms. Bryden: The purpose of this bill is to extend the protection of provincial rent review legislation to the 1,080 units in the Main Square apartment complex in my riding.

At present this building, which is privately owned, has an exemption under the provincial rent review legislation on the grounds that it is administered and operated by an agency of the government of Canada; namely, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. This denies the tenants the same kind of rental protection as other tenants in other --

Mr. Speaker: Order. An explanation is fine, but this is not the proper time to debate.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Reville moved that, pursuant to standing order 37(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, that being the critical shortage of nurses, the serious imbalances in the delivery of health services and the resulting inability of the health care system to provide adequate and equal accessibility to required health care services in hospital and in the community.

Mr. Speaker: This notice was received in proper time, at 9 a.m., and therefore this motion is in order. I will listen to the honourable member, as well as representatives from the other parties, for up to five minutes.

Mr. Reville: I think one issue that the citizens of Ontario, and for that matter the citizens of this entire country, are agreed on is that the provision of health care services without reference to the economic ability of the citizens of Canada and of Ontario is absolutely essential.

Canada and Ontario are justly proud of their medicare system and of the health care professionals who provide excellent services within our health care system. So it is that at any time there appear to be problems -- and it is certainly a time that there certainly do appear to be -- in the health care system, we in the New Democratic Party view that as an emergency. In the spring session of this Legislature, my party, my leader and other members of the NDP caucus have raised time after time serious imbalances in the system that are preventing people in Ontario from having equal access to health care services they need.

These protestations on behalf of the New Democratic Party are not new. For many years now, we have been arguing that the health care system in Ontario suffers from serious imbalances, so that in fact a number of open-ended aspects of the system continue to receive the bulk of the funding, which has now ballooned to $12.7 billion for this next fiscal year, whereas services that are delivered in terms of preventive health care and community health care have not grown at nearly the rate that institutional services have.

This has resulted, in our view and in the view of many health care analysts, in increasing pressure on hospitals and increasing costs being paid by the taxpayers of Ontario to Ontario health insurance plan billings, the Ontario drug benefit plan and laboratory fees, without a corresponding improvement in the health outcome for the citizens of Ontario.

In terms of fiscal planning, it is indeed an emergency when one imagines that by the year 2000, at the rate at which it is growing now, our health care budget will exceed $40 billion a year, which, of course, is in excess of the entire provincial budget at this time.

That means it will quadruple in the next four years, and if it quadruples in the same pattern it is now quadrupling, the bulk of that money will continue to be paid to physicians, to cover hospital budgets, to cover the Ontario drug benefit plan and to cover laboratory charges, and we will continue to see woefully inadequate services in the community in terms of home care and in terms of community-based health care services for people to serve them in the community in which they live and to not block hospital beds, as they currently are being, by inappropriate use thereof.

So we see a situation now where people must wait -- sometimes they must wait beyond the point of no return -- for needed surgery, because the government has failed to act to address nursing shortages, inappropriate bed usage and inappropriate allocation of services. We are now discovering more and more often that the health care system in Ontario is, indeed, being rationed. I repeat, it is being rationed, because for some people the wait is just too long: when their names come up on the waiting list, regrettably, they are dead.

Clearly, that is not the kind of health care system we want to see in Ontario. We believe the government must do much more than set up long-term task forces and mid-term task forces and have the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) lecture hospitals without regard to the services they must provide to meet the health care needs of the province. That is why, in our view, this debate is an emergency.

1500

Mr. Eves: I would like to rise and speak in support of the motion. I think it is a matter of urgent public importance. The critical shortage of nurses has been demonstrated not only in this House but in Ontario in the last two or three years.

Serious imbalances in the delivery of health care services and the inability of the health care system to provide adequate and equal accessibility to required health care services both in the hospital and in the community are evident throughout Ontario today.

Dealing first with the shortage of nurses in Ontario, if we look at the Goldfarb report, the Ontario Nurses’ Association had to resort to doing its own report, awaiting the report from the Ministry of Health which was on again, off again. We were told last November by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) that she was again restructuring a committee to look at the nursing shortage and that she expected the report of her committee by the end of February. It is now May 9, 1988, and we still have not heard anything from the Minister of Health or her ministry with respect to the nursing shortage in the province, other than her referring to it as a cyclical problem.

On April 25, she said in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), “I’ll be meeting with representatives from nurses in the next two weeks.” On May 2, she gave exactly the same answer to the Leader of the Opposition, except that she went on to say that there are very real manpower problems in the health care system at the moment. “Within the next two weeks I am meeting with a committee that I have reactivated to look at the short-term, medium-term and long-term solutions to what, in the past, has been a cyclical problem.”

The minister just keeps on repeating the commitment that she is going to meet with nurses but she really does nothing about it. I think this government has taken the tack that it is going to study health care to death. Some of the reports it has commissioned in the last two years are the Podborski report, the Evans report, the Spasoff report, the critical care review with Dr. Sibbald as chairman, the Task Force on the Use and Provision of Medical Services with Graham Scott as chairman, a working group on community health services with Robert Graham as chairman, the inquiry into prescription drug use with Dr. Fred Lowy as chairman and the Advisory Committee on Nursing Manpower re-established in December 1987, to name but a few.

I think the questions being asked by nurses, by the Ontario Hospital Association, and indeed by doctors throughout Ontario, are very critical ones. Mr. Gordon Cunningham, president of the Ontario Hospital Association, has been quoted as saying, “In all honesty, we have tackled every method of cost control we can. We believe that we are declaring our true costs and society must look at whether we will be funded to the level of patient needs or not.”

Another quote from the OHA chairman, Gerald Turner, who rightly states, “Ontario cannot expect to have unlimited hospital care with limited dollars.” We have the Treasurer and the Minister of Health taking the position that they will not fund hospital deficits whether planned or unplanned, whether through any fault or mismanagement of the hospitals themselves.

I am quoting from an editorial here in the North Bay Nugget, “It does not help that the Ontario Liberal government is busy drawing financial lines that hospitals must not cross but won’t accept responsibility for making the agonizing decisions that have to be faced. The government dithers while red ink piles up. But the only way costs can be substantially reduced is to accept fewer patients and to fire some staff.

“So who is to be turned away? The patient going slowly blind with cataracts who wants to see again? The typist with crippled hands who wants to get back to work? A child who needs an ear operation to hear what the teacher says? Where does the government want North Bay’s hospitals to draw the line? Does it want them to become more parochial?

“No one knows, but the government, most particularly Ontario Treasurer Robert Nixon, has made it clear it will not pick up any more hospital deficits. So tell us, Bob Nixon, who do you want turned away from North Bay’s hospitals, because to meet your demands someone must be refused service?”

That is the end of the quote from the North Bay Nugget editorial.

We have seen in the last couple of weeks, last week especially, cardiovascular surgeons and cardiologists in Ontario becoming extremely frustrated with the length of time that open-heart surgery patients have to wait on the waiting list for open-heart surgery and the lack of facilitation services available to them.

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

Mr. Eves: I think this, like the paediatric cases last year, demonstrates the chaos in the health care system.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am pleased to rise on behalf of the government to indicate that we will not be supporting the motion as presented by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville).

I have to indicate that although the honourable member would revel in the opportunity of speaking much longer to the point, certainly there is nothing in this motion which would indicate that the matter has become urgent over the weekend to an extent which would cause the opposition parties to change their minds in their support of assigning Monday’s debate time to the budget discussion.

It seems to me, and I listened with great interest to the member for Riverdale and also to the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves), really what these people were doing was they were making statements more like those made in an estimates debate or, indeed, in a budget debate. Of course, today’s business was assigned exclusively for budget debate. There was an agreement last Thursday that we would do that. There was also an agreement last Thursday that we would have a second day in which we could speak to the concurrences which are needed to be done to clean up the estimates process from last year.

It seems to me that there could be ample opportunity for these two wonderful people to speak, maybe at greater length than they could possibly under the restrictive rules which prevent them from speaking beyond 10 minutes, and I think we could probably benefit to a great extent from their interesting material.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think it is really very unfair and unkind of the member for Parry Sound to indicate that the Minister of Health has been making statements about meeting and has done nothing. In fact, the member for Oriole, the Minister of Health, has met with and continues to meet with the nursing profession and is meeting today with the Advisory Committee on Nursing Manpower, and they are making progress with respect to the question of nursing shortages which the member is speaking about.

I might also just indicate that the nature of the motion itself indicates the shotgun approach which the opposition has come to take with respect to issues that it has no idea how it might solve. They have taken a whole series of items, made a very general resolution and said it is, all of a sudden, an emergency. It may very well be an emergency to the opposition, but this government has the matter well in hand because we have commissioned the type of work that will answer the questions the member for Riverdale has raised.

The Premier’s Council is looking at all of the opportunities that are available and will be making reports on exactly how we can address the question of budget and on the delivery of alternative services.

I must say that while I found the members’ presentations extremely entertaining, they were, in my opinion, without any substance at all with respect to why this is an emergency. It was no better than they usually do in their opening salvoes in estimates. In fact, I must say they were very much more deficient because they had less thought, less care placed on proposing what might be solutions to what they see as an emergency.

It would seem to me that as a result of their inability to provide a focused resolution, they would really be very much lacking in compliance with the rule which says that we debate one item only. I am not going to dwell on that point, but they have set out about three different items which they have decided they were thinking about at the time, combined them in one sentence and decided that was enough to declare the issue an emergent one.

I think we have to indicate that this was designed to take away from the discussion today of a very important item, the budget, and that it was not more urgent today than it was last Thursday, when the agreement was reached that this would be a budget day. I can say that we would be much more productive and that there would be much more fruitful discussion if we went on with the budget debate instead of looking at this particular motion, which I think was not well conceived.

As a result, we will not be supporting the motion for an emergency debate.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the three speakers. Now, pursuant to standing order 37(d), I must put the question, shall the debate proceed?

1615

The House divided on Mr. Reville’s motion to set aside the ordinary business of the House, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cunningham, Eves, Hampton, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, McLean, Pollock, Pouliot, Rae, B., Reville, Swart, Wildman.

Nays

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Cleary, Collins, Cooke, D. R., Curling, Dietsch, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Faubert, Fontaine, Fulton, Hart, Henderson, Kanter, Kerrio, Kozyra, Kwinter, LeBourdais, Leone, Lipsett, Lupusella;

MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, Miclash, Morin, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Oddie Munro, Owen, Phillips, G., Poole, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Roberts, Ruprecht, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, Stoner, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Ward, Wilson, Wong, Wrye.

Ayes 22; nays 66.

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Hampton: I cannot say it is an honour to speak with reference to this budget. I can say that on behalf of my constituents, however, it is necessary to speak about this budget, more specifically to denounce it.

In personal terms for the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), things may be fine at Earl’s garage in his constituency. Most of the garages that sell gasoline in my constituency are thinking of going out of business, because the plain fact they are faced with after this budget is that someone can fill up his gas tank on the Canadian side of the border, then go across to the American side and fill it up again and it costs only about half the price on the American side. So we have gasoline stations all along the US-Canadian border in Ontario that really have a problem on their hands thanks to this budget. How can you sell something at twice the price --

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the member. However, there are quite a number of private conversations. We will just wait, maybe, until they are finished.

Mr. Hampton: The problem that many of these businesses have is how to sell a commodity like gasoline at twice the price someone is selling it for a mere 200 or 300 yards away, across the border in Minnesota or Michigan.

This government says it is concerned about entrepreneurialism and the development of business. This budget is going to put a lot of businesses out of business.

Just on the weekend I had the opportunity to speak to two or three business people who operate service stations along the border. Every one of them indicates that, without any doubt whatsoever, they have seen an incredible decrease in their business since this budget was brought down. People pull up to the gasoline station and say, “I will buy $4 worth, enough that I can get across the border and fill up my tank, thank you very much.”

I simply say to all those business people that they have the Treasurer of Ontario to thank, and they should write to him personally and thank him.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Aren’t you supposed to represent them?

Mr. Hampton: Yes, and I am doing that now.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I feel bowled over.

Mr. Hampton: It seems that as long as things are fine at Earl’s garage that is all that matters. That is the truth that is coming home to a lot of people.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order. I would remind the honourable members to direct their comments through the Speaker.

Mr. Hampton: Through you, Madam Speaker, to the Treasurer, there is a world beyond Earl’s garage, there are gasoline prices beyond Earl’s garage and there are business effects beyond Earl’s garage.

The unfortunate part of this is that it is not just one or two businesses that are losing money. The fact of the matter is that when you talk to the owners and operators of these enterprises, they will tell you that if they had the business they had four or five years ago, before the Treasurer decided he was going to up the gasoline tax with every one of his budgets, they could hire and employ four or five more people.

When we have an unemployment rate in many of these communities of nine, 10 or 11 per cent, when we start talking about an individual business like that being able to employ four or five more people in each case, we are talking about a sizeable impact on the unemployment problem.

However, it would appear that the Treasurer really does not have a lot of sensitivity to these issues. If he did have sensitivity to these issues, he would note that there are other jurisdictions where governments have felt it necessary to increase gasoline taxes, yet in doing so they have allowed communities located along provincial or international borders to adjust the taxes payable in order that they can compete with neighbouring jurisdictions. Manitoba did that for some time, Saskatchewan did that for some time and Quebec tried it and was successful at it: all as a means to ensure that those businesses that have to face competition in another jurisdiction will have some leeway in doing it. I would urge the Treasurer at a future date, at a hopefully not-too-distant future date, to consider allowing communities which have to deal with other jurisdictions where gasoline taxes are not so unreasonable to allow businesses in those areas some adjustment in the gasoline tax so that they will have the opportunity to compete and will not be forced out of business.

There is more to this budget than just gasoline taxes. If you look at this budget as a whole, all you can say is that it is an unbelievably unfair and regressive budget. It is an unbelievably unfair and regressive budget because the majority of the taxes are consumption taxes and, as any economist will tell you, consumption taxes hit those on limited incomes, on low incomes, much more heavily than they hit those with higher incomes, and yet the Treasurer has chosen to follow that route.

Imagine the impact on someone who is on a fixed income of $20,000. Well, fortunately for us, other provinces have looked at this impact. Two years ago, when Saskatchewan did an interprovincial comparison of taxes, what it found, when you look at all the consumption taxes in Ontario, is that Ontario is perhaps the hardest province -- the hardest province -- when it comes to taxing those who are in the income bracket of $21,000 a year or less, that we take an inordinate amount of taxes from those people and that Ontario is, in effect, a tax haven for those in the income categories above $50,000 a year.

What this budget has clearly done is to increase the burden substantially on those who earn $21,000 a year or less; and that, by definition, is an unfair budget and a regressive budget.

But this budget is also unfair and also regressive because of what it does not do.

I was appalled the other day to read in the newspaper that the automotive industry is doing and has been doing so well in the past three years that the president of Chrysler Corp., Lee Iacocca, had a total income last year of $17 million from Chrysler. That is a total of salary and benefits derived from investments in the corporation and stock options in the corporation, which have done well as a result of Chrysler doing well. What that indicates, and the statistics will bear this out, is that the automotive industry has been doing very well in terms of profits in the last three years.

What the records also show is that the real estate industry has been doing very well in the last three years, much of the electrical appliance industry has been doing very well in the last three years and the computer industry has been doing very well in the last three years. All of these types of operations have major establishments in Ontario. They have major sources of income, major sources of profit. Yet when we look at the Treasurer’s budget, we see that none -- none -- of these types of business operations will face an increase in corporate taxes.

Really, this budget is almost like a message from the Treasurer to the business community, and what it in fact says is: “Geez, fellows, it’s true we campaign like New Democrats, but the bottom line of this budget is you don’t have to worry about us, we’re on your side.”

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I’m going to send that out to a number of people I know.

Mr. Breaugh: You already have.

Mr. Hampton: The Treasurer has already sent out that message in his own way, in his own very subtle way, and I am sure those who have received that message have rejoiced quite often and have telephoned the Treasurer quite frequently to tell him they are quite appreciative.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: This is a very helpful speech too.

1630

Mr. Hampton: Perhaps the economy of the Golden Triangle, the economy that exists around Toronto, can handle this budget. Perhaps income earners and consumers who live in the Golden Triangle, where the unemployment rate is dropping, can deal with this budget. But in northern Ontario communities, where unemployment rates are still in the 10 per cent range and many communities still have 20 per cent or 30 per cent unemployment rates, they cannot handle this budget. They simply do not have the economic resources, either in individual terms or in community terms, to be able to deal with this kind of tax grab.

And it is hurting communities. Not just communities along the border that have to deal with competition from American jurisdictions, but communities all across the northern part of the province. They are saying: “We simply don’t have the extra income. We simply can’t afford the gasoline tax when we have to travel three or four hours from one community to another. We simply can’t afford the extra consumption taxes.”

Another aspect is that it is very easy nowadays for governments to raise the so-called sin taxes. If things get tough, go after the old case of beer, increase the tax on someone’s case of beer, increase the tax on the bottle of wine.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Ten cents a bottle. Big deal. How chintzy are they in the northwest? Are they all like that?

Mr. Hampton: I think it indicates exactly where the Treasurer is coming from when he says, “Ten cents a bottle. Big deal.” Through you, Madam Speaker, I want the Treasurer to know that, for a lot of people in the communities I know, that 10 cents a bottle is a big deal, because there are a lot of those people out there who count their 10 cents every day to find out how they are going to be able to afford things.

I suppose when the Treasurer wants to enjoy himself, he goes to the local bar or a nightclub.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Not me.

Mr. Hampton: Well, the Treasurer cannot buy everything at Earl’s garage, I am sorry.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: You would be surprised.

Mr. Hampton: Maybe in the Treasurer’s jurisdiction you can buy almost everything at Earl’s garage.

The point of the matter is that for many people, being able to purchase a case of beer once every three weeks is probably a good part of their social life, because many people I know simply cannot afford the prices that are now charged in nightclubs, or even in the local tavern. They simply cannot afford those kinds of prices. When I hear the Treasurer say, “Well, it’s only 10 cents on a bottle of wine,” or “It’s only so many cents on a case of beer,” I find that he just does not understand the economic position of a lot of people.

More than this, more than just what this budget takes out of the economy, the unfair way it has taken it out of the economy and the disparaging way it has gone after people on fixed and low incomes and wage earners and has left the corporate sector absolutely alone, more than all those faults what is equally appalling is the way some of this money is going to be apportioned.

Just a couple of weeks ago I addressed a question to the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), and the substance of the question was why is it, if the home care program is so important in the government’s health care strategy, that people who work in that program make no more than $6.08 per hour?

The example I gave the Minister of Health was a woman who has worked for 18 years in home care, and after her 18 years of permanent work she receives a maximum salary of $6.08 per hour -- no benefits, no pension plan, nothing. This is supposed to be a program that is a priority health care program in Ontario. When I asked the Minister of Health that question, her reply was, “Well, you know, we don’t have enough money to do everything.”

So I look now at where some of the money from this budget is going to be apportioned in terms of health care. What is depressing is that the majority of the money that is going to go into health care is going to go into the same sort of institutional cost and paying increased sums to the doctors of the province.

It is not enough that this budget is regressive and unfair in what it takes from low-income people, middle-income people and people on fixed incomes. What is equally unfair is what it does not do in terms of providing or allocating money for some of the services that this government says are important and for the services that we acknowledge in this province are important.

I cite as one example the situation of people who work in home care and who are paid the measly sum of $6 an hour and very likely will receive no benefits from this budget in terms of a fair and reasonable salary.

I could go on at length and cite a number of the statistics that our research section has put together for us on the impact of this budget. I could give discrete examples of how unfair it will be to senior citizens and to people who can only obtain seasonal work. Many people in the part of the province that I am from can obtain only seasonal work, or they are forced to put together two or three seasonal jobs and hope they come out of it with an income of $20,000 or more, but in many cases less than that.

I could give all kinds of examples of how unfair this budget is to those people. However. I think I have made my point. The fact of the matter is, it is an unfair budget in terms of whom it taxes and the degree to which they are being taxed. It is an unfair budget in the sense that it leaves some of the major corporate players in Ontario’s economy and some of the most profitable corporate players in Ontario’s economy absolutely alone and without any tax increases.

It is an unfair budget in the sense that some of the programs that this government claims to support and claims to rate as a priority are, in fact, going to be no better off once these budget allocations proceed, according to the way in which these budget allocations will proceed.

I would urge the Treasurer to stop in at Earl’s garage some Sunday afternoon and talk with the folks who frequent the place. Maybe he could come back with a budget that is fair for the average person in Ontario, one that is more reasonable for the average person in Ontario and certainly one that does not profit the corporate sector of Ontario as much as this one does.

Quite frankly, anybody to whom I have spoken about this budget is dismally disappointed with it and has nothing good to say about it. That is how I feel about it as well.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any comments or questions on the remarks just made by the member for Rainy River?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I was just interested in the vehemence of the honourable member in being critical of the corporate sector not paying its share. I think he should be aware -- and I am sure he is, having perused the budget so carefully -- that the interim results of the last fiscal year indicate that the corporations paid $3,607,000,000, and for the coming year they are expected to pay $4,329,000,000. That is an increase of $722 million in one year, not far off a 20 per cent increase.

Mr. Hampton: That’s razzle dazzle.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Well, those are the figures.

He would also be aware that, on a certain page of the budget that I cannot seem to turn up as quickly as I would like, the share that the corporations are paying in the total budgetary revenue pie is increasing. The only share that is decreasing is the revenue that comes from the government of Canada.

1640

I think this is of significance to us as taxpayers, both nationally and provincially. There is only one source of public money from either level of government. It is something that I would really appreciate his assisting me in conveying to the public: that is, the federal share that was usually established in new programs involving post-secondary education and health was 50 per cent. As a matter of fact, during the generous Liberal days, this share went up to about 52 per cent. It is now about 38 per cent. These are federal funds in support of programs that are growing more rapidly than any others: our health services and post-secondary education. So I am just glad that, in one way, the honourable member, in his rather short-sighted view of our revenues, has raised it.

Mr. Breaugh: I enjoyed the speech by the member for Rainy River, and I would like him to respond a little bit to some of the concerns that others have raised. The Treasurer just led a spirited defence of his friends in the corporate sector.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: They are the people who make jobs.

Mr. Breaugh: The Treasurer interjects again that in the corporate sector are the only people who make jobs and create wealth. I would like the honourable member perhaps to respond to some of the not-so-witty interjections of the Treasurer.

Perhaps he could comment, too, on whether the Treasurer’s chauffeur feels the same way the Treasurer does about the increase in the gasoline tax. I would like the honourable member to tell us, too, whether he has had the opportunity to ride in the back seat of the limo, with the Treasurer sprawled all over the back seat in great comfort. I wonder, too, if he would care to present to us a perspective from those who do not have expense accounts, those who do not go to the great, gala Liberal receptions of this world, those in fact who even buy their own wine.

I think maybe the member might be able to present to us then a slightly different perspective of the world from the one the Treasurer has. In fact, it might even be quite similar to the perspective that was displayed to the Treasurer so dramatically on the front steps of the Legislature, where people certainly had a lot to say about the Treasurer and his budget and did not seem at all to take the same attitude as the Treasurer.

Perhaps the member for Rainy River would care to respond to that briefly when he does his summation.

Mr. Hampton: I look forward to this because, in the altercations I have had with the Treasurer, this will be the time when I have perhaps the last word, at least for now.

I have saved a few for the Treasurer. I want to respond to some of the comments of the Treasurer, because the Treasurer has left a few things out. It is true that the federal government we now have has been somewhat stingy in terms of passing on to the provinces tax dollars that they can spend on health care and education. That is acknowledged all across the country, and that has been a problem. It has really been a serious problem for provinces like Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and the Maritimes, which do not have the abundant economy that Ontario has.

What the Treasurer leaves out as well is that the federal government believes in control by the market and in letting the wealth go where the wealth already is. The wealth has always historically been in southern Ontario, and southern Ontario has benefited tremendously from that federal government.

That is perhaps why so many of the corporations in southern Ontario are doing well. The fact that the corporate sector may be kicking in a little bit of money to the provincial Treasury is not due to the studious efforts of the Treasurer. Some corporations are kicking in a little more money because, in fact, thanks to the market climate that this Treasurer and the federal Minister of Finance, Michael Wilson, believe in, these corporations have been able to make a lot of money. In the interests of fairness, the Treasurer should have gone after them for more.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I am very pleased to join in this budget debate, because it gives me the opportunity to express the very serious concerns that many of my constituents have brought to my attention since this budget was tabled in this Legislature on Wednesday, April 20, 1988, a day we all will remember, especially, I hope, the taxpayers of this province.

My constituents are angry. They feel a sense of betrayal. In fact, many of them voted for the Liberals last time, even in my riding, strange as it seems. Regardless of how they voted last time, they all share a feeling of despair. They tell me that the harder they work, the less they make. My constituents are good people. They work hard. They try to pay their bills, keep out of debt and save a little for the future, set aside something for a rainy day. All they ask of this government is to do the same thing: live within its means, control its spending and plan for the future for the sake of our children. Is that too much to ask of the government? I think not.

I think the real tragedy of this budget and this government’s policy on taxation is the fact that it is destroying the incentive to work. “The harder we work, the less we make” is a common thread. It is a tragedy. This Liberal government is destroying the incentive to work.

Perhaps Brian Fox’s Windsor Star article of April 21 summed it up best: “Ontario voters will start paying the price today for the massive majority government they handed the Liberals last summer.... With four years to make amends, Treasurer Robert Nixon nailed Ontario with the first sales tax increase in 15 years, taking a whopping $1.26 billion out of their pockets with that and other tax increases.... For more than two years the Liberals have been the darlings of the public.... But the budget may prove to be the turning point in that love affair.”

There is no question about it. The darlings are in trouble. The love affair is over.

I would like to move on now to Wellington county, my riding, and highlight some very pertinent concerns raised by the editorial staff of the Guelph Daily Mercury a month ago, Tuesday, April 5. On this editorial page, in two sections, they make the following comments. This is dated April 5, a good month ago:

“Ontario’s Liberal government, which reconvenes in the Legislature today, is showing signs of being unable to control and direct spending. This sounds unbelievable since the booming economy placed a $1.3-billion windfall in provincial coffers last year.... Premier David Peterson’s government seems to have developed a penchant for passing the buck -- on to municipalities already straining from the need to provide more and more services. One has to look only as far as Wellington county to see the results of this attitude -- residents there face a 21 per cent increase in the mill rate.

“The 21 per cent tax increase facing Wellington county taxpayers is cause for alarm.... To put it in skyrocketing perspective, that is before the Wellington County Board of Education announces its annual tax increase.” Last year’s tax increase for education was 9.3 per cent. “Some of the municipalities face nightmare increases. Nichol township, already paying the highest taxes in Wellington, faces a 21.4 per cent increase. Elora residents face a 27 per cent increase, and Fergus...25.6 per cent. The residents of Wellington county have good reason to be upset.

“Last year’s Ontario budget received a warm welcome but this year’s budget, expected in the next few weeks, will not be as lucky. Critics will want to know what happened to the windfall, where the money is going.... If Peterson feels questions from the opposition parties and the public are tough now, he won’t like the next few months.

“Ontario deserves some intelligent, fiscally responsible answers.”

1650

I represent 21 municipalities in Wellington county, and if I may use one, the village of Elora, as an example to demonstrate to this Liberal government the hardship that the budget will inflict upon these already heavily taxed citizens, it may then understand why so many people are angry with this government’s regressive tax increases.

A home owner in the village of Elora will face an increase in municipal tax of 27 per cent, an estimated increase in education tax of approximately 10 per cent plus a 21 per cent tax increase from the county of Wellington. That is because the government does not transfer enough funds to the municipal level of government. On top of this, the same taxpayer is going to pay more taxes through increased retail sales tax, gasoline tax, personal income tax and, of course, the sin taxes on booze and tobacco.

My constituents are angry. They have had it shoved down their throats once too often. Surely, during the good economic conditions we are enjoying in Ontario, there should have been some relief from heavy taxes, not an increase.

I would like to say that the tax dragon from St. George and his leader, the white knight from London, have misjudged the people of this province. The people are mad. They are as mad as hell and they will not forget. They told the Treasurer that on the front steps of the Legislature on Tuesday of this past week. Garth Turner, the business editor of the Toronto Sun, organized a protest movement that, in one short week, gained the support of 50,000 people and, on Tuesday, nearly 1,000 of these people gathered on the front steps of the Legislature to slay the tax dragon from St. George. The dragon escaped, but I hope he received some benefit from the message that Garth and his friends delivered in person.

Just so the Treasurer will not forget, I think this was the message they tried to give --

Mr. McCague: At least you got his attention.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Did the member see that?

Mr. McCague: Yes, I did. Let me see that again.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: It says, “Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

I would like to express my appreciation to Garth Turner for standing up for his beliefs and for his courage in leading this fight against this very unjust taxation contained in the recent budget.

I would like to quote one more paragraph from Garth Turner’s column in the Tuesday, May 3, Toronto Sun: “It’s unfair. It’s also irresponsible. If the government can’t balance the books and hold the line on taxes during the hottest economy ever, then it simply doesn’t deserve to be the government.”

Did the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Elston) hear that? It does not deserve to be the government.

Naturally, I share Garth Turner’s sentiments and hope that the citizens of this province will convey that message to this government and its members. I can assure members that my party and my colleagues will be conveying the message too.

Though no one ever knew it, the budget policies of the Ontario Liberal government clearly show that it is an ardent supporter of capital punishment. If you have any capital, they will punish you for it.

On that note, I would like to make reference to an editorial in the Financial Post, April 25:

“Spending in Ontario, after this week’s budget, will have increased by 43 per cent since the Liberal government took power; taxes, 52 per cent.... What is disturbing about the Liberal tax grab is rather what it says about their lack of grip on the expenditures side of the ledger.... It cannot be doubted that in several key areas of social policy, Ontario is in crisis: desperate shortages afflict health care, which takes a third of the budget, education, which takes a fifth, and housing and social services, which together take about another fifth. But every serious study of these problem areas has made the same point: what is needed, before all else, is structural reform, making greater use of those useful allocative devices, competition and the price system, to better deploy existing resources.

“This in no way jeopardizes the commitment to social equity in these areas. But the Liberal government has not addressed the need for reform. Its answer is to try to float each crisis away on a raft of dollars.”

That raft of dollars has expanded. I would like to remind the House of the budget revenue changes. Increase in retail sales tax, $820 million; increase in personal income tax, $272 million; tobacco tax, $151 million; and gasoline tax, $139 million: a total of $1.383 billion. That is just the increase.

There are also the dollars in taxation that come out of the regular budget. Personal income tax now is over $10.5 billion. Retail sales tax is nearly $8 billion. Corporation taxes are $4.5 billion. Gasoline and fuel tax is over $1.5 billion; and they announce $100 million for roads and think it is great.

Land transfer tax is $0.5 billion. Tobacco tax is $776 million and liquor taxes are $1.116 billion. These are just the biggies.

What do we get for all these taxes? I could be uncharitable. Maybe the member for Huron (Mr. Riddell) would like to listen to this part. I could be uncharitable and talk about the increased costs in the Office of the Premier and Cabinet Office since the Liberals took power in 1985, but the fact is that I was not able to obtain any information from the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet. The answer we received was to place our questions on Orders and Notices. I think this is the same minister in charge of the freedom of information legislation. Well, so much for that legislation.

I could talk about the several thousands of extra civil servants who have been hired in that same time frame and the costs involved for the increased level of services they are providing. If I can find out what they are doing I will let members know.

Madam Speaker, you will think I have been very negative in my remarks. Perhaps I can find a few positive aspects of this budget. Education: in the budget, $900 million was committed to a three-year capital grants program. The Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) allocated $13.4 million of this to Wellington county and the city of Guelph for four new schools, and I thank the minister for that. We are entitled to it, we deserve it since we are paying taxes, but I do thank him anyway. Perhaps after not receiving anything last year it only makes up for that. Both the Wellington County Board of Education and the Wellington County Roman Catholic Separate School Board were very pleased to receive this capital funding and so was I.

Further in education, the budget states that there is $430 million over three years allocated to reduce class sizes in grades 1 and 2. I would say to the minister that in my mind this is a mistake. Surely when we have hundreds of schools across this province, with thousands of portables, it would make more sense to eliminate the portables before we start reducing class sizes. If there is any equity or fairness at all in this government’s programs, surely it would not like to see the continuation of the portables at many of our schools while at the same time reducing class size in others. That does not make sense and it certainly is not fair or equitable. Every student in every community should be treated with the same degree of fairness.

I might also remind the government that the Liberals in the 1985 election promised to increase the provincial share of education costs from 46 to 60 per cent. This would alleviate some of the problems that the likes of the village of Elora have if the government would follow through with its commitment.

1700

Agriculture is one of the most important industries in Wellington, and I strongly support any initiatives to help our family farmers; but I must be very brief in my comments on this ministry because the budget had very little for agriculture -- less than a two per cent increase, less than inflation.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) brags about his government’s commitment to agriculture. The budget is set at $567 million, but the taxes on tobacco alone are $776 million. In other words, in one tax on an agricultural product the government is reaping over $210 million more than it is spending on its entire budget for agriculture. That is shameful.

This government brags about the percentage increase in the last three or four years, and it is true it did increase the budget for agriculture; but we must also remember that during those same years, Quebec, Alberta, the United States and the European Community all made massive commitments to support their farmers. The US alone in one bill, the US farm bill, pumped over $25 billion into support programs for its farmers each and every year.

Brigid Pyke, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, calls it a stand-pat budget, a disappointment to farmers. I think my good friend the former president of the OFA, the member for Lincoln (Mr. Pelissero), who sits right over there, would agree with Brigid’s remarks.

Brigid had another comment about the farming community in an article in the Toronto Star headed “Queen’s Park Scales Down Farmer Aid,” which began:

“A popular aid program that cut interest payments for Ontario farmers will be scaled down this year, despite fears the move will push thousands towards bankruptcy. Agriculture Minister Jack Riddell says....

“Without full assistance, about 6,000 farmers with interest rates as high as 15 per cent will face harder times, said Brigid Pyke, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.”

“‘This could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for many farmers,’ Pyke said.”

Most of that I have quoted, but I would like to know if the Minister of Agriculture and Food really does care about trying to save the family farmers.

I would like to turn for a minute to seniors and the disabled. We have a minister responsible for disabled persons and a minister responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. One would think that with the clout from two ministers they could look after the problems of disabled seniors, but they cannot seem to solve one problem that is very pertinent to one area in my riding, and it must affect other members in this Legislature as well.

I make reference to a senior citizens’ apartment building, Meadow View Place, in the hamlet of Hillsburgh, township of Erin, county of Wellington. It is a two-storey apartment complex for seniors. It is a beautiful building and well designed with one exception: they did not put in any elevators. Now seniors who have become disabled through a stroke, heart problem or even a broken leg are caught on the second floor and they cannot get out of their building. They are trapped. They cannot move to the main floor because the apartments are all rented. Therefore, they have requested assistance to install an elevator or a chair lift.

The project manager, Rose Andrews of the Township of Erin Non-Profit Housing Corp., requested assistance many months ago.

Hon. Mr. Elston: When was it built, Jack?

Mr. McCague: It had to be prior to 1985 because you haven’t built a damned thing since you got in there.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The mistake of not installing the elevators was definitely made by the planning of the former government, but having said that we now have a problem and we should address it.

The project manager, Rose Andrews, requested the assistance of the government and received a reply back from the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson). I will quote from the letter that was received:

“The Minister of Housing is, as you mentioned, committed to equipping all multi-storey senior residences with elevators in the future. However, they have no grants available for retrofitting older residences built without elevators and she would like to direct you and the residents in question to the federal program, the New Horizons program.”

Rose tried the Office for Disabled Persons, the office of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of Housing, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. and the New Horizons program. They all said, “No, and good luck.”

That is not good enough. This government has to support our disabled seniors. If it has two ministers responsible for doing something over there, why do they not do it?

I would like to briefly mention the Ministry of the Environment, and I would make reference to the minister’s press release of April 21. He states that because of the budget they are able to support the municipalities dealing with garbage disposal problems, an increase from $15.4 million to $22 million.

I support that because it is a needed incentive for our municipalities. The member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham) spoke on that the other day. We need more money in that program, and instead of just money we need some incentive from the ministry, some leadership and some guidance in solving the problem. The people in Metro Toronto should be well aware of the concerns we are all going to have with garbage disposal. We need something more than simply allocating money; we need some leadership.

Municipal curbside recycling funding is up $2 million to $7.7 million. That too has my support. As a matter of fact, the Centre Wellington Solid Waste Management Committee is implementing a new program in Wellington and they will have an opening for the group’s ninth municipality this coming Thursday. If the whip would allow me to attend, I would escape from this House for a short while.

Mr. Reycraft: Go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Go ahead; everybody else does it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Half your buddies don’t listen to the whip. Who is the whip?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have your permission.

I would like to congratulate the chairman of that committee, George Pinkney, and also the co-ordinator of the program, Don Taylor. These people deserve credit for implementing this program in Wellington. I hope they continue and make inroads with other municipalities.

Just touching briefly on health care, which we discussed earlier, I would like to make mention of this. I do not have enough time to go into this very important issue in any detail, but I would like to leave one thought with the members of this assembly.

There is a misconception about health care. Many members of the public think that Ontario has a free health care system. This budget drives home the point that health care is far from free. The Ministry of Health will spend $12.7 billion on health care this year, an increase of $1.2 billion over last year. This represents spending of approximately $1,350 for every man, woman and child in this province. If we paid our health care costs directly instead of through taxation, it would cost my daughter’s family of five $6,750 this year, and likely more next year and in the future. Why does the Ministry of Health not make people aware of the tremendous costs in our health care system?

1710

Once more, I will offer my very positive and constructive advice as to a partial solution to the soaring health care costs in this province. I would like to make the users of health care knowledgeable about the costs of being confined in a hospital or having an appointment with a doctor. A simple mechanism could be put in place. A patient, on checking out of a hospital or on visiting a doctor, would receive a statement similar to Visa or MasterCard, stating the amount of the billing. The patient would sign the same and receive a statement. It would not cost the patient anything, but would impress on that taxpayer that health care is not free.

If an individual or any member of this Legislature stays in a hospital today, has he any idea of the cost? Is it $200, $300, $500 or $1,000 a day? Surely, if people are not knowledgeable about the costs they will not be that concerned. I think it is a responsibility we should have, as members of the Legislature and of the government, to bring the cost of health care to the attention of members of the public.

In closing, I would like the members to take note of the red trillium pictured on the cover of this 1988 Ontario Budget. It is a beautiful red trillium. The white trillium that I proudly wear in my lapel is the official wildflower of Ontario. The red trillium is a stinking benjamin and is as deceiving as this budget. The red trillium is a beautiful flower to look at, but when examined closely you find it smells badly. In fact, it stinks.

This budget, tabled by the tax dragon of St. George, on and with the advice of his Premier, the white knight of London, was quite properly unveiled under a giant red trillium, the stinking benjamin. Like the stinking benjamin, this Liberal budget also stinks.

On that note, I think I should conclude.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member was getting a little personal there.

Are there any comments or questions?

Mr. Smith: I would like to make a few comments. I always enjoy listening to the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson). He is always sincere and I really believe he tries to speak on behalf of his constituents, but regarding some of the comments he has made today, I just do not know, really, whether I can totally agree with them.

He said, on the one hand, that we should not be raising all these taxes; and then, towards the end of his talk, he said we should be giving more for access funds to some of our disabled people. There is one area I could not agree with. Also, I want him to know that the Treasurer has said over the past three years, I believe, that we have created about $7 billion worth of capital costs. These costs will be there for the people in the future.

I have heard more than once from some of the members of the Tory caucus that our government staff numbers are increasing dramatically. If we look back through the records, in about 1977-78 I believe, the Tory government had 1,000 more staff on hand than we do even 11 years later. I think we have to bring out all the facts on that.

I may agree with him on some of his comments on agriculture, but I think if you look back over the last three or four years, the agricultural budget has been increased by about 86 per cent. I think we have to look at it all in a fair way.

There was one other comment about the staff that I suppose I should mention. The last thing I remember the Tories doing before they realized they were going to go down to defeat as the government of the day was that they had to increase the numbers of their staff because they really did not know what they were going to do with all the numbers they had around in the government offices.

I just wanted to make a few comments. I certainly enjoyed the comments of the speaker from Wellington.

Mr. Harris: I want to congratulate the member for Wellington on giving us what I think is a very unbiased and nonpartisan view. Those members who have known the member for Wellington as long as I have will know that when he speaks on an issue, whatever it is, he consults his constituents and he speaks sincerely on behalf of his constituents. He speaks from the heart about what it is he believes. Partisanship is not known to the member for Wellington. Helping his constituents is, and putting forth a position on behalf of the best interests of the people of Ontario is all I have ever heard come from the lips of the member for Wellington.

He was a member before I was elected in 1981. He has taught me more about representing my constituents. Many times he has said to me: “Mike, say what you believe in your heart, not what somebody else tells you to say. Analyse budgets or bills or particular subjects that you’re debating and analyse them on your own. Consult with your constituents back home, talk to people and then put forward that position. Whether it’s the party position or not, put forward that position. It will serve you in good stead.”

It has been excellent advice. It has served me in good stead when I am able to take it. I confess from time to time I am more partisan perhaps than the member for Wellington is. But when somebody as sincere, honest, upstanding, straightforward and nonpartisan as he says this budget stinks, members can be sure this budget stinks. I thank him for his remarks.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The member for Wellington has taught me a few bad habits also. On more than one occasion when we were serving the taxpayers as members of select committees, we had an opportunity to compare notes and tastes.

The honourable member is dead wrong in this particular instance. I cannot help but feel that he has fallen into the hands of one of the platoon of speechwriters the public has provided for the third party, who get it into trouble so often. They just have to read these speeches before they deliver them in the House.

For example, to indicate even for a moment that this budget is anything but well accepted by the agricultural community is just not on. Members have heard the member for Lambton (Mr. Smith), who is himself a farmer, a real, prosperous farmer -- one of those rare ones -- indicate that this is an increase of just under 85 per cent since the Liberals took office. Part of that, of course, pays 100 per cent of the land taxes on the productive farm property and its buildings. Members need go no further than the rural areas of the province to know that this government is recognized as the friend of the farmer.

Beyond that, the member was harsh enough to criticize financing of education, which has grown so rapidly. He referred to the fact that 60 per cent of the cost of education should be paid in his area. I am sure the honourable member would know that in his own area we pay at least 60 per cent of the cost. In almost every community in this province, we are well beyond the 60 per cent level. It is only when we come to the high-assessment areas like Metropolitan Toronto and London that the rates go way down. In Toronto, we pay only two per cent. Is he suggesting that we pay a larger share of the education costs in Toronto? Surely that does not make sense.

In two seconds, I will tell the member that the red trillium stands for truth, justice, fairness and equity.

Mr. McCague: It was interesting to hear the member for Lambton, who keeps sitting over there chirping. Every time something is mentioned, that maybe the Liberals’ priorities as a government are wrong, he says: “You want more money for this, yet you want responsible government.” Certainly, we want responsible government.

The member might want to get hold of Hansard right quick, because he just said a few minutes ago that my honourable friend, who makes an excellent speech every time he stands, had said, “You want to cut here, but you want to spend more there.” The member for Lambton said that the member for Wellington said he wanted more money spent on the disabled and the member for Lambton said he could not go along with that. Maybe the member for Lambton wants to withdraw that comment.

1720

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I will start with the member for Lambton and just suggest that I was not critical in the fact that I requested money for the disabled seniors. As the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague) comments, I do not think the member for Lambton would be either. We certainly would be willing to spend dollars in that area.

The point I am trying to make is that the Treasurer increased taxes by $1.2 billion. He already has $30 billion at his disposal, plus a lot of other windfall money on which he does not keep too close count. I am simply saying that some of the money can be better spent, rather than throwing it at some of the programs the government has come up with.

On a couple of occasions some of the Liberal members have mentioned to the opposition that if it wants any dollars, “Don’t criticize the government.” That is asinine. The ridings of those of us on this side of the House are entitled to as much money as any government member’s riding. Hopefully, the Treasurer will see that this happens.

I am saying they can better allocate the money, and the disabled seniors area is one that I think everyone should support. On increased civil servants he is totally inaccurate. He had better check his facts on that. This government has increased the number.

The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), in his wisdom, as always, made a wonderful speech and I will not comment further.

The Treasurer, in his remarks on agriculture, overlooked the fact that the Americans have poured $25 billion a year into their farm subsidies. We are not doing nearly as much in comparison.

Mr. Brown: I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate today. My remarks will focus on the impact of the budget in my riding, the north and the province as a whole.

I begin by congratulating the Treasurer on bringing forth a budget which recognizes the needs of my constituents. This budget recognizes the needs in my riding for improvements in health care, education, roads, economic development and general investment in services, both hard and soft, that will improve the quality of life and the quantity of opportunity in Algoma-Manitoulin.

Since the shameful display of arrogance of the official opposition here in this place on budget day, I have been meeting and talking with my constituents. They tell me that they were concerned with the budget deficit. In talking with Itchie and Mort over at McQuarrie Motors, they tell me that in the good times of our present economy, it is only prudent to have the lowest cash requirement, and they appreciate the fact that the Treasurer has produced a budget with the lowest deficit in 19 years. This is especially significant in view of the fact that Ontario is coming up short $1.5 billion in funding from the federal government.

Mort and Itchie tell me that the people of my riding do not appreciate the sleight of hand of Michael Wilson. Mr. Wilson has thrown the ball to Ontario and has the outright political gall to ask the province to shoulder the fiscal responsibility for this nation, and then he complains when our Treasurer accepts the challenge and meets it.

They are further pleased that the government predicts savings of $500 million dollars in increased efficiency in the functioning of government. These gentlemen know that after the recession years of the early decade, Ontario must progress and must make the investments in our future that a former regime neglected. They are willing to pay the price of positioning Ontario for the future, of improving our opportunities, because they know that one, we cannot mortgage our future; two, we must meet the challenges of a competitive future; and three, we must have the funds today, in good times, to meet the needs of our people today.

The other day over coffee at B & J’s Bakery, I found that Bill is thinking of expanding. He has new confidence in the north and in the rural north. But Bill cannot understand the federal government’s withdrawal of 1,200 civil service jobs from the north and appreciates greatly the fact that the Peterson government is transferring 1,600 civil service jobs to the north. He cannot understand the logic of a federal government diminishing its presence in the north. He has trouble understanding why the federal government continues to shift responsibility to the province in northern Ontario and then attempts to take credit for the improvements that are happening in our area.

He does not understand how the province’s attempt to bring government closer to the people, to have the civil service closer to the people it serves, to have the civil service seeing the north’s problems the way northerners do and not seeing it the way you see it from Toronto or Ottawa, is not a good policy. He thinks he is right and Brian Mulroney is wrong.

If the federal government had just held steady on federal jobs in the north, we all know that service would be better and more consistent with the north’s interests, and the province’s initiatives would have had much greater impact.

While on this topic, I was surprised and even shocked that the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), in speaking to this debate last week, felt that the Ministry of Northern Development should not be self-contained, with its own human resources branch, its own legal branch, its own audit branch and other services. The member, who was obviously relying on shallow research, suggested a concern with the growing administrative cost of the Ministry of Northern Development.

Upon reflection, I am certain the member was not suggesting that the Ministry of Northern Development not relocate to the north. He certainly did not mean to imply that the ministry should not expand to meet the needs of northerners.

The member, in his simplistic and casual observations, was looking merely at raw numbers and not acknowledging the great changes taking place in the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

The ministry is presently installing a computer network in the numerous towns and cities all across the north for better co-ordination of services and has established a French-language co-ordinator to more sensitively serve the francophone community.

Surely the member, a northern member, was not saying that the additional jobs, now close to 570, that the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and the Ministry of Labour will be bringing to Sudbury should have been left in southern Ontario. Surely the member is not suggesting that the ministry not expand and be corporately self-contained to work and to serve the north. Surely the member was not suggesting that the annual payroll of about $16 million for 500-plus jobs should have stayed in southern Ontario.

If the member was suggesting efficiency, I, like every other member, would agree, but the member must consider the size of the task.

If the member was trying to imply a false impression of management, I urge him to carefully examine the implications to the people of the north. Constructive, balanced suggestions like those that might come from the northern government caucus would be much more helpful than the superficial rhetoric the member offered last week.

I am sure all members support the decentralization of government to the various regions of the province. The third party is not in a particularly good position, looking at its record, to criticize this government over its relocation plans.

As I have mentioned, this government’s relocation plans involve, to date, a shift of 1,600 positions to northern communities, with a payroll of $48 million annually. The construction of the buildings necessary to accommodate the civil service is occurring with an emphasis on northern design and northern suppliers and contractors. These buildings will have a cost of approximately $200 million. To date, over half the design work for these buildings has been done by northern people.

This relocation program will bring government closer to the people it serves and will no doubt help make decisions more consistent with the northern experience.

Perhaps the most exciting announcement for the north in the budget is the creation of the heritage fund. The budget announcement was followed by the introduction of the legislation by the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine). The fund is $360 million. It is unique. It will operate on $30 million annually, which is guaranteed into the 21st century.

This fund will operate from a separate bank account, which will see any unspent moneys accrue and draw interest. It will be administered by a board composed of a representative cross-section of northerners.

The fund is new money and above and beyond existing programs. This fund will operate with broad criteria which will be essentially defined by the board of directors so that it may respond effectively to ongoing and evolving challenges and opportunities in the north.

1730

I would call on all members of this Legislature to move expeditiously to see that the legislation is put in place so that the fund may, at the earliest possible moment, be ready to meet the needs and the challenges of our region of Ontario. The legislation was created after the most extensive consultation and input possible, including that from the northern development councils, various interest groups, conferences, individuals and the northern government caucus. It is an important tool for the north and I urge all members to act with care but with haste in approving this important legislation.

I would like to take just a few minutes to talk about some of the programs that are ongoing in the north. The northern forest biology institute, at a cost of $4 million, is currently under construction by the Ministry of Natural Resources at Lakehead University. The institute will provide the northwest with a major forest research facility and foster increased public and private co-operation in the wise management of Ontario’s forest industry. As a centre of excellence, it complements the efforts of the government, Laurentian University and the Ontario Mining Association to create the equivalent in mining in Sudbury.

A technology development unit at cost of $5.4 million, is to be constructed next year in Thunder Bay and North Bay. The technology development units will develop and test new forest technology to ensure the industry’s future competitiveness and help keep jobs in the north.

We have a television extension to northern Ontario at a cost of $6.5 million which will provide cable extension to 85 northern Ontario communities not currently served by either cable or the TVOntario satellite extension program, and it is funded by the Ministry of Northern Development.

The northern Ontario goods distribution office, at a cost of $1.1 million, was established by the Ministry of Transportation. This office has handled hundreds of calls since opening and estimates that it has helped save northern Ontario shippers $1.2 million in distribution costs.

One of the better programs is the northern community municipal economic development agency, MEDA. It has provided funds for the creation of five municipal economic development agencies. Six more MEDAs are expected to be established this year. Elliot Lake, Parry Sound, Hearst, Iroquois Falls, Kapuskasing have all been approved under the MEDA program. Funded over five years, the MEDA officer works within the municipality to develop long-term planning strategies to identify and develop local business opportunities and attract new business and investment. Eight other northern community economic development programs are already in existence.

In the area of waterfront development, the Ministry of Northern Development has assisted approximately 26 communities to prepare waterfront development studies in the north. We have had a number of these in my riding and just had one approved last week. Many of these communities are now actively in the implementation stage of these projects. To date, the ministry has provided approximately $3.5 million to these northern communities to assist in the implementation of waterfront projects.

This does not take into account contributions from other ministries. A number of significant waterfront projects are now complete or nearing completion. These projects have resulted in a private sector investment totalling approximately $15 million and the creation of a substantial number of jobs.

Just two weeks ago, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) and I had the pleasure of turning the sod for the first NOTICE building, part of the northern Ontario tourist information centres enhancement program, in my riding at Little Current. Today, eight communities have already received funding under this program to build tourist information centres. Another 12 communities are well advanced in the preparation of proposals in this program. This is a good program for the north. It will help tourism and the travelling public.

To wrap up, this budget represents a fiscally responsible document which does not mortgage our future, but rather makes sizeable investments in our future. The budget reflects the view that in good times we, as Ontarians, must pay for the services we demand. The budget makes significant new commitments to northern Ontario in a wide range of programs, from health to roads to the heritage fund.

At the same time, the budget is fair and equitable, increasing aid to low-income Ontarians by $444 million, benefiting 1.8 million people. Sales tax credits are set at $100 per adult and $50 per child, more than double the total benefits under this program for low-income households. The Ontario tax reduction program will eliminate another 350,000 low-income tax filers. The Ontario health insurance plan premium assistance program will also be enriched, resulting in an additional 30,000 people no longer paying premiums.

It is interesting to note that the bulk of the new revenue measures will be spent on health, education and housing. These are investments in our future and these are investments that are necessary. I urge all members to support the Treasurer in this courageous, balanced approach to Ontario’s future, which is designed to fairly and equitably meet the needs of today, while positioning Ontario to build the world-class, compassionate and competitive society we all strive for.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Would any honourable member wish to comment?

Mr. Callahan: Just very briefly. I listened with great delight to the speech of my colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Brown). It is interesting how the speeches on the budget continue to be somewhat similar: a progressive budget by our Treasurer, moving ahead to create for the future, to rectify some of the things that have arisen out of past lack of interest by the former government.

I speak of that very candidly because in my riding of the city of Brampton, for many years we had grave difficulty in terms of even coming close to keeping up with the schools that were required for the tremendous growth.

Hon. Mr. Elston: But they did not have a good member like they have now.

Mr. Callahan: That is right. I can remember many times telling my council that we should take some objection to this, and yet it seemed almost as though there was a conspiracy of silence. Building went on day after day, year after year, and it resulted in a large number of portables being put in place.

Although we have not been able to address the totality of that inaction by the former government, we are at least moving in a positive direction. In each of the budgets the Treasurer has passed, he has recognized for the first time -- the previous government never did this -- that Brampton and Peel region is a growth area and that to fairly rectify the inactivity in the past it was going to require this recognition over a period of time, to try to address the failings of the previous Conservative government.

I congratulate my colleague, but as I say, it seems on each budget address similar things come up, and they always remain a matter of looking towards the future and trying to rectify the sins of the past.

Mr. Adams: I congratulate the member for Algoma-Manitoulin on giving us a northern perspective on the budget, and in particular the Algoma-Manitoulin perspective. I thought perhaps he might be interested in some of the impact on my own riding in Peterborough.

The heavy capital expenditures associated with this budget are a very special feature of it, but in my own riding, Sir Sandford Fleming College, for example, received over $7 million. The university there also received between $7 million and $8 million for capital expenditures. For the main highway project there, Highway 115, we have received close to $10 million this year.

For the local hospitals, we are just completing an ambulance headquarters at the cost of something less than $1 million. A new emergency department is being initiated this year at a cost to the province of over $8 million and there will be long-term care beds at the hospital which will cost many millions of dollars.

1740

These are examples of the sorts of expenditures which come from this budget. I like them because, first, they allow these institutions to catch up from years of neglect. These sorts of investments also create jobs and stimulate the local economy and I also see these expenditures as a real investment in the community. For example, when Highway 115 is widened our local economy will be more efficient.

The expenditures at Sir Sandford Fleming College of Applied Arts and Technology are on a robotics centre, which will improve the high-tech capacity of Ontario. At the university the expenditures are on environmental science, which will help us clean up the local lakes. I also like the fact that expenditures of this type are not built into the budget base for next year. This means that we are looking ahead to further active growth in the province.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would be remiss as Minister of Natural Resources if I did not respond to such an excellent presentation. The fact that the member has spoken as a northerner has brought into focus the technology development units that we are putting into northern Ontario, and the chairs at the universities. The real commitment to northern Ontario that has been needed for such a long time has finally begun. When I say that word “begun,” I use it very advisedly because this province and this government intend to bring northern Ontario in as a full partner in the advantages that we have and the economic benefits flowing across the province.

It is obvious that our northern members have a good feeling about how this budget is going to impact on the various communities that they represent and what a good feeling it is in northern Ontario. For those who have not visited, I would encourage them to do so because there is a new feeling in northern Ontario that it is finally going to play a complete role in the province as it has not been able to do in the past. When our members get up and share that with the Legislature and with those people who have not had that wonderful experience, I think that we would be remiss if we were not to thank them and encourage more of them to bring this wonderful message here to the Legislature and have them have it flow to the rest of the people in the province.

I think the New Democratic Party members would be particularly proud that we do not do what is done in that great mother country of theirs, Sweden, where they take all of the taxes from the people who work there. We do good things and we do not take nearly as much or impact on those citizens to the degree that those people do. As I said before, I am pleased that kind of message is flowing from these great chambers. The people across the province are going to be very pleased and thankful that the northern Ontario community is going to share the benefits of this great Nixon economic boom.

Mr. Brown: I would like to thank the members for their useful comments, particularly the comments about the good feeling we are having in northern Ontario.

Two weeks from today I will be attending I think probably the first-ever Conference 2000 to take place on Manitoulin Island. There is a real feeling in my riding that we are looking to the future with great expectations. There is a solid feeling in the business community. We are creating jobs for the first time in a long time in the small business field. We are seeing investment. I think the feeling within our riding could not be more positive at this time.

I welcome the members from southern Ontario who have been so supportive in caucus of the goals of the northern members and I welcome all the initiatives that have come from our members to help us in having northern Ontario take its rightful place in the province.

Mrs. Cunningham: It gives me great pleasure to be able to speak in the House this afternoon to the budget that has been presented for this fiscal year. It also gives me some excitement, I think I should say, because the last discussion was about the north and, most recently, I did return from the north and I will be speaking about the north. It will have to do with poverty in the north. Not everything is wonderful and I will speak to that as I come to that part of my remarks.

I would like to start to discuss this budget in terms of a more recent by-election in London North. I must state that there were probably three very large issues in the by-election, and one of them, of course, was the then upcoming budget. We can laugh if we like but, in knocking on doors, as all of us did -- all representatives of the public who were trying to be elected -- we were told by the citizens, no matter what party we represented, that they were very much concerned about this government’s out-of-control spending, its lack of financial planning, its somewhat arrogant approach and its disregard of the public.

They were very concerned about increased taxes. Of course, at that time we were not certain that would take place, but during the by-election it was stated by the Treasurer that this was something that would be considered. I am not certain anyone truly expected it, but in fact we know now that it did happen.

What the citizens were very much aware of is that this government did, for the third year in a row, spend over its budget. When one thinks of the citizen of today, that is considered extreme mismanagement because most families do not have the luxury of spending more than their budgets. So, for the third year in a row, the citizens advised me at the door that this was just totally unacceptable.

In spite of this overspending -- and I would not be arrogant about these statements -- this government has been very fortunate to receive more money than it had planned on. Most families are not in that position. So we are in a very serious situation here.

I think the biggest blow after the election, and certainly for the taxpayers in Ontario -- it is no use pretending it is not a blow; there is no use pretending that people do not care -- was what was described by the public to us as “the sales tax grab.” No one would have expected such a move in these booming economic times.

People who are working hard, who are contributing to our economy, are being penalized by this move. They were looking forward to contributing even more this year than they had in the last year. Probably through their own careful planning, they were hoping to spend more on their homes and on their families. Now they are being asked to contribute more towards big government, and I say that seriously.

I heard some people this afternoon talking about 10 years ago. If all of us plan for the past, where will we be in the future? It is just fine to talk about big government in the past, but this government is bigger than it has ever been. In looking very carefully at the statistics as I prepared myself for the election, I realized that the numbers in government were being reduced for a period of time -- up until 1985. Since 1985, the number of people employed by government has increased significantly.

During the by-election, the number that I was able to acquire -- from, I might add, the Liberal -- was the number 5,000. With the budget I am told we are looking at over 7,000 new employees in less than two years. That is unacceptable.

The Treasurer sat here a little while ago and said he wanted some help. I am trying to advise of the help that we can give to this government if it would just listen, not only to the people out in the neighbourhoods but to the people here in this Legislature. There is a total lack of planning. If the average citizens, in their own businesses and in their own homes, planned like this government, they would go broke.

First of all, the government spends more money than it plans to spend and, second, it does not pay its debts first, and that is a problem. Everyone expected the deficit to be wiped out this year and it did not wipe it out. Members can chat all they like, but the citizens are concerned and the government had better do something about it, because if it does not, they will remember. People are looking to government for leadership, and this is not leadership. They worked hard to contribute and they got nothing in return.

Across Canada people say to some of us who live in Ontario, “Wow, what a place to live: a booming economy, people are employed.” So far we say, “Great.”

[Applause]

1750

Mrs. Cunningham: And I am clapping with you. So far, great. But the prognosis is not great. We will be right down the tube and we will not be bragging in a very short while, in spite of our hard work and our efforts on a daily basis as we contribute to this economy and in our own homes.

If the government does not budget properly and stick to it, more and more families will be suffering, and they will be suffering just as they are today. The people of Ontario must really be saying to themselves, “OK, so what is the good news these days?” At a time of unprecedented growth and prosperity in Ontario, this Liberal government has done everything it possibly can to ensure that the people who created that growth do not get to enjoy any of the benefits.

Aside from asking themselves where the good news is, the average working man and woman in this province must be wondering when they are going to be allowed to reap some of the benefits of the present economic boom. They were planning on it this year. It is hitting them at the gas pumps, it is hitting them when they buy new homes, it is hitting them when they buy clothes for their children and it is hitting them when they try to put a little bit of money away to plan for their future and the education of their children.

That is because this government decides it knows better about planning money. It knows that it cannot possibly leave even an extra nickel in the pockets of average Ontarians to help pay the rent or to save for their children’s education, as I previously mentioned. The government thinks it would be bad policy to let people keep a few extra dollars to buy some new children’s clothing or to buy more groceries. They know better than to allow that kind of thing. Shame on them. That is because they honestly believe that big government, more government and more spending are going to lead us to the promised land, when in fact they are more likely to take us into the ditch, and I mean it. The government knows the numbers as well as I do.

People will be watching for a response to those election promises. By the way, they were the government’s promises, not ours. Some of the things they promised the public did not even want, and the public knew better than they did, because it knows they will not be able to deliver them. And the government will not be able to deliver them, I can assure it. There are far too many. All one has to do is add them up. I do not care how many dollars the government takes from the public; it will never have a chance to deliver all those programs it promised. The government had better pick and choose which ones are the most important.

They are going to be watching, especially now that this government has made them so angry. They will remember, and in London we will be reminding them often, because it is the government’s promises that they come to me about, the things the government said it would do. They are asking me when they are going to happen, and I do not think most of them will.

Mr. Reycraft: Like the transfer of a public high school.

Mrs. Cunningham: In education, yes. We will talk about that right now. The member said it. Let us talk about education. People are being asked to pay more taxes, and in return they are expecting just basic services for their dollars. They are not going to get them. With the amount of money set aside for capital in this province for the next three years, the government will not be able to deliver schools in communities in the next three years. In fact, the government can laugh and make fun, but it knows that unless it looks at its own policy for the next budget year, it cannot do it.

The $1.7 billion that was requested by school boards in Ontario was real bucks, and the government cannot talk about the disrepair and the portables of the past government, because people do not give a damn. What they want is schools now. In the past decade the public had schools. We sent our children to schools, not portables. We sent them to schools where the roofs were not leaking, not because we did not fix up the roofs, but because the roofs did not need fixing. They were not 20 years old, they were not 30 years old, they were 10 or 15 years old. Now, most of us had to plan --

Interjection.

Mrs. Cunningham: Yes, we did put them in. We put them in because our province was growing in numbers and there were more children. And then we went into a serious state of decline. Boards that managed well filled up empty spaces, and many of them were able to keep their school buildings. They are not asking the government for money now. Other boards are growing at an unprecedented rate. They need new schools, and this government is going to have to provide those new schools, because that is what you call the basics in a budget. Twenty to one in grades 1 and 2.

An hon. member: But you say we’re spending too much. You want more schools, but don’t spend more money.

Mrs. Cunningham: Spend money on schools, not on big government. I did not campaign in this election to spend more money. I campaigned in the by-election to spend money where it is needed and where it is warranted.

Twenty to one in grades 1 and 2. Who asked the government? It has promised 20 to 1 in grades 1 and 2. It never could have done it. If it had even done its homework, it would not have promised it. Now I have to go out and face parents who are expecting 20 kids in grade 1 and 20 in grade 2 because the government promised it. It did not think about the numbers of teachers it would have to employ and it did not think about the new classrooms. Do you know what that would have done? In 1987 --

Mr. Reycraft: Did you read the report’?

Mrs. Cunningham: That was your promise. Rant all you like, but you promised it. You were not even thinking. You were downright irresponsible.

In London we built one school in 14 years, because we were in a decline. Do members know what that meant in September 1987, given the government’s promise? Five new schools. What a dumb thing to promise people. What does it do? Expectations. Young people think they are going to get all these things because the government makes irresponsible promises, and some of us have to live with them. But that is not how I am living with them. I am telling them they will not get the schools, because the government will not do it. It is going to spend its money somewhere else. Heaven only knows where it is spending it. It sure has enough and it cannot build schools.

Twenty to one: very nice. As a school board trustee for the last 14 years, I would have loved to promise the public that. In 14 years we went down three students, as an average, in this province, because we could not afford to do it any other way. Never mind talking about it; we could not afford it. Now these people have got the whole province upset because they are going to do this. I dare them to do it. I do not think they can, and they certainly are not going to do it unless they raise the sales tax again by five per cent next year.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Five per cent?

Mrs. Cunningham: Yes, that is what you will have to do. I have done my homework. You cannot do it. You will not do it. You should not do it. That would be truly irresponsible.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I doubt it. You probably just got finished writing that speech.

Mrs. Cunningham: I did not need anybody to write my speech. All I had to do was go on your promises and I had a speech.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I remind all honourable members to make their comments through the chair.

Mrs. Cunningham: Madam Speaker, I need some direction at this time on process. I have just got into this budget speech, and it seems it will be six o’clock soon. I have a lot more to say, obviously, and I am wondering what your direction would be.

On motion by Mrs. Cunningham, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.