Journal des débats 1982-mai-21 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week I informed the honourable members of the House that my ministry and the Ministry of Northern Affairs will spend $60.5 million to accelerate road construction and maintenance projects and to create nearly 2,500 jobs in the private sector.

I would like to report today on the distribution of seven million of those dollars, which the Ministry of Transportation and Communications is making available to Ontario's municipalities. That sum, along with the local governments' contribution of about $3.25 million, will create approximately $10.25 million worth of additional work in the municipalities and should result in the creation of 245 jobs.

These extra funds will allow cities, towns, villages and townships from one end of Ontario to the other to go ahead with approximately 110 much-needed projects, ranging from storm sewer and garage construction to bridge repair and replacement, while creating jobs for local citizens.

I have appended a complete listing of these projects to the copies of the statement and I trust virtually every member will find a project of interest and importance to his or her riding. As it is a long list, I intend to make those copies of the statement and the list of the projects available to the members through the post office. If they are not there today, they will be there Monday.

JOB CREATION PROGRAMS

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the budget announced last week by my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) contained a major provincial initiative for short-term job creation which provided for $171 million of provincial funding and a target of 31,000 temporary jobs. I wish to provide the House with more detailed information on those initiatives pertaining to youth employment and the co-operative projects employment fund.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to re-emphasize our commitment to youth employment in this province. The budget clearly states our objectives for short-term employment initiatives which facilitate the entry of young people into the mainstream of the labour force.

The Ontario Manpower Commission within my ministry is responsible for co-ordinating expenditure plans for most youth programs in the province. As announced by the Treasurer, an additional $12 million has been allocated to youth employment programs for 1982-83. These funds will be expended in the following areas:

The Ontario youth employment program will receive an increase of $4 million for a total of $30.4 million and will create 57,000 jobs. Administered by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, this program provides employers with a subsidy of $1.25 an hour towards the wages of a newly hired young person.

The Ontario career action program, OCAP, will receive an additional $6 million for a total of $16.8 million and create 15,300 jobs, which is an increase of 5,100 jobs over last year's program. These jobs are for unemployed youth aged 16 to 24 who are out of school and unable to gain regular employment.

The funding for the youth secretariat job creation program has been increased by $2.8 million over 1981-82. A new pilot winter program will provide 2,000 jobs, and the summer program 8,800 jobs, for a net gain of 800 over last year's Experience program.

In summary, notwithstanding this time of budgetary restraint, this government has responded to the pressing need to create more jobs for young people by significantly increasing its funding in this area and providing for a total increase of 8,400 new jobs in the coming year.

Finally, at this time I would also like to report on the initiatives we are taking to help reach the target of 6,000 jobs to be created by the co-operative projects employment fund which was included in the Treasurer's budget.

These projects are intended to make innovative use of the unemployment insurance funds which the province will enrich through the co-operative projects employment fund. Ontario is working with the federal government on particular proposals in several areas, including an energy conservation proposal for public housing, improving railway level crossings and providing housing for seasonal agricultural workers. When particular projects are fully developed and agreement of both governments obtained, the appropriate minister will announce the details.

I will be meeting within the next few weeks with the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, the federal minister responsible for the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, and hope to obtain his support for these worthwhile proposals.

JOB CREATION PROGRAMS

Hon. Mr. Pope: I am pleased to announce today that the Ministry of Natural Resources has created several programs to provide short-term jobs for skilled workers who have been laid off.

As announced in the budget on May 13, the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development will provide funding for the accelerated capital projects program and the co-operative projects employment fund. As honourable members know, the Treasurer announced that a total of $171 million will be set aside for short-term job creation, especially in those communities hit hardest by unemployment. BILD will coordinate the rapid implementation of these programs.

Under the accelerated capital projects program, my ministry will receive $7 million for fisheries enhancement and timber management projects. We will use $2 million to maintain and improve Ontario's sport and commercial fisheries. Of this amount, about $1.5 million will be used to improve ministry fish hatcheries and $500,000 will be used to improve natural habitats.

10:10 a.m.

The remaining $5 million will be used for timber management. This includes $3 million to employ workers to construct and maintain access roads and $2 million for the expansion of tree nursery facilities.

Honourable members may recall that the road construction aspects of this program were first mentioned in this year's speech from the throne. These roads are essential if we are to make efficient use of our forests. They allow access to remote and mature forest stands, they make modified harvesting practices easier and they provide better forest protection.

I might add that the federal government will reimburse $1.5 million of the $3 million we are using for our access road project.

The second job creation program I wish to discuss today is the co-operative projects employment fund, an expansion of the special federal-provincial employment program I announced in February. At least $15 million will be provided for this program through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development.

Honourable members may recall that my ministry went to the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, federal Minister of Employment and Immigration, with a proposal to put forestry workers back on the job. Almost immediately, the government of Ontario committed $4.5 million to that program. At this time, I would like to commend Mr. Axworthy for the quick and enthusiastic response we received.

We have already signed eight agreements and are concluding negotiations on another 18 at this time. Companies now under agreement are: Murray Bros. Lumber Co. of the Algonquin area; Newaygo Forest Products and United Saw Mill Co. both of Hearst; Cheminis Lumber Ltd. and H. Block Ltd. of Kirkland Lake; Weldwood of Canada Ltd. of Sault Ste. Marie, and Chapleau Lumber Co. and McChesney Lumber in Chapleau.

Among the other 18 proposals, there are companies from Nipigon, Sioux Lookout, Atikokan, Thunder Bay, Tweed, North Bay, Temagami and Lindsay. I am very encouraged by the recent acceleration of interest being shown by these companies. I hope that I will be receiving many more proposals in the near future.

I would also like to take this opportunity to bring members up to date on the special mining employment program that I announced on April 22. You may recall that this is another federal-provincial initiative, with BILD contributing up to $5 million.

Since April, we have concluded negotiations for six Sudbury area projects involving Inco, the regional municipality of Sudbury and the new science centre for the north.

In Timmins, we will be signing agreements early next week with Pamour Porcupine Mines Ltd., in co-operation with the city of Timmins, to proceed with land rehabilitation projects.

We are in the midst of several other projects involving Pamour Porcupine, the city of Timmins and the Mining Corp. of Canada Ltd., and expect to make announcements shortly.

Ministry officials are also confident that negotiations with Pan Silver Mines of Cobalt, the municipality of Cobalt and groups in Red Lake and Kenora will conclude successfully.

In anticipation of summer layoffs at Madawaska Mines in Bancroft, my staff is working with local officials to begin a project there. Under this special mining employment program, laid-off workers will be hired for land reclamation activities such as mine capping and mine tailings rehabilitation. For example, Sudbury mine tailing sites will be rehabilitated to provide wildlife habitats. The workers there will replace topsoil, plant trees and create pond and marsh areas. In Timmins, the workers will create hiking trails and beautify the boundaries of the Hollinger-Argus mine property.

The specific projects I have mentioned in this special mining employment program will mean almost 600 short-term jobs or almost 10,000 weeks of work. They will begin immediately.

Under the accelerated forest improvement program, we are currently negotiating another 23 projects which will create another 300 jobs. These will be announced as soon as they are under agreement.

I also expect to announce soon the details of three other programs under the co-operative projects employment fund. I am confident that these programs will soon provide several thousand short-term job opportunities for people currently receiving unemployment insurance. As new programs and specific projects are negotiated, I will bring the House up to date.

I am sure members are aware of the immense value of every program I have mentioned today. In these times of serious unemployment throughout our province and our country, we are offering jobs to hundreds of Ontario workers. By providing local employment opportunities, we are helping communities throughout our province retain their skilled workers, their payrolls and their community vigour.

I would also like to inform the members that I am very pleased with the enthusiastic cooperation my ministry has received while developing the accelerated capital projects and the co-operative projects employment programs. We welcome further initiatives from both the federal and provincial levels of government in view of the unemployment situation throughout Ontario.

While the forecasts are very good for these programs, I would like to take this opportunity to appeal to all members of the Legislature to encourage companies and groups in their ridings to come forward with proposals. Without the active support of these groups, programs like this cannot succeed.

SALMONELLA INSPECTORS' REPORT

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the report of Dr. Ian Duncan and Mr. John Carter on their investigation of the handling of the salmonella outbreak identified in late December at Peterborough Civic Hospital. Members will recall that I appointed them as inspectors, in March, to pursue questions raised in an internal ministry report on the management of the outbreak, which had such tragic consequences for the Burrows family.

They have reviewed procedures used at the hospital and have interviewed physicians, staff and patients who were involved in the December incident. As a result, they have made many constructive suggestions on how hospitals should deal with such outbreaks.

I know members will wish to join in thanking the authors of this thorough study: Dr. Duncan, who is professor of medical microbiology at the University of Toronto and director of the microbiology department at Sunnybrook Medical Centre, and Mr. Carter, who is president and chief executive officer at Greater Niagara General Hospital at Niagara Falls. They are to be commended for producing so comprehensive a study so quickly.

They understand clearly the importance of infection control procedures, that they must be implemented quickly and precisely and that information must flow quickly to all of those who need it. Consequently, I am instructing that the report of the inspectors be made immediately available to hospitals and health units across the province, and that it be shared with members of the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Medical Association. I also am requesting that the report be sent to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for the information of its members.

On a final note, I want to mention that the administration and staff of the Peterborough Civic Hospital, and the health unit, have been most co-operative in providing the inspectors with whatever material was required. The inspectors report that the outbreak was well handled by the hospital staff and that medical and nursing care at the Peterborough Civic Hospital is of high quality.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: Before continuing with the routine proceedings, I think this would be an appropriate time to say a special thanks to all those young people who have served us so well as pages in the past few weeks. You may notice some red eyes and long faces. They have appreciated being here as much as we have appreciated having them.

I would ask you to join with me in thanking them very, very much.

CORRECTION OF MEDIA REPORT

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, before we begin oral questions I want to rise on a point of privilege, following upon the comments of my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) in his opening remarks yesterday in the budget debate.

I want to read to you from Hansard some of the comments he made. He said: "I do want to point out that this provincial budget was a subject of a hot line program, an open line program in my home town. They did a poll on the bell ringing that went on last weekend. The vast majority of the people calling up said that if it was any other party but the party to my right, it was believable, but they know what Liberals are like and they do not want the Leader of the Opposition to do for Ontario... " and it went on.

I spoke with the producer of that program this morning because I had never heard of this. She told me that no single person, let alone a vast majority, made any such comments whatsoever.

I would ask the member for Windsor-Riverside, who obviously has been inadvertently misled by one of his NDP friends back in Windsor who obviously wishes that this were so, to stand up and correct the record and withdraw this comment, which he obviously did not check out in advance.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was hardly a point of privilege; perhaps a difference of opinion.

10:20 a.m.

TAX BURDEN

Mr. Van Horne: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: During the course of question period yesterday, the Premier (Mr. Davis), in an aside that was loud enough for many of us in the front bench to hear, indicated that additional costs brought about by Ontario's new budget may well be covered by grants. On May 14, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) was quoted as saying, "We are warning the recipients of provincial grants that next year they shouldn't count on getting anything extra because of inflation or this budget." Could the Premier indicate whether or not additional grants are in fact being considered?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That's a good point of privilege.

Mr. Van Horne: Well, he is misleading the House if what we heard yesterday was right. That is a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: I have to ask you to withdraw that last comment.

Mr. Van Horne: I would gladly withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, if he would choose to clarify what --

Mr. Speaker: No, you cannot make it conditional. I would ask you just to withdraw it.

Mr. Van Horne: He might do that in the course of answering other questions.

Mr. Speaker: No. I would have to ask you to withdraw it now, please.

Mr. Van Horne: In deference to his advanced years I will have to withdraw it, then.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I would like --

Mr. MacDonald: Is that a conditional withdrawal, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly it was, but I would just like to point out to all honourable members, including the member for London North, that in fact this was not a point of privilege but rather a question which might better be asked at the appropriate time.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I gather that in the absence of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), the Premier feels he is more qualified to answer questions about the budget than the parliamentary assistant, who is not here either. Therefore, I will ask --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I made it very clear that I was not.

Mr. Peterson: Would the Premier care to designate another hitter in this matter, or does he want to answer the question?

Mr. MacDonald: A good pinch-hitter.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I have pinch-hit all my life.

Mr. Peterson: Since I gather the Premier will be here at least some time next week and the Treasurer will not be here for a week or so, I understand that I am addressing my questions to the appropriate person in charge.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You certainly are.

Mr. Peterson: I assume the Premier was aware of the budget before it was introduced in this House. The Premier is aware, I am sure, of the effect in practical terms of his budget on inflation in this province. He is aware, for example, that a cup of coffee that would normally cost 35 cents will go to 37 or 38 cents, But most people will not charge that; they will put it up to 40 cents. Is the Premier aware, for example, that in the pop machine in the basement of this building, where the charge used to be 40 cents, advantage is being taken of the cover of this budget to increase the prices to 50 cents?

In fact, the inflationary impact of the imposition of these new taxes will be profound right across the system when one adds together the multiplicity of transactions. Is the Premier aware of the inflationary impact of this budget? Was that the intent when the Treasurer brought it into this House?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer the multiple question the Leader of the Opposition has asked. I do welcome him back after his brief illness yesterday. As I explained to his finance critic, who was upset that the Treasurer was not here yesterday -- and, quite obviously, his finance critic is not here today to be upset, so he will not be upset Tuesday if the Treasurer is not here; will the Leader of the Opposition get that message to him for me?

Mr. Peterson: The message is that the Treasurer leaves a week after the budget.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on. Sit down and relax.

An hon. member: Just answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Nixon: What did you have for breakfast?

Mr. Speaker: That was not the question. "Are you aware," Mr. Premier?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I heard a supplementary on what I had for breakfast. I had apple juice; I had milk.

I would say to the honourable member, no, I am not aware of the cost at the pop machine in the basement. I confess my neglect in not checking that out. Perhaps I will make an effort to do so after the question period. I should point out to the Leader of the Opposition that one reason I am not familiar with the price of pop in the pop machine in the basement is because I do not use the pop machine in the basement. I did not think it was my responsibility to find out what the cost was, but I will be delighted to do so.

I should point out to the Leader of the Opposition, who is concerned about the cost of the pop in the pop machine in the basement, one reason I do not use the pop in the pop machine in the basement is because of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell). Most of the time I consume milk.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier is a poor ad for milk. If it makes him act that goofy he should stop drinking it.

The question is about the inflationary impact of the budget. I gave the Premier two examples and I can give him many more, particularly when the Treasurer goes to the car dealers' annual dinner, as he did a couple of weeks ago, and says this: "Historic disasters usually come labelled with day and year, sometimes even by the hour. Not so with inflation. Inflation has no date of beginning. It is the cancer of modern civilization."

When a budget is brought in that is so inflationary, let alone regressive, and involves virtually the entire community in a new round of tax increases and price increases, how can the Premier justify that? How can he castigate others when he is contributing so significantly to inflation at this time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: To deal with the preamble to the question, the dinner that the Treasurer had, I know the Leader of the Opposition is very upset that in his annual Heritage dinner -- whatever that may mean -- he was able to attract substantially fewer people on behalf of the total Liberal Party of Ontario than the Treasurer did in a modest fund-raising dinner for his constituency. That is just in answer to his preamble.

Mr. Sweeney: He did not have to pay them in advance to get them there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Now back to the question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The honourable Leader of the Opposition asked the question. Please ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the Leader of the Opposition, if I heard his question correctly, said that we in fact increased prices. My recollection of the budget is we did not increase prices. There was a modest increase in taxation.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, as it relates to the impact on inflation, I think most economists would agree that it was probably as noninflationary a budget as has been introduced in any provincial House or certainly by any federal government in recent memory. One can single out the one tax area where the base for the sales tax was extended. There is no question the cost of those items now included in the sales tax will be seven per cent higher.

I know that the policy enunciated where this government has provided a measure of leadership in terms of public sector restraint -- supported enthusiastically by the Leader of the Opposition and members of his caucus and which he endorses -- is probably, in terms of both the symbolism and practical effect, as noninflationary an item as could be included in a provincial budget.

If the Leader of the Opposition asks any of his economic advisers, those hard-hitting, hard-nosed people whom I read about in the press -- where one of the caucus colleagues said they were a little worried about it because it would lose the sensitivity that is traditional with the Liberal Party in this province, which I have never found in that party -- every single one of them will tell him it is a noninflationary budget.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Premier would give me his response to some financial advisers that he has used in the past who have indicated that in fact they feel the budget is inflationary. I refer to McLeod Young Weir, friends of the Premier and the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch). I believe he has used their advice for other things in the past.

They seem to indicate that perhaps this is an inflationary budget. I quote: "A real risk is that the retail sales tax changes may merely boost inflation... as well as attack the employment factor and dampen already tight consumer spending."

Some of the government's advisers are saying there is a danger of this being inflationary. Therefore, people the Premier has respected in the past are telling him that is the case. Is that not so?

10:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that the member for Scarborough West, who has been somewhat critical of that same firm, is now basing his question on its point of view and opinion. I would only suggest he be consistent and accept its point of view and opinion on other matters.

If the honourable member reads that again carefully, he will see they were very careful as to how they worded that opinion. Incidentally, it is an opinion that is not shared by some of the other investment dealers. In fact, I have heard from the investment dealers. If the member wants me to read him Mr. Kniewasser's letter to all the investment dealers, where it so enthusiastically endorses the budget of the Treasurer of Ontario, I happen to have it here and would be delighted to read it into the record.

It is fair to state there is a risk in just about everything. There is a risk in running for mayor or the member would have run for mayor. There is no question about that. That is the only reason he did not run.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: Throw him out.

Mr. Peterson: Nice work, Mr. Speaker. I would like to quote to the Premier from the 1977 Ontario budget, which I believe he was around for:

"Ontario has over the past few years increased the level of the retail sales tax exemption for prepared meals so that residents and visitors alike are able to purchase essential meals free of tax. At the same time, the levels chosen have ensured the continued generation of revenue from the more elaborate higher-priced dinners. In continuation of this practice, I am proposing a further increase in the level of exemption to $6. This change ensures that all basic meals will be free of tax."

How does the Premier account for this change of philosophy when he does not acknowledge the concept of a basic meal? There are cafeteria meals. A number of people such as seniors and students are obliged to eat out rather than at home. The meals are not elaborate; they are taken just to function in a normal way. How does he justify this change of philosophy by punishing those people now, and the denial of the concept he used to use about a basic meal and a basic exemption? Why is he punishing those people now?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, the Leader of the Opposition likes to use these dramatic terms. This government is punishing no one.

The Treasurer has assessed the economic affairs of this province some five years later. I happen to have some quotes from the honourable member's contribution on the 1977 budget but I will not take the time of the House to read them. If I did, it would restore the pallor, or rather alter the pallor, he is experiencing this morning.

I think the Treasurer made the philosophical basis of what he did very clear. In terms of equity, I think it is appropriate and, in terms of the Leader of the Opposition's question, it is quite obvious why the Treasurer did it.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Premier. The Treasurer stated that the increase in taxes would be about $150 extra for the average taxpayer in this province. It was broken down to $108 for the retail sales tax, $20 for liquor, $10 for fees and licences and $12 for the Ontario health insurance plan.

Would the Premier not agree with me that those calculations are very questionable in the circumstances because they are based on Statscan consumption tables from 1978? Those figures do not include a lot of specific items such as clothing patterns, textiles, trimmings, smoke alarms, pets and a variety of other things.

There is no indication of an increased calculation for insurance premium costs. We all know that insurance premiums are going to go up as a result of the Treasurer's budget because labour is now going to be taxed, particularly in the motor vehicle field. There is no indication of a calculation made for the increased property tax he is shifting on to the residential taxpayer across this province. There is no mention in his figures of the extra $24 or so that will be paid by the average motorist by way of the rising ad valorem tax.

Would the Premier not agree with me that the impact on the average taxpayer is substantially more than he is prepared to admit at this point? Will he table studies in this House that share with us his determination of what that impact will be?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Leader of the Opposition had a bad day yesterday and I sympathize with that. We all have those.

He is probably compounding his figures. I do not know who is doing his research for him. If he would check the budget paper carefully, he will find the Treasurer estimated that the impact relating to the extended base of the sales tax would be some $150 for the average family.

I would point out to the member, yes, there will be increased revenues from gasoline tax. I should also point out to him that if he takes a look at the total budget and at the expenditures of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) and listens to this minister's announcements of increased funding for the highway system, for municipal subsidies, he will find that in fact the increase in the tax probably will equate with, or may even be less than, the additional services we are providing for the people of this province through our transportation network, which, incidentally, happens to be still one of the finest in North America.

One can see the money being expended and invested. One can travel Highway 401 to London, as I know the member does on occasion to get back to his riding, and see just where that money is being spent.

For the Leader of the Opposition to say there is a significant pass-through to real property tax is really day-dreaming. I would never accuse him of that but if he had been here yesterday, I think he would have discovered -- I will try to answer the point of order that was not a point of order made by the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) -- that I made it quite clear that in so far as capital investments are concerned, I took the example of transportation and communications.

I used the great city of Brampton to make my point. If they buy five new buses, we pay a 75 per cent capital grant on that. If on the purchase price of that they now pay seven per cent, our 75 per cent will be calculated on the base price of the bus plus the seven per cent; which means that I, as a resident of Brampton, benefiting from that great service and that great 75 per cent contribution, will have to cover in municipal tax, or through the fare system, 25 per cent.

Mr. Peterson: I am sure the Premier, because he has a rudimentary knowledge of a wide number of things, is familiar with Samuelson's book on economics, in which the author says about customs and sales taxes, "In order of regressiveness, these would probably come first." How does the Premier square that with the Treasurer's statement of last week that "I do not think the sales tax is as regressive as the member believes it is"?

Would the Premier not agree with me that in spite of the fact he sees some benefits flowing from his budget -- he says there will be increased transfers back to Brampton, probably a disproportionate amount, knowing him -- does he not feel it is unfair to impose these regressive taxes on people least able to pay through the sales tax, in order for him to have his transfers wherever he has decided to have them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: One can always debate the equity of any tax system. I think the Treasurer has acknowledged on many occasions that no tax system is totally equitable. We could debate, philosophically, the total equity of the real property tax itself. We have had these debates in the past in this House, although not in recent years. I think equity is a very legitimate area for debate. There is never total equity.

I appreciate the fact that the Leader of the Opposition feels I have some rudimentary knowledge of some of these items. There are some days that I feel it is a plus on my part to have the member acknowledge this. I should also point out to him that, while I would be delighted for Brampton to receive more than its fair share, unfortunately Brampton has received in municipal subsidy the same amount as every other municipality. I may say that with some modest regret but it happens to be true.

I am not as familiar as the Leader of the Opposition with the writings of that particular economist. I know that one can read economists day in and day out, and that for every economist one reads one can get a different opinion. I know that is correct because we have several in the employ of the government. I am always intrigued when I listen to their points of view, but we never achieve unanimity from that very important group of individuals.

I was speaking at a gathering the other day and made an offer to the economists of Ontario, after reading all of their rather negative predictions, that I would be prepared to charter the Queen Elizabeth II to send them on a world cruise for 12 months so that I would not have to read any more of this. Two of them have written to me to take me up on the offer, but since they wanted first-class accommodation, I had to decline.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier if he really believes these increased costs to municipalities for sales tax and Ontario health insurance plan premiums are not going to result in property tax increases because of the grants that he gives to municipalities and school boards?

Will he be willing to give a commitment that his government will revise the grant regulations, for example, for school boards, to give them more money in order to increase their grants to cover the increased costs imposed on them by his government's budget last week?

10:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, my brief recollection of school board budgeting would indicate that about 75 to 80 per cent of their total budget goes --

Mr. Cooke: The grant regulations have already been announced.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Would the honourable member like me to finish the answer to his question? If he will check the grant regulations and school board expenditures generally, he will find that about 75 per cent of their budget goes to the very important consideration of payment of wages and salaries. That is where the bulk of any school board budget goes. There is nothing in the changes in the tax legislation that impacts upon that obligation.

If one then takes the remaining 25 per cent and sorts out just what the school board will have to pay by way of increased sales tax, and if one equates that in terms of capital expenditure with the grant regulations and what is available for capital purposes, depending on the rate of grant for the individual municipality, one will find that the actual effect on the school board will not be that significant. The Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs (Mr. Bennett) has estimated that the potential impact is less than half of one per cent.

Mr. Peterson: To go back to the original question, given the fact that every tax increased in this budget is regressive and is hitting certain people much harder than others -- the Ontario health insurance plan premiums, the retail sales tax and a variety of others --

Hon. Mr. Davis: What are the variety of others?

Mr. Peterson: Ad valorem taxes, which will go up, and a variety of others --

Hon. Mr. Davis: We didn't touch the ad valorem tax.

Mr. Peterson: Maybe we should take this occasion to remind people that income tax is going up too as a result of last year's budget; that was not mentioned in this budget. This would be a good occasion to remind people what the government is doing on all levels.

But given that the majority of the increases in this budget are regressive and that a lot of the sales tax changes are going to hit seniors and a lot of people who are going to have to pay tax on necessities, why did the government not consider removing at least some of that regressivity by increasing the $50 sales tax exemption for seniors?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We could spend all day debating the degree of any tax measure as to whether it is regressive or progressive. To try to be constructive about it, I think it is a very valid area for philosophical discussion. The Treasurer does not agree with the Leader of the Opposition as to the extent of any regressivity in the tax system. It is always easier for the Leader of the Opposition to single out taxes that are being increased or tax bases that are being extended and to argue that they are not fair or equitable.

If the Leader of the Opposition were to calculate accurately the amount a senior, for instance, may pay by way of the increased base and calculate the funding available from the province, including OHIP premiums, the sales tax credits and the real property tax credit, I think he will find seniors in Ontario are being treated as equitably as any group of senior citizens anywhere in Canada and, I will be more expansive this morning because I happen to know it is true, more so than in any state of the United States.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier should have run for governor. That was his whole mistake.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You wouldn't know the difference.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: They are difficult to deal with, Mr. Speaker. I understand.

My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities but on the budget as well. There was a report last August --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough West has the floor, and I ask all honourable members to please refrain from needless interjections.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last August a report of the Committee on the Future Role of Universities in Ontario was released. The deputy minister, H. K. Fisher, was the chairman of the committee that produced that report. One of the recommendations was as follows:

"To meet fully the objectives" -- those outlined in the heading -- "the committee recommends funding increases during the 1980s at a level that meets the cost of inflation and the cost of faculty and staff advancement, and provides an additional $25 million per annum for equipment and furniture replacement."

Would the minister not agree that there are two items in the budget which will make that impossible? The first is the warning on page 17 of the budget which tells publicly funded institutions that they should not expect cost-of-living increases. The second is the addition of sales tax to many items that affect university budgets.

Does this mean there is going to be a major reduction in the quality of education at the post-secondary level, or are we going to see one of the other possibilities that was raised in the report, that is, the loss of universities in this province altogether?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the second question is no. In answer to the first, I am aware of the initial recommendation of that committee. I think the honourable member is also aware that we have been working with the universities in an attempt to find an appropriate direction.

I do think the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), on behalf of all the people who are knowledgeable about public funding in any area, was simply sounding the warning bell that it may not be possible to be as magnanimous in providing funds as it has been at some times in the past. I believe that is an economic reality every single one of us has to accept, not just personally and individually, but also collectively.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am a little concerned about the minister's comment that she "thinks" there will be no closings of universities. I hope in her reply to my supplementary she will clarify that is not a conjecture, and she will not countenance the closing of universities in this province.

Is the minister aware that the Council of Ontario Universities believes it will have a $10-million to $12-million loss in revenues as a result of the sales tax changes, and approximately $500,000 or more of a loss in terms of Ontario health insurance premiums from its budgets at this point? This means that the increase of 12.2 per cent that has been offered to those institutions will be reduced by one to 1.5 per cent, or down to 11 per cent, and below the cost of living for this year, and that a university like Guelph is expecting an impact of $891,000 on its budget this year just in the sales tax portion alone. Does she not feel this is going to have an enormous effect on budgets of universities that are already very tight?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am aware that a preliminary estimate has been established by the institutions. I am also aware there is a need for clarification of certain items that would provide for an accurate estimate in the not too distant future.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, the minister just referred to the fact that she is not anticipating any serious negative effects as a result of this budget and previous budgets. Is she aware that the University of Toronto just this morning released a document saying it is anticipating that if the present rate of funding continues it is going to have to reduce its admissions by 20 per cent and very likely will have to close down the Scarborough and Erindale campuses? If she is aware of that, does she agree with it, and if she does not, what is she going to do about it?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the statements made by the president of the University of Toronto. I am not aware that he said there was a likelihood of closing Erindale and Scarborough, but I am most certainly aware that he stated this was not only a matter of money; it was a matter of the philosophy regarding that university, that it had to become intellectually leaner and tougher than it had been in the past.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Will the minister please answer directly whether she will countenance closings of universities or colleges within universities, as has been suggested here in terms of a large university such as the University of Toronto, as a result of budget decisions made by the Treasurer, which I presume she opposes if she agrees with the committee's report as to what the future of universities require in this province?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I think the member has heard, on at least three occasions I am aware of, a specific statement that the final recommendation or resolution of that committee was not acceptable to government, that there was undoubtedly a middle road that could be followed that would ensure the maintenance of quality, the maintenance of our institutions and the provision of an educational program that would continue to provide leadership in this province.

10:50 a.m.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour and it concerns affirmative action and equal opportunity.

The minister has continued to be advised by many of us that voluntary affirmative action is not working. As recently as Wednesday, we released a report from the Advisory Council on Equal Opportunity for Women, which I believe the minister has had access to. The council has again said that affirmative action programs as they are at present structured are not working.

Would the minister please comment on those programs in the Liquor Control Board of Ontario where only three per cent of the employees are women? In fact, since 1979-80, they have increased the number of women employed at the LCBO by only 10. Does the minister believe the LCBO is doing enough to increase the role of women in that section of the government or is it failing in its job to address the needs of women?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that there have been few new jobs created in the LCBO over the past number of years. I also happen to know there was one opening filled just recently in my riding and that was filled by a woman.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have reason to believe there are major concerns about the attitude of that employer.

I would like to ask the minister's comments on the case of a Donna McNeilly from London, Ontario, who for a year and a half worked at the clerk 2 level as a part-time worker in a store. She passed her test and was accepted for full-time employment at the store for a probationary period.

A month and a half later, she realized she was pregnant. Her doctor informed her that it was not wise for her to be lifting heavy boxes, which is part of that job. She asked her employer whether consideration could be made for this. She was informed by head office that there could not be any adjustments made for her and that she must resign. In fact, they have told her she has resigned although she has never done so to this point.

Does the minister not feel this is a discriminatory policy against women that does not bring forward the equal opportunity notions he has talked about and we have hoped for? Will the minister please investigate this case?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: In this incident, I do not think it mattered whether or not the person was a woman. It could have been a male who --

Mr. Cassidy: Who became pregnant?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: No, no. It could have been a male who had been injured, could not handle the heavy boxes and received the same kind of letter.

In direct response to the question, I agree with the point the honourable member is making. If a woman is pregnant or if a male is injured and they are not able to do their regular job, I feel the employer, whether it be the LCBO or whoever, should work out some concessions or arrangements so they can be put on another job temporarily until they can resume their duties. That is only common, decent employer-employee relations. I think most companies and organizations in this province practice that.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, concerning the report of the Advisory Council on Equal Opportunity for Women, the minister is on record as shunning a legislative method to implement affirmative action programs for women in the work force. He favours the voluntary approach.

According to the advisory council report, and this council was established by the ministry, "Not only has there been no action to legislate affirmative action, but in addition there has been very limited support for the council's suggestions that would strengthen the voluntary approach."

In the light of these comments by the council about the attitude within the ministry, how can the minister possibly hope to maintain any credibility with the women in this province who are seeking meaningful employment in the work force, especially in the face of the policy conclusions drawn recently in another report commissioned by the minister from Dr. Gunderson? It also said that affirmative action programs are necessary to reduce occupational segregation.

If the minister is not going to listen to these comments from his advisory council, what is the point in having one in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, perhaps a little background is in order. First of all, it was indicated on Wednesday at the press conference by the New Democratic Party that the report was being suppressed. That was not the case at all. A week ago yesterday, I met with the advisory council. I gave my assurances at that time, and the honourable members can check with any member of that council, that not only would the report be made public by me, but it would be made public prior to the Legislature rising so the members opposite and the media would have full opportunity to question me on it.

Let me go back to the matter of the recommendations in that report. There is one major recommendation and, it is true, it is for legislated affirmative action. However, the other recommendations are all based on the fact that legislated affirmative action might not be forthcoming. I addressed all of those alternative recommendations in detail in verbal form at our meeting a week ago Thursday. I have promised to follow up with a written response within the next week or so and then to meet with the advisory council again on June 28.

Many of the alternative recommendations that have been made in that report have already been agreed upon by me because I think they are positive, productive recommendations that will improve voluntary affirmative action.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister should be aware it is the practice, if not policy, within the board to make light work available to older members within various stores. I do believe this is a sexual question and very clearly that.

May I then ask him what he would like to do about the sign which is up in a lot of liquor control board stores at the moment and which reads: "This may be the equal opportunity you have been looking for. If you have ever wondered about a career with the LCBO stores, you should know that we offer equal employment opportunities to both women and men." Would the minister at least have that amended to say, "unless you get pregnant"?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I referred in the answer to the first question to a woman employed in Sault Ste. Marie, the first permanent employee to be taken on in quite some number of years. My colleague from Timmins has told me exactly the same circumstance occurred in his riding recently.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This woman was originally recommended by the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker).

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am not sure if the member opposite is asking me to investigate the case of the pregnant woman or whether he is asking me to comment on the number of women who have been hired.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Both.

Mr. Speaker: The specific question was, "Would you have the sign amended?"

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: No, I will not have the sign amended.

Ms. Bryden: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister stated he would release the report before this Legislature rose for the summer recess. But he also said he is not meeting with the advisory council until June 28. In the press he said he would release the report after that meeting. This House probably will not be sitting after June 28. I would ask for a clarification from the minister.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member opposite is correct. That is what was in the story in the newspaper, but the reporter misinterpreted what I had said. All the member has to do for confirmation of that is to talk with any of the members of the advisory council. They will tell her they have received my assurances that it would be released prior to the Legislature rising.

The reporter got confused by the fact that I also said I was having a follow-up meeting with the advisory council on June 28. The June 28 date is not related to the release of the report, and I have no question on that point.

11 a.m.

TAX ON RESTAURANT MEALS

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, who I know is very interested in Ontario's competitive position in the tourism field. Does the minister realize that his government's proposal to tax all meals at seven per cent will make Ontario the only province in Canada to tax low-priced essential meals, that three provinces have no tax at all on meals and that the remaining provinces all have an exemption below which no tax is imposed? Is the minister aware of that?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Tourism and Recreation.

Mr. Eakins: Leave him alone, Larry.

Mr. McClellan: No coaching, Larry. Let him hang himself.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, we realize -- Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I do not think they want an answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Aren't they interested in tourism?

Mr. Speaker: Will the minister just reply to the question at hand, please?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, we fully realize that Ontario enjoys a very competitive position in tourism. The number of tourists coming to this province from all other provinces, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Germany and France is rising year after year. This is a wonderful province for the tourist to discover; more are coming.

I am sure the honourable member will also appreciate that he is from a wonderful part of Ontario, and we are going to be encouraging tourists to travel over his way. I can also tell him that quite a number of tourist operators and owners of hotels and motels have written to tell me they are very delighted that the 10 per cent tax has been reduced to seven per cent.

We really are competitive, and through this budget we have become ever more competitive; and the tourists will continue to flow in here and enjoy Ontario.

Mr. Eakins: I certainly agree that the lowering of the tax from 10 per cent to seven per cent was very much in order, but the minister has not been in touch with the tourist associations lately, because they are not very happy with what has happened.

If it was equity the Treasurer was trying to achieve in the system, does the minister realize that by altering the tax on meals under American plans to five per cent while imposing a seven per cent tax on all other meals he has still not achieved that equity by any means and that the system shifts the tax burden much more heavily to lower-income families?

Does he also realize that many family-style restaurants which used to have meals available at about $5.95 to assist senior citizens and students no longer will have an incentive to keep the prices down, since any price level now will be taxable?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I still feel that there is a great deal of equity -- in fact, more than ever before -- in the new tax structure. If a meal now costs $3, you pay 21 cents; if the meal costs $20, you pay $1.40. Surely that is equity.

Ms. Copps: It hits out at the poor. Don't you see that it hits out at the poor?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I have not heard from the tourism industry that this is going to affect tourism adversely; in fact, I have heard quite the opposite.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Tourism and Recreation whether he thinks it is a fundamental role of this ministry, to enhance the fortunes of tourism in Ontario, to duplicate the press releases of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, that is obviously not a supplementary.

TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. The Premier will be aware of the importance to Hamilton of the arena and trade centre and the considerable efforts over a long period of time to arrange the necessary financing to get the project off the ground. Is the Premier aware that the initial estimates of the effect of the seven per cent sales tax on materials on this one project in Hamilton alone are that it could cost the Hamilton taxpayers an additional $1 million to $1.5 million? Does he not feel that this is taxing the people twice, in effect, because the city will have to tax the people to get the taxes to pay on this project?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there are some capital projects. I am not familiar with the actual figures in the city of Hamilton, because my recollection is that they have not finalized the design, and it has not gone out for tender; nor has a firm figure been set. The honourable member can bring me up to date if those things have happened, but my last information was that they had not.

I am going by memory but, as I recall, the government of Ontario has committed some $4 million to assist the city of Hamilton in what we think is a worthwhile endeavour. I think it is also true to state -- and this is not related to the sale tax -- that we are anxious to see this thing proceed. I have never been reluctant to sit down with the very distinguished mayor of that great municipality; when the final cost comes in, I will discuss with him whatever financial problems they may have.

Mr. Mackenzie: The cost estimates for the project, which I think are reasonably close, come to $40 million at the moment. I am glad to hear the comments of the Premier, who will recall his promise to assist in funding this project by matching, as I understand it, the federal government grants. Inasmuch as the federal government grant of $4 million was received some time ago and is now drawing interest, and the amount is somewhere close to $4.5 million, I understand --

Mr. Riddell: Boy, the feds are good for something.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That's a switch.

Mr. Riddell: It's nice to hear the feds are doing something.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: They are so few and far between, it's pretty easy to identify.

Interjection

Mr. Mackenzie: Can we have an assurance that the province will match the current value of the federal government grant? Can we also have an assurance that to maintain the rather close funding of this project, the province will also, as the Premier has indicated, take a look at covering the additional cost of that sales tax, which could be as high as $1.5 million?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just reiterate the answer to the initial question.

I cannot help but comment on the remark made by the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell). He said, "At least the feds are good for something." I heard him say it.

Mr. Riddell: Sure, I said it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It just indicates to me that the member does not think they are good for much else.

Mr. Riddell: I'm not here to defend the feds.

Mr. Speaker: Will the Premier address the question, please?

Hon. Mr. Davis: A Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal.

I assure the member that when it comes closer to finality, I will be quite prepared -- along with the minister, of course -- to sit down with the mayor of that city to see whether the provincial contribution is appropriate. We did match the federal grant. I explained to the mayor at the time that we were funding this under one of the programs, Wintario or whatever, and that we were not in a position to pay the money in advance. I think he understands that.

Certainly I have more than a passing interest in a facility of this nature. We are very anxious to see it proceed. I am quite prepared to sit down with the mayor when we are closer to some finality.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the interjection from the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) that we might seek funds from Mr. Munro's personal bank account, where would the Premier suggest that the local taxpayers in Hamilton get the money to make government sufficiency --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That isn't what I said.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: He doesn't care. Eric takes cheap shots constantly.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The member misquotes me badly.

Mr. Peterson: What did you say, Bette?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Read Hansard.

Ms. Copps: It won't be in Hansard, because they delete it from Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I may once again remind all honourable members, interjections are totally out of order; they are not recognized in any way. I ask the co-operation of all members in stopping this practice of interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: That would take the fun out of it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the member for Wentworth North finished his question?

Ms. Copps: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I just want guidance from you. When there are interjections that refer directly to the issue at hand, my understanding is that they can be responded to; there have been precedents set for that in this House. It was very clear that the interjection from the Minister of Education stated that the money should come from John Munro's personal bank account.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege. It points out a problem with needless interjections. It makes it very difficult for me to hear the questions and the answers. You ask me to make a judgement call, and I am trying to concentrate on what is going on. I ask the co-operation of all members in stopping this nonsense forthwith.

11:10 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have been so intrigued by this brief discussion that I have almost forgotten the question. I think the honourable member really repeated the question asked by the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). Really it was repetitive, if my memory is correct. Was it, how are the people of Hamilton going to make up what might be a differential? Was that sort of the rough question?

Mr. Cunningham: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think I answered it, but I will give the member an answer in case he did not hear it. I said to the member for Hamilton East -- because I have discussed this matter not recently but on a number of occasions with the mayor of Hamilton -- that this province supported the addition of this facility probably before the government of Canada did, I think it is fair to state.

If memory serves me correctly, I would say it really goes back to the time when the federal government enunciated a policy whereby they would help fund certain arenas that would accommodate National Hockey League franchises in any sort of expansion. I think this is how the Winnipeg arena qualified for certain assistance. Of course, during that period there was some debate as to whether the NHL would expand into the city of Hamilton because of the proximity of the Maple Leafs franchise here in Toronto. The member will recall those discussions. He shakes his head. I always sensed that he does not know what is going on in Hamilton, but that happens to be my best recollection.

I said to the mayor when they approached this, even though they did not have and still do not have any confirmation of a NHL franchise, that in my opinion it was a worthwhile project to proceed with in any event. I think we made that sort of observation before a commitment by the government of Canada, and that commitment still stands.

As I said to the member for Hamilton East, and I will repeat it again, when the project comes closer to finality and when we find out what the specific figures are, I am very supportive of this project, as I am of every constructive thing that is being proposed in the city of Hamilton and as I was of the concept of the Urban Transportation Development Corp., which the member so violently opposed and which he has opposed everywhere else in North America. What I said to the member for Hamilton East stands: I will sit down with the mayor and talk to him about it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Algoma.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. The member for Essex North. You see what happens with needless interjections.

Interjections.

WATERMAIN CONSTRUCTION GRANT

Mr. Ruston: Yes, it is nice to be able to listen.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Can the minister tell me whether he has now had an opportunity to review and straighten out any up-front grants that he has for municipalities for installing watermains? Can he now give us a decision as to what he is going to do about the township of Rochester, which was supposed to get $960,000 and which since has been told that it is going to get only $90,000?

Hon. Mr. Norton: With regard to a general policy, Mr. Speaker, I am still in the process of preparing recommendations to take forward to my colleagues for the appropriate policy approval. It will still be a while before that process is completed.

With respect to Rochester, I must say that the more time I devote to that the worse the situation seems to get in terms of the calculations. At the moment I have given instructions to the head of our legal services branch, who is heading the discussions and negotiations with the township of Rochester. I do not believe that since I have last discussed it with him he has had an opportunity to communicate with them, but I do expect that he will be in touch with them within a matter of days to lay out for them what the most recent calculations have indicated and what we might propose by way of a reasonable settlement with that municipality, because it is clear, unfortunately, that under the present formula funding it is highly unlikely that they are going to be in a position to proceed with their project.

As much as I regret the errors in the calculations that occurred some 18 months ago, the fact of the matter is that because of my financial responsibilities related to the taxpayers' money in this province I cannot ignore an almost $1-million error and pretend it did not occur.

Mr. Ruston: I take it from the first part of the minister's answer that he is then changing the rules and regulations of the up-front grants. It appears to me that he is changing the rules and regulations from what they were a year ago, when the former minister signed the letter saying the grant was approved. He is now changing the rules during the game.

Hon. Mr. Norton: What I am proposing to do, and I have indicated it in a meeting with, among others, the member's colleague the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), is to look specifically at the possibility of developing a policy with respect to rural servicing. It is something that has to be approached very carefully because of the tremendous cost implications when one is trying to provide servicing and when the units, housing or farming, are separated by considerable distances.

A year ago, whatever the date was when my predecessor signed the letter, I am sure he did it in good faith; but the fact of the matter is that the information which had been provided to him was in error, and the calculations were in error. It would appear that what was done is that the calculations were done on the basis that the services were being provided to an urban community as opposed to a rural community.

What we have done now is we have applied the correct calculations, and that is what accounts for the difference in excess of $900,000. What I am trying to do now is to bring into place some clear policy and formula with respect to rural funding so that in those situations where there clearly is a problem of water quality or water quantity, we would be in a position to advise the municipality as to what specific assistance was available to them.

JOB CREATION PROGRAMS

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources and terminal promises. Can the minister clarify his statement with regard to the job creation programs? I note in his statement that he only comments on the special mining employment program and the currently negotiated accelerated forest improvement program, for a total of 900 jobs. Can he tell us, in relation to all these programs, the total number of jobs now on line and those currently under negotiation?

I am sure he agrees that because of the tremendous downturn in the economy, thanks to the federal Liberal government's high interest rate policy, we have tremendous unemployment in the forestry and mining sectors in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I will provide the honourable member with some of those figures, if I can, next Tuesday in the House. I will send him over a list of what we have. The problem is that even while I was developing my statement this morning it became out of date, because we just signed five accelerated forest improvement projects this morning; so some of those on the list as being negotiated now are final. What I will try to do on Tuesday is to get the member the a listing of the different phases they are in and what we predict.

We will have trouble giving the member exact numbers of employees, because they flow in and out of the program. However, we will give him man-week projections for all three phases.

Mr. Wildman: Can the minister confirm that one of the problems his ministry has had in negotiating with the private sector for these programs is that many of the suggested projects have been very heavy equipment-oriented, and less labour-oriented, when the whole purpose of the program is to provide jobs? Is it possible that the private sector is taking advantage of this program to carry out projects that are not really labour-oriented?

Hon. Mr. Pope: There were one or two proposals that did have a heavy equipment component to them, but when we said we could not accept that kind of project they did change it. Now the understanding is clear that we will go only with labour-intensive projects involving minimal equipment components and, even at that, at 50 per cent of the normal rental rates. I think that initial problem or misunderstanding has been resolved.

11:20 a.m.

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Treasurer, I have a question for the Premier on the budget. The Premier will be aware that the borough of North York has decided not to follow the Treasurer's plea for restraint in public sector spending and has voted itself a 12 per cent pay raise.

I am sure he is also aware that one controller in that borough suggested he was doing so because the Premier, the Treasurer and the cabinet were so generous to themselves last year. He must remember that the report of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses last year did not propose any increases for Ontario cabinet members, including the Premier and the Treasurer.

Why does he not admit that the cabinet should lead by example and roll back the $2,300 pay raise it proposed for them last year, first, as a show of restraint and, second, as a saving of more than $60,000 in tax money?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member did his homework correctly he would find it is the city of North York, not the borough of North York. I realize he wants more research funds; he quite obviously needs them.

If the member did a cursory analysis of the compensation paid to ministers along with their salaries as members over the past 10 or 15 years, he would find that on a percentage basis it probably has not increased as much as members' salaries. On a percentage basis, it probably has not gone up quite as much as some municipal leaders' salaries.

Mr. Wrye: In proposing his great show of restraint starting with the members' basic indemnity -- and I have no objection to that; so he need not bother asking whether I do -- why did he not propose a little restraint on the government side?

Specifically, why did he not suggest that the government could do without some of the 19 parliamentary assistants, especially in ministries like Government Services or Revenue, or assistants to provincial secretaries like the always-concerned Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch)?

Why did he not suggest that the taxpayers could do without the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), absent today, whose only responsibility as a Minister without Portfolio appears to be to remember where his limousine is parked at the end of the day?

Why did he not suggest that since the chief government whip (Mr. Gregory) is already receiving an extra $8,900 for his duties, it was a bit extravagant to add another $11,700, plus a limousine, a chauffeur and all the other expense perks to make the whip feel important? Why did the Premier not propose this kind of restraint by example?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I guess one could take this to its ultimate conclusion and argue about House leaders, about whether we need as many whips, about people who serve as chairmen of committees and about the per diems that members of his caucus receive, sometimes tax-free, during the summer months. All these things might be mentioned in his question.

The member has not been in government; I do not intend to be here in perpetuity, but my guess is the member never will be. He will perhaps never quite understand the degree of responsibility and the time constraints imposed upon ministers and parliamentary assistants.

I have every respect for the member's colleague the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy). He only gets his member's salary plus whatever committee work he does, yet he is still apparently able to carry on a rather comprehensive law practice, which perhaps earns him more than he earns here in the House.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to correct the record and to correct the so-called BSs that are continually thrown out in this Legislature. I am referring to the question that was asked of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Unfortunately, the Instant Hansard is not available now, but I heard her say that on three different occasions she has made it clear the government would not accept the Fisher report recommendations.

As the Colleges and Universities critic, I am not aware of any such statement made by the minister. However, I went to the phone and called Will Sayers, the director of communications for the Council of Ontario Universities, and he has assured me that the Minister of Colleges and Universities has made no such response to the Fisher report recommendations.

Therefore, I would suggest that the minister stand up in this House and correct her own record.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I did not make the first statement. I said the government had made the statement. The Premier made the statement on February 18 to the collected group of presidents of universities and chairmen of boards. Will Sayers was not very far away when that statement was made.

I have made that statement at the University of Western Ontario and at the University of Waterloo. I said very clearly that we could not accept the final recommendation, chapter 6 of that report, and that we did believe there were other routes to solving the problems. That is precisely what has been said by the government of this province, by the Premier and myself, on three occasions.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that when the House adjourns today it stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday next.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CLASS ACTIONS ACT

Mr. Swart moved, seconded by Mr. Philip, first reading of Bill 122, An Act to provide for Class Actions.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide a statutory procedure whereby one or more persons may sue a defendant in the form of a class action. The bill is designed to achieve this purpose by permitting a person who wishes to sue on behalf of a class to apply for a court order authorizing the class action. Once the order is obtained, the action proceeds as a class action and the final judgment binds all members of the class, except those who have been excluded, as well as the parties to the action.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. Di Santo, first reading of Bill 123, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, this is the battle of the wine cellars in basements. The purpose of the bill is to exempt home improvements from assessment under the Assessment Act if the improvements do not enlarge the living space of the home and if the cost of the materials for the improvements does not exceed $10,000.

11:30 a.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Haldimand-Norfolk it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on the budget that was presented on the fateful day of May 13, 1982. As we wound up the Legislature last evening the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) was really giving it to the federal government and pointing out its responsibilities.

I would like to indicate to this House that I have as much concern as the member from the government side, but I think this is a time in our history when all levels of government have to work together in order to bring back prosperity to this great province and this great country of ours. I would also like to indicate to the House that after May 13 and our actions of last Friday, I have no regrets that the members of the Liberal Party stood up for the people of Ontario and let them know that we are here to support and protect their interests.

Mr. Rotenberg: But you were not here; you left. You should have been here.

Mr. G. I. Miller: As the member for Wilson Heights indicated, we did have 15 members here over the weekend to show that we had some responsibility to the people of Ontario. We were in this Legislature at the odd time to make sure things were being covered and to protect the interests of the people of Ontario.

It is not easy being in the opposition. I think I drove down to Toronto twice on Saturday afternoon so I could carry out my responsibilities. We do not have the opportunity to have a chauffeur; we do not have airplanes to take us from here to there. We have to get here on our own. I am not complaining, but I am still dedicated, as our new leader and the other members in our Liberal caucus are, to protecting and trying to improve the welfare of the people of Ontario.

When the throne speech came out at the beginning of this year we had considerable hope that we could look for some improvements for the industry, the farmers, the small business people and the home owners in this province; but when the budget came down, unfortunately, any hopes we might have had for this session were doomed from the very outset.

Ontario's economy is in deep and serious trouble. Thousands of jobs have been lost in recent months, bankruptcies have become almost commonplace, people are afraid of losing their homes and our young people see little hope for their future. This budget has not done very much to protect the home owner and the farmer or to encourage young people who are looking for permanent jobs. They are basically on temporary jobs. The government is advertising that they are going to produce 31,000 jobs. Only time will tell if that takes place. The whole spectrum of employment has to be looked at and I think we really have to zero in on it. The provincial budget of May 13 will, if anything, just create further confusion and hardship.

During the last provincial election the Premier (Mr. Davis) was indicating to the people that he was going to keep the promise, while we were pointing out that the financial position of many businesses and industries was doomed; and this has really happened. I can say quite honestly that I only wish we had been wrong in the assessment of the facts.

Who would have dreamed at that time that our agriculture industry would be in the dire straits it is today? Who would have thought that this government, already in debt to an irresponsible degree, would add to Ontario's financial problems by buying 25 per cent of Suncor?

Who would have imagined the incredible difficulties that would be experienced in connection with our medicare system? Again, costs are being put back on the local taxpayers through the Ontario health insurance plan premiums. Seventy per cent of OHIP premiums are absorbed by employers, municipalities, small business and heavily unionized industries. The cost of the private sector services and goods can be expected to rise.

I have many concerns regarding the budget and what it will do to my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk. This government's record of failure in that area is well documented and primarily concerns the large expenditures on land assembly. Its record is one of taking the roots out of existing communities while expecting them to pay the bill. The record to date is one of poor return on investment and I am questioning what plans there are to get a better return. I do not think anything in this budget indicates we are going to get a return from the land that has been assembled.

I would like to make one recommendation to the government at this time. We could be returning the land to permanent ownership, again giving some roots to those municipalities where they have been eroded. South Cayuga would be a good example where the land could be put back under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. An experimental station could be established in the area utilizing perhaps 100 or 200 acres of that land to promote better farming practices, improved drainage, woodlot management and production of new types of seed so the area could again thrive as an agricultural area in that part of Ontario. The southwestern Niagara region certainly needs a boost and that would be good use of the land.

South Cayuga is a prime example of land assembly. It has been called many things and at present is in a state of limbo. Basically, it is farming land purchased by the government within the last two years. It has gone from dream city to dump. For the most part, the land has been rented back on a year-to-year basis and sometimes for a longer term without promise of a real future on that land. There is little incentive for a farmer to use good farming practices. He just uses the land for cash crops and takes what he can from the land in that time frame.

There is a tremendous need for some long- range planning to utilize this resource in the best possible way. It is excellent to good farm land and, under proper management, could be brought back to its former high production status. I hope it will not be long before some firm decisions will be made as to the ultimate, proper agricultural use of this land. That also goes for Pickering and other land holdings in the province.

Has this government given any thought to what it will do with this in the future? Existing towns in this province are suffering while governments introduce new and wonderful programs. What plans are there to put some heart back into these existing communities?

Again, my municipality is a good example. In Dunnville, unemployment is running at 25 per cent. The Essex International car manufacturing or harness assembly plant was closed some two years ago. The plant has stayed empty. I wrote to the then Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) some two years ago and I have also been in touch at the federal level to see if they could co-ordinate some plan to zero in and give this municipality some direction. Up to this time, that has not come about.

What plans are there to put some heart back into these existing communities? In the region of Haldimand-Norfolk--- again a creation of this government -- the town of Dunnville is in desperate need of employment opportunities. Plans are in the offing for a large dry-dock facility at Port Maitland which could give new life and growth to the Dunnville area. It is hoped that the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development or some other source of encouragement will be given to the Misener firm to locate this facility at Port Maitland in order to provide the employment opportunities so desperately needed there.

11:40 a.m.

The throne speech indicated there were going to be programs and encouragement along this line, but nothing has come about up to this point.

At present, in Dunnville, there are several plants which have had to close, a story which has been repeated in many communities throughout this province. There is an auto parts plant which has been empty for two years and to which I just referred. When companies are planning to locate in Ontario, why are they not encouraged to take over these existing plants and take advantage of the trained work forces that are available, instead of them building new plants?

Another example is the town of Waterford. Although it is not in my riding, but in the riding of my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), it is within the regional boundaries of Haldimand-Norfolk. At present, the town is faced with the sale and ultimate closure of the Canadian Canners Ltd. processing plant. It is a great agricultural area producing that line of small fruits and horticultural crops. Through the programs of this ministry, along with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, I hope that we can maintain those small operations which are so much needed, which provide so much employment and are so important to that type of a community.

Two years ago this town also lost its largest manufacturing plant, Duo-Matic, leaving a large number of unemployed in that community. Many people lost secure positions at Massey-Ferguson and White Motor Corp. and others are still searching.

Many of those people who have lost job opportunities are in a bad position as far as their homes are concerned. Many of them are losing their homes. This budget has not seen fit to do anything for those particular people who are in that position. It encourages the purchase of new homes through the $5,000 grants but as far as assisting the existing home owners to maintain their homes and status in the community, there is nothing.

Serviced industrial land exists in many communities and is not being utilized. Why does this government not take an inventory of the vacant plants and serviced industrial land already in existence and make an effort to support those areas of high unemployment with the location of new manufacturing and processing plants where these serviced lands and buildings exist, rather than opening up new locations? Unemployment is running high throughout the province and it is especially high in my area. An ever-increasing number of calls are made to my constituency office every day, owing to layoffs and plant closings. The number of people on welfare rolls is increasing at a rapid rate, which places an impossible burden on municipalities.

There are a number of possibilities for make- work programs. If these were initiated by the province, they could grow into permanent employment opportunities.

We are receiving many calls at the present time because of the layoffs taking place because of Stelco. These are not layoffs from Stelco itself but from companies that work on its behalf. Stelco is hiring people from offshore. It has been brought to our attention that qualified Canadians are not getting a fair chance to be hired for those jobs. We have been in touch with the president of Stelco to bring this to his attention, but I would also like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) that there is a need for retraining programs so that our workers can be protected. We certainly do not need to import workers at this time with the unemployment rate running as high it is. We have the talent and we should be giving priority to Canadians.

Another area of opportunity which could be useful for providing employment in Ontario: We have a firm known as Straza Tire Service, which is a firm that collects old tires, now has a pile of 10 million tires stored on its property and would like to come up with a recycling program. There are no other facilities of any extent in Ontario -- they are only in the United States -- which recycle the rubber to make a product used for carpeting, for example. We have been in touch with the former Ministry of Industry and Tourism, and the Ministries of the Environment and Natural Resources to try and encourage the utilization of this pile of tires.

The member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) has come over to look at the picture. He is in favour of getting tire-recycling on the road.

I might add that the firm has the contacts to pick up these tires around southern Ontario, and there certainly is a need to make our environment look better. As well, the end product would be useful and would take the place of imported products. This is an example of private enterprise. The project would provide jobs and help to stimulate the economy. It would do something for Ontario.

Another proposal I would like to make to the government concerns the firm of Abbott and Townsend who run the sawmill just north of Langton. They have come up with a proposal to utilize wood chips for heat purposes. They would like to tree farm and forest manage our woodlots in southern Ontario.

It may come as a surprise to many northern Ontario members that southern Ontario produces a tremendous amount of energy through wood. It has been lying dormant for 20 years because of an excess of gas and oil and cheap competition, and now it is waiting to be developed and utilized. Abbott and Townsend propose using these wood chips for heating greenhouses, and they can also be utilized in the steel industry.

This firm has some market in the USA, in the areas of Niagara Falls, Fort Erie and Buffalo, and feels there is a great potential that it would like to develop. I support it wholeheartedly and, again, have been working with the Ministries of Natural Resources and Energy, trying to promote and develop that.

The firm would like to commence this year. The requirements for this process are a chipper machine, which costs about $175,000. The other machine required is a manoeuvrable tree trimmer. It takes up very little space but, again, it is expensive, in the $100,000 range.

Incidentally, these machines are American-made but come from North Bay. Perhaps they could be produced here. The potential for developing that side of it is tremendous also.

I might add that this particular sawmill produced something like three million square feet last year. It is one of the larger mills in southern Ontario, but there are several more. At Port Dover there is Porter Lumber Ltd., which saws several hundred thousand feet a year.

The proposed process would assure that 75 to 80 years from now we would have the same adequate wood and lumber supply that we have now. If we protect that resource it will always be there because it is renewable. All we have to do is manage it and farm it properly. I think that is an area which could provide much satisfying work for many people in Ontario.

Most people do not choose or enjoy being on welfare. They would prefer to work for their living if at all possible. Every day we find that people do not want welfare, but when they have no place to go that is what they have to turn to. Why not create some opportunities for employment that would lead to a healthier, better situation for everyone?

A program of assistance to sell the community of Townsend has been supported financially and in every other way by this government. Why not make the same type of assistance available to other areas to promote the construction of new homes on existing serviced lots, giving an incentive to the building industry and providing a choice of location to the purchaser?

11:50 a.m.

Again, as I noted before, this budget indicated $5,000 loans to first-time home owners. We are in a situation of high interest rates at the present time, and we all realize it is devastating to our total economy and that there is no way a farmer or a business person can borrow money at that rate and survive very long in the competitive market.

Going back to Townsend, I think they have come up with a special rate for the housing there: 14 per cent. I know the minister has indicated that this was established a year or so ago and the money was locked in. I would just like to bring to members' attention that there are many thousands of lots in Jarvis, Simcoe, Port Dover, Dunnville, Cayuga, Hamilton and Brantford, and there are houses sitting there. If the same interest incentive were provided to them it would get those houses on the market.

I might add that they are all serviced and they are all sitting there. A good example is Port Dover. In 1975 there were 450 lots sitting there; the hydro, the streets and the sidewalks are all in. Fifty per cent or even 75 per cent of them are still sitting there growing weeds. The roads are getting out of kilter. What has this government done about it? What kind of policy has it come up with? Nothing to assist them. They are only protecting their own seats by supporting Townsend, and that is the thing that really burns up so many people in our area.

The principle of Townsend might well be good. It is going to provide homes and it is coming along as a nice community, no doubt about it. But the money that is spent there! The people see that I have worked like H to provide recreation in Jarvis and in Port Dover and have contributed my dollars, but in Townsend it is already there, provided by our tax money; and I think that is the thing that really hurts.

There are many people who have been in the development business and housing. They have seen their developments go down the drain financially and otherwise because they could not finance them, while all the time this government really did not care. All they are concerned about is protecting their own seats.

I would just like to point out that, although a lot of people say the Liberals do not have alternatives, we did have alternatives for this very purpose as early as 1980. I think it was announced on April 17, 1980, by our former leader, Stuart Smith, and our present leader, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), then Treasury critic, that this program would give short-term help to home owners, farmers and small businesses. Yet nothing has happened. This government has sat back and let the home owners, the businessmen and the farmers go down the drain.

I might add that if the beef farmers who were here last fall trying to protect their interests had obtained some financing to hold them there, today they could be making a profit. We see where the price of beef has gone: from 70 cents up to 95 cents. That is good. They could have bought at a reasonable rate, and they could have got a good return. Did this government come to their assistance? It just kept dragging its feet.

It really burns me up to see those young people who will soon have to return to welfare or some other mode of life. They want to farm.

This morning, I had a call from a young couple who indicated that they are trying to get farm assistance help. They said, "We cannot get it." They go into farm credit, where they were told, "Well, if you do not get one, you cannot get the other." They are in a bind. They want to farm. He is 34 and she is 32. They run a pig operation of 570 at the present time, and they cannot put the crop in because they cannot get their financing. They said, "You should back off and just run your pig operation and rent your land out." What are they going to feed those pigs when their feed runs out? She indicated their supply is going to run out by October.

It does not make any sense to me. If the minister could just give a little help now, with the price of pork going the way it is, they could survive and be comfortable in another few years. All they need is to get over these rough spots. Because of the high interest rates of last year, 25 per cent, there is no way they can survive. Nobody can survive under those conditions; there is not that kind of profit in any business.

Mr. Wildman: What is MacEachen doing about it?

Mr. Boudria: Ontario does not care.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I know. I heard what the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) said about the federal level. We should see some support coming from the province. This is the area we are elected to represent. This is the area where we have to stand up. If one could see some support coming from the province rather than just kicking it all back to the feds --

Mr. Wildman: Neither one of them does anything.

Mr. G. I. Miller: We would see them move. It would put some pressure on them. But everybody is waiting. They are waiting for people to go broke. They are waiting until it is too late. Then they try to come to the rescue and they will pay for it in other ways.

They are going to pay for it in the export market. We have had sales of wheat of some $2 billion to China, a great contract. Are we going to be able to fill it? We want to make sure because that concerns the balance of trade. Again, with corn in Ontario --

Mr. Wildman: Jack Horner will make sure you are able to deliver the wheat, don't worry.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Well, he is a scapper. He is a good westerner. He could well do what is needed with the job.

Mr. Boudria: He'll do a great job.

Mr. Ruston: I'll take the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) out for a walk.

Mr. G. I. Miller: No, it's okay. I just want to make one more point as far as southern Ontario is concerned.

We have gone from producing 170 million tons of corn in Ontario in 1980 to 750 million tons in 1981. One can see what kind of an increase this is. Do the members know what that means to our export market and our surplus of trade? It is just tremendous. Think of the trucking that is involved. One cannot believe the spinoff effect. For example, the fertilizer that is being used stimulates the trucking industry. Everybody gets a piece of it. One may not think so, but agriculture is the engine that really makes the economy tick in this great country of ours. Yet it gets the least support.

In this budget what did we really get? We got a bit of help for the beef farmers, but just a dribble. We got $30 million for tile drainage. I might add that an example could be utilized there where that $30 million that is being put in really costs the taxpayers $10 million when one considers what it costs on a yearly basis because the interest rate has been increased to 10 per cent. So a $30 million investment costs the taxpayers $10 million.

In the BILD program, where they talk about utilizing $650 million, they give it out and there is nothing in return. It is our money they are giving out. I do not mind them supporting those industries, but why should we not be able to do the same thing by providing a loan at four per cent or five per cent? I think they would be happy to get it. We would get something in return and it would help more people.

This way we are just helping a few. It is a gift and I think it is wrong. It does not stimulate. It is just a one-time shot. In the long range it is not assisting enough people. I question whether small businesses are getting a fair opportunity through this fund. I know that in our area we have been successful in getting some storage facilities through the program; it is going to be useful, but I think it could do so much more if it were properly managed.

This government should zero in on taking an accounting of housing that is available and needed, and of needed and available industrial sites, and work to promote these rather than create new ones, as I was saying before. I might add that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) were in our riding a week ago. Again, for the information of the government, they had access to the plane so they could be back here for the vote of confidence on that Tuesday night. I thought I left in enough time to be here but I ended up arriving at 5:58 p.m. because I got into a traffic jam at Bronte while they were able to fly back to Toronto. They kind of had the laugh on me.

12 noon

Mr. Wildman: They did not give you a ride?

Mr. G. I. Miller: No, they would not assist me at all. I did not really ask them, to be honest about it.

Again, we were glad to have them come to the area. We did open the new industrial park in Delhi and we were glad to have the opportunity to do so. As long as they are the government we are always proud to have the ministers come in, see what we have and assist where they can. We will certainly encourage that.

The government has indicated that the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program will assist drydock facilities. There is tremendous potential for facilities in my riding. I would hope that encouragement and assistance will be given to the firm proposing the facility, as mentioned earlier.

The government has indicated that grain facilities, rapid transit, the auto industry and others will be assisted through BILD. In fact, a great amount of weight has been placed on the BILD program and the miracles it will produce.

Hamilton has been left out for years as far as rapid transit and GO Transit are concerned. While it is one of the biggest municipalities in this part of Ontario, there is no regular connection by rail with Hamilton. It is ridiculous that it has taken so long to make that connection.

The station facilities in Hamilton are obsolete. If the government members had ever utilized this system they would know it is like going down a ravine to get to the station. It is almost impossible for older folks. This government has forgotten Hamilton as far as a connecting link is concerned. While it says it wants to put in rapid transit and spend that kind of money, maybe it will be good in the future, but I think the first phase they should attempt is to improve the connection. They should also be making plans to extend it to Nanticoke.

We have a tremendous future in Haldimand-Norfolk. It will be the industrial heartland in years to come. Stelco now has the most modern facilities anywhere in the world. They have produced their first million tons of steel, much ahead of its proposed plan. It is a very efficient plant and it will certainly stimulate Ontario, as it has done in the past 10 years, in the next generation. This is only the beginning.

We have to make plans now to connect that transportation link to Nanticoke.

The Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) made his announcement the other day that he was proposing jobs. There is one area there that he could zero in on to provide a lot of jobs, not only for that area but the spinoff effect would help Toronto, it would help Hamilton, and also Ontario as a whole. We need the assistance there.

In 1977 we had the Brampton charter with all of its promises. What has happened under that program? If we look around Ontario we could ask if we have gone ahead. Have we gone ahead? What are our little towns doing? Who takes that responsibility? Should it be us, or should it be the government? I think the government should take its share of responsibility because every municipality is in need of help. We have to zero in on not just government members' municipalities but we have to concern ourselves about an organized attack to help them.

Jobs have never come about. There has been little, if any, growth. We have not moved ahead. Now we have the BILD program which I referred to before. It is a new program, or the old one dusted off with a new name, but is it just more words or can we really expect some success under the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development? What real programs and signs of renewal can the province expect to see?

In the field of agriculture, great stress has been placed on the assistance that will be given to farmers, but this industry finds itself in dire straits and more farmers are going bankrupt than ever before. Farmers are not looking for handouts; they are industrious, hardworking people. What they need from government is assistance in the marketing of their crops. There is nothing truer than that. The Minister of Industry and Trade could take some responsibility in that field and give some assistance in marketing. When the Treasurer goes to Japan, as he will shortly, he certainly could be promoting our agriculture industry, the crops we have. I think he is going only to look for more money. That is the unfortunate part.

Getting a fair return on investment, that is all a farmer needs in order to stay alive, and an even greater emphasis on the promotion of Ontario's produce and relief from the backbreaking interest rates that are pushing them to their knees. The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Marketing Board is an excellent example of what can be done when the selling of a product is done with the co-operation of farm organizations and provincial and federal governments.

This province needs to play a much greater role in selling our farm produce. I might add that by working along with the province and the federal government, farmers would be able to get money for their products by the end of the season. But there has been no leadership in this respect as far this government is concerned in helping the corn farmer, the wheat farmer or the bean farmer. Again, this is an area we should be zeroing in on.

This brings me to the environment field. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) is sitting there; I hope he is not going to leave for a moment. He mentioned that there was $6 million to improve water facilities and sewage facilities in the province and that it is going to create X number of jobs.

I would just like to make a point. This is pretty good water --

Hon. Mr. Norton: Are you sure that is water you have in that glass?

Mr. G. I. Miller: I think everybody in Ontario should have access to it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is what Sir John A. Macdonald used to say, but it wasn't water he had in his glass.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Today this is all that is in mine.

Mr. MacDonald: It is better water than down in Haldimand-Norfolk. It is very flaky down there.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I want to make a point to the minister while he is sitting there. This is nice water, but where we live a waterline goes by the door and goes on to Hagersville. I want to say thanks to the minister and to the federal people too; I think it is a federal-provincial project. For us to get this kind of water I have to go over to my mother's at Jarvis with a five-gallon plastic can and bring the water home for drinking purposes. We have a well at the barn and a cistern. When this line goes past the door it should be made available to everyone. Everybody in Ontario should have the right to have water supplied. I know the minister will say it is only water, it is the responsibility of the region to provide that service and they just put in the main lines.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We cost share in the region in putting in the services.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I know you do; you subsidize that too. All I am saying is we should come up with a program to encourage the ones along those lines, because it is possible and it should be possible for everyone to have access to it. I certainly would not ask for it myself as a member of the Legislature if I could not get it for everyone else along the line. I hope the minister will give that some consideration and come up with a plan to alleviate that. Everybody should have a right to the water if it is available, and we can make it available.

The other thing I am concerned about is the environmental legislation available to give people access to hearings and decisions that will affect the environment in years to come. I go back to the point of the sale of our hydro from Nanticoke, the cables going to Erie. We have never been against the sale of that hydro. We have a tremendous surplus of power and we should be utilizing it.

12:10 p.m.

At the energy board hearing in Ottawa I said that if there is going to be a sale we should be selling clean power, we should be putting scrubbers on the Nanticoke plant which will clean it up to 90 per cent efficiency, which would be a great improvement and would provide job opportunities.

I think the Ministry of the Environment should move in now, because I know by a press release May 13 that they have been given approval by the National Energy Board. We should assure the people of southern Ontario that they are going to be protected by providing those scrubbers and the work program spinoff would be tremendous.

The sale of hydro to the US, the decision to produce and sell excess hydro for profit is all very well and good, but the number one priority must be the people and the environment. The plants used to produce that hydro for export must also be made safe from excess production of acid rain and other pollutants before, not after, there is a problem. Our lakes and our lands must be protected for future generations to use and appreciate.

The minister well knows we have a tremendous fishing industry in Lake Erie. We want to protect it. We do not want to see it going the way Lake Ontario has gone, where the fish are either not safe or of poor quality. Lake Erie is tremendous and we want to protect it for future generations. Our fishermen have also expressed concern over the effect of the hydro sale to the US. They deserve an opportunity for input into the proposal.

Government should be a source of leadership. However, in recent years it has been more of a system of pushing people around and a lack of any real sense of caring. For example, we have a situation in the hamlet of Nanticoke where only a few hundred people have for generations farmed, fished and lived quiet, rural lives. They are now living between Stelco and Hydro and Texaco within one lot. They are caught in a squeeze with noise, smell and dirt.

I know the latest techniques have been used, I know they are trying to be good citizens, I know they have bermed the property, I know they have done all these things, yet if members had been down there this past winter they would have seen that the drift off of the iron pellet pile and the coke pile at Stelco was unbelievable. The snow off the drift from those piles of coal and coke was about the colour of my pipe. Some of the older citizens have had health problems because they cannot stand the noise. Stelco added new berms between the scrap yards and has tried to maintain them. They have tried to be good citizens but, again, the older people cannot adjust to it and there are some who really want to sell and move out.

The city of Nanticoke made a study but I have not yet received the recommendations. However, I think this government has to give some consideration to the concerns of that little municipality and take some responsibility, along with Hydro, being a provincial entity, an arm of the government. Stelco has set a precedent, the whole area has set a precedent, by offering to buy the cottages in the very beginning. Hydro has bought cottages to the east of its property, but I think it is the responsibility of this government to come up with some plan to assist those people who have been caught in a situation not of their own making and to help them relieve their hardships.

Property has dropped in value. The people cannot afford the cost of relocating without a fair return on their homes. In some instances, their health has been affected along with their drinking water. Soot and ash cling to their surroundings and they feel a sense of betrayal. Now they are asked to swallow a proposed production increase from the hydro plant, along with a change in the system of dumping ash, without the benefit of an environmental assessment hearing. When is this government going to stop ignoring people?

Once a large and flourishing enterprise, the commercial fishing industry in Ontario has been a victim of industrial expansion and the resulting pollution of our lakes. We should be using every possible means to protect this industry from contamination, and endeavour to become more self-sufficient in this area of food storage.

More effort is also needed in the area of shoreline protection from erosion. Programs for assistance to property owners and municipalities should be more readily available, and these people encouraged to seek erosion-control methods rather than being discouraged from doing so.

This is another issue which has been a longstanding concern of myself as a former reeve of the municipality of Walpole. We were able to protect roads when the lake was gnawing away at them. The government would provide an 80 per cent grant to the municipality and the municipality would pick up the remaining 20 per cent. However, when it comes to the property owners, there is no program available.

In this budget there has been no mention of providing funding to protect shoreline. I know it is not possible to rock it from one end to the other, but where the assessment warrants and the value is there, and where it is possible to do it under a planned attack, there should be some money set aside; not $400,000 or $500,000, but a few million dollars. The grant to the property owners should be on the same basis as it is to the municipality.

The job spinoff from this would be tremendous. It is going to take armour rock, and trucking it would provide employment for unskilled workers, which is an area which needs attention. It will give jobs to people who do not have the education or the qualifications to acquire and use modern techniques and technical equipment.

If we look at the overall population of Ontario, we see that approximately one out of every four adults living in large urban centres in Ontario has less than nine years of education. That is a pretty startling fact. We have to zero in on it and provide jobs for these people. They cannot all be using computers; we need some for manual work. That to me is a must.

Our Liberal Party realizes and understands that need and we would certainly be in a position to do something about it. I hope the government will take note and try to provide job opportunities such as the shoreline protection program. The government would be doing three things: protecting property, providing jobs and stimulating the economy as a whole. It has to be a good program.

This government has placed more and more costs back on local government. Shifting the tax burden from the province to the municipality is like crying about cutbacks from Ottawa. That is what we really heard last night: that Ottawa was putting the pressure on us. But this budget has done exactly the same thing to our municipalities by putting a tax on building materials and on building new educational facilities. I assume the new Haldimand-Norfolk region administration building, which is a $3-million project, will come under that very tax. That will represent a considerable added cost to the taxpayers of Haldimand-Norfolk.

12:20 p.m.

I might point out, too, that the school boards are in revolt against the tremendous tax increases to property owners; particularly the separate school board in Haldimand-Norfolk, which is a joint board. The parents, the property owners and the board are at odds. The only reason for this is that funding is not being provided by this provincial government at an adequate level. It is putting more responsibility on the backs of the taxpayers who are overburdened now. I think for many years our proposal has been that at least 60 per cent of the tax should be provided by the provincial level so the property owners are not burdened beyond the realm of possibility of paying those taxes.

Powers once controlled by the province --

Mr. Di Santo: How long do you have to go?

Mr. G. I. Miller: I am getting near the end.

Mr. Di Santo: You are making a good speech. Congratulations.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Thank you.

Powers once controlled by the province are being given back to the municipalities, but with the transfer of power there is no accompanying transfer of funds to carry out those responsibilities.

The burden of additional programs in education alone is pitting school boards against municipal governments and taxpayers. Impossible demands are being made for cutbacks which cannot be achieved if Ministry of Education policies are to be followed.

Under the present system, there is no chance for equal opportunity for education for all the children in this province. Enrichment and special education programs can be elaborate in high population areas, while in less populated jurisdictions they are barely adequate. We need to take a look at our priorities. While buying shares in an oil company, we have failed to look after the greater resource, the proper funding of the education of our children.

Much blame has been attached to the federal government for our financial problems. Yet is it not true that in most provinces programs have been developed on high interest rates, farming needs and employment programs, etc.? Why not here as well? If our young people are to be trained to take over jobs in industry and technology, is it to be done through cutbacks in our community colleges?

There is an increased need for medical services with the growth of our senior population. Is that to be achieved through cutbacks in health care and hospital facilities? If our poor and elderly are to achieve some measure of comfortable living for their remaining years, is it through cutting social service budgets and lack of adequate low-cost housing that we will provide for them? This budget has clearly indicated a cutback, something like two per cent.

The budget automatically causes inflation to our whole system when it really did not need to happen. The government bought Suncor for $650 million, with an annual cost of $60 million in interest, and a jet for $10 million when we could have had the same service from private operators. These things did not really need to happen.

They did not need to take that extra money from the little person who cannot afford it, from kids going to school, from kids who want to buy a hot dog or a puppy from the store down the street. I think it is ridiculous we should be putting this responsibility on the taxpayer at a time when everybody needs every cent he can get just to stay alive.

How long will it be before every municipality can look forward to home care programs for chronic care patients? Again, I will use my municipality as an example. We could use senior citizens' accommodation in Cayuga and in Port Rowan so that older folks do not have to go to Grandview or Norview, 25 or 30 miles away.

It would release homes that would be affordable to the average home owner, not by a $5,000 grant or loan to buy a $90,000 or $70,000 house. With interest rates of 16 per cent, who can afford to carry that unless two people in the family are working, or unless they had a home once before and perhaps rented for a couple of years?

It should have been broadened to make it available to all home owners, whether new or old. It could stimulate the housing industry, which would be good. We are putting people in a financial position they should not be in, but if we could help them get into a home of their own at a price they could afford, it would be in their best interests in the long run.

Undoubtedly, the problems we face are complex and difficult to solve. But the problems of the elected representatives are nothing compared to those of individuals in this province who, through no fault of their own, are facing real, severe and lasting hardships. Is there anyone in this House who is fearful of losing his or her job at this time?

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate on the Conservative budget with a great feeling of disappointment in the fact that we are having to debate this kind of budget when we face major problems in our economy. The Treasurer has made a great deal out of his job creation record but he fails to spell out what has happened since his last budget. The record is dismal.

Since April 1981, this has been the record. The official unemployment rate has gone up by 89,000 people. However, when one considers the hidden unemployment, those people not counted by Statistics Canada because they are no longer looking for work in this province, one has an additional 117,000 jobs missing and people who are looking for work. The number of jobs lost in recent months is 31,000. Of course, when one looks at what is happening in manufacturing in southern Ontario, one finds that 55,000 jobs have disappeared. The record is clear. We have 575,000 people in Ontario who cannot find work.

All this budget proposes is 31,000 temporary jobs. There is not a single proposal in the budget that really approaches the major problems we have in manufacturing, food processing and the resource industries. I have some serious concern about the whole attitude of this government.

In my riding, a riding which has been dependent upon resource development for many years, a riding which contributes a great deal to what has been the wealth of this province since the wealth and the whole manufacturing sector in southern Ontario would be nowhere without the resources of the north, we now face 11.3 per cent unemployment. That is the official unemployment rate. Those people are listed with Canada Manpower, looking for work, are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits and are listed by Statistics Canada. The real figure is higher than that.

In the north end of my riding, we have hundreds of woodcutters who have been laid off, sawmill workers who have been laid off and sawmill operations that have completely closed down. The whole woods operation of Abitibi-Price sawmill in the small community of White River is shut down. The workers have been laid off indefinitely. The company does not know how long it will be; they said it could be up to a year or more.

12:30 p.m.

The people affected, who were encouraged by the company to buy houses in the community, no longer have jobs; but they have mortgages to pay. They have nowhere to go. Some have sought work out west, but the situation in the woods industry in the west is just as bad.

We move on to Wawa, which is the largest community in my riding. We have there, for the first time in a long time, a number of layoffs and a full month's shutdown in the summer of the Algoma Ore division of Algoma Steel, located in Wawa. So we have miners out of work.

Sault Ste. Marie, which has been generally insulated from the economic downturns we have experienced in the last few years in this province, is now feeling the pinch because the Canadian-owned steel industry in this country is finally being hit by the spinoff from the serious problems we are experiencing in the manufacturing sector in southern Ontario.

People who have worked for 10 to 15 years at Algoma Steel are now on layoff. This is unheard of. We have not had this kind of situation in Sault Ste. Marie since the 1930s. When a major employer like Algoma Steel lays off workers, it affects the whole community.

In the southern part of my riding we have a number of farmers, some of whom work off the farm as well as on it, and others who are full-time farmers in dairy and beef operations. These people are in a terrible cost squeeze. Many of them are losing their farms because they are unable to make their mortgage payments or their interest payments on capital loans for the purchase of the farm or for ongoing operations such as feed and fertilizer.

The other major employer throughout my riding is tourism, where we have the same serious problem that we have in the whole small business sector. The small businessmen are being hit by interest rates such that they cannot meet their payments. They are having to carry inventory that is not selling. People are out of work because of the layoffs and are not purchasing. The retail sector is in serious difficulty, and there have been a large number of small business bankruptcies.

Then, of course, we have the home owner who has purchased a home and is having his mortgage renegotiated at a higher interest rate. The mortgage payments are doubling. With the lack of jobs, it is more difficult for the spouse to get a job to help make those payments, and so we have people losing their homes.

As well, we have the terrible tragedy of those people who are ordinarily disadvantaged in our economy, such as native people and women, for whom there are very few jobs in northern Ontario, and certainly very few of the traditional jobs. We also have a large number of young people, many of whom have finished school and are trained, who cannot find jobs.

When I say I am disappointed, I am. I am most disappointed that, in the whole province, all this Treasurer has to offer those kinds of people is 31,000 temporary jobs.

Where is our society headed if the young people in our communities become discouraged and conclude that it does not make any difference what kind of efforts they make, there is no hope? They are not going to be able to find a job. They are not going to be able to get married, have a family, settle down and have a nice home.

I have not even dealt in my opening remarks with the tremendous social needs we have for various types of services in our communities, the small, isolated communities in the north that require funding but were ignored in this budget.

I want to concentrate on what I consider to be the major problems facing our economy: high interest rates and unemployment. The two, of course, are related. I will admit that it is not the fault only of this provincial government that we face these problems; nor, for that matter, I suppose, is it the fault only of the federal government. There are major economic problems affecting the whole western world and all western economies.

I am sure you will agree, though, Mr. Speaker, that it is certainly the responsibility of governments, whether at the federal or provincial level, to respond to the immediate needs of their people, to try to protect them from the effects of what is happening in our economy and to try in the long term to turn the situation around to develop policies that will produce jobs and make housing affordable for the average citizen.

For a moment I would like to deal with the attitudes and approaches of the Conservatives and the Liberals in Canada. This government always tries to make the point that interest rate policy is a federal jurisdiction and that, therefore, they are not responsible; they cannot do anything. I agree with the first part of that statement. Certainly interest rate policy is a federal responsibility, and certainly the Liberals have failed the people of this country because they are unwilling or unable to deal with the economic problems we face.

We have a situation where the governor of the Bank of Canada is directing interest rate policy and has directed interest rate policy for some time, and governments of whatever stripe at the federal level have been unable or unwilling to turn that policy around. We have a government at the federal level that is paralysed. We have a federal Minister of Finance who has no ideas, who has no conception of what he should do and who is afraid to do anything. So obviously the governor of the bank is the one who determines policy.

We had the same situation when the Conservatives were in power. We have the ironic situation of having a Liberal government elected in a premature election that resulted because they as Liberals voted against the high interest rate policy of a Conservative government.

Mr. Elston: An election brought on by Robert Rae, if I remember correctly.

Mr. Wildman: That is right. And it is interesting, if we want to be partisan in that sense, that this party has been consistently opposed to high interest rates at the federal and provincial levels throughout the last few years.

It is interesting that a Liberal Party will support a motion against high interest rates to bring about an election for opportunistic reasons and then, when they get back into power, not only do they refuse to turn that policy around but they also exacerbate it. On the other side, we have the Conservatives who, when they are in power, have a high interest rate policy. Then when they meet defeat at the polls they come back as an opposition party and oppose high interest rates.

It is no wonder the electorate in general have become cynics. It is no wonder people believe that politicians in general are the lowest level of life, that they are not worth believing, that people cannot trust them. They will just say whatever they want to say to get elected and then, when they get into power, it does not make any difference.

There are people who think that way, and I think it is very unfortunate. There are also those people who do not have quite that low an opinion of politicians but who genuinely believe that it does not really make any difference who gets elected because they believe politicians cannot do anything.

12:40 p.m.

Frankly, I hate to say this, but I agree with them. I agree with them if we are talking about the experience we have had at the federal level. It does not make one bit of difference whether one has a Conservative government or a Liberal government in power; they cannot do anything. They do not care about what is going on, and if they do care they do not know what to do about it.

Liberals and Tories have led us to the economic precipice that we face. Now we have the situation of MacEachen not only standing at the precipice but also getting ready to jump off and take all of us with him. We have the Conservatives here, who say, "Yes, we are opposed to that policy but we do not want to do anything about it at this level because it is not our responsibility." It makes no difference.

We have the situation now where we have Trudeau doing it to us federally, we have the Premier (Mr. Davis) giving it to us provincially and we have the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party (Mr. Peterson) saying, "If you like what Trudeau has done for you federally, let me do it for you provincially." The Premier says, "I like what Clark did to you federally and I want to continue doing it to you provincially."

I know the two parties that I am referring to in this House on many occasions try to argue that they are not really related to their brothers at the other level.

Mr. Boudria: What is this here? Are you related to the NDP in Saskatchewan?

Mr. Wildman: Yes, I am related to the NDP in Saskatchewan. I regret very much their loss. It would have been interesting and very encouraging if this government had followed the example of the Conservative Party in Saskatchewan and had offered some of the programs that the people supported there.

Mr. Ruston: That is organized confusion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Order. The member for Algoma has the floor.

Mr. Wildman: I have never disowned the policies of the NDP at the federal, Manitoba, Saskatchewan or British Columbia levels. I have never done it. I will defend them. I think those are the kinds of programs, especially in the resource area, that we should support.

Mr. Boudria: Are you in favour of legislating those people back to work as the NDP did in Saskatchewan? Is that what you are telling us? Yes or no?

The Acting Speaker: I remind the member for Prescott-Russell that the member for Algoma has the floor.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have never said this in terms of Tories or Liberals either; I have never said politicians never make mistakes, but when one repeats them over and over again, there is a bit of problem.

Mr. Ruston: He's apologizing.

Mr. Wildman: There are some in that party to my right who are interjecting who do admit that they are Liberals. I understand that the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps), when she was campaigning for the leadership, said, "A Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal." I really respect her for saying that. At least she was able to stand there and say that if one is a Liberal in Ontario, one is a member of the party that happens to be in power at the federal level and one cannot go around saying that one has nothing to do with them, that their policies are irrelevant to the other and that one is not responsible in any way for what they are doing. That member accepts the responsibility of membership in a political party, and I respect her for that.

It is unfortunate the member obviously has so little influence in her party that she has not been able to persuade the rest of the members beside her that they are Liberals too. Perhaps it is because she said she was a Liberal that she did not win the leadership. I do not know.

Mr. Ruston: What about the member for Scarborough West? Is that why he didn't win it?

Mr. Wildman: No. He never said he was a Liberal, thank God.

Mr. Elston: We wouldn't want him.

Mr. Wildman: All three candidates for the New Democratic Party leadership were --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I remind all members once again that the standing orders provide that one member speaks and then, in the normal rotation, a member of the other party speaks. Unfortunately, they do not provide that the members have an instantaneous dialogue if they do not appreciate the speaker's comments. To that end, I remind all members once more that the member for Algoma has the floor at this time. I ask him to continue.

Mr. Wildman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is most gracious of you.

I would say that all three candidates for the leadership of this party were New Democrats, said they were New Democrats, said they were federal and provincial New Democrats and did not try to play any games about that.

Mr. Ruston: What about their policies?

Mr. Wildman: I do not know what the purport of that question is.

At any rate, we had a situation at the federal level where we had a Minister of Finance named Crosbie. That member from Newfoundland was the Minister of Finance for nine months. He had a gestation period as minister. He laboured long and hard, but what did he bring forth? He brought forth Allan MacEachen. One is descended from the other.

They are related. They are carrying the genes of corporate power with them. They are carrying their whole background, which is related to the control of this economy by the corporate sector and by the banking system. There is a complete bankruptcy of ideas as to how to deal with either the corporate sector or the banking system when they do not operate in the interests of the country as a whole.

Mr. Crosbie had high interest rates. Now we have Mr. MacEachen who has high interest rates. The Liberals opposed Mr. Crosbie's high interest rates, and now we have the Tories opposing Mr. MacEachen's high interest rates.

Mr. Boudria: No. They are in agreement with them.

Mr. Wildman: They said they liked high interest rates, but they do not like Mr. MacEachen's high interest rates. I suppose it is a situation where, if they are Tory high interest rates, the Tories can support high interest rates, but if they are Liberal high interest rates, the Tories cannot support them. I suppose the same goes for the Liberals.

The only thing that has been stable in this whole process has been the governor of the Bank of Canada. He has been for high interest rates throughout. He has a great deal of control over decision-making at the federal level.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I hear he votes NDP.

Mr. Wildman: Really? Bouey?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That's what they tell me.

Mr. Wildman: I do not think we have any Boueys in our closet.

12:50 p.m.

At the provincial level, the Treasurer has stated on a number of occasions in the past that he is in favour of Reaganomics, that he believes the President of the United States is taking the right approach by raising interest rates to high levels or, by acquiescing to that, to cut inflation and turn the American economy around. The Treasurer has indicated that if that works in the United States, it is the only hope for Canada and for Ontario.

Mr. Boudria: What is your position on Suncor?

Mr. Wildman: I will be getting to that later.

When it is in his interest, the Treasurer inveighs against MacEachen and his interest rates. I have never been quite able to understand how he can be in favour of Reaganomics and high interest rates in the United States and yet be against MacEachen's approach in Ottawa.

I suppose one could argue that MacEachen has not been nearly as good at it as Reagan. It might be argued that he has not raised interest rates high enough, that he has not produced enough unemployment or that if only we could have a worse economic situation, the Treasurer of Ontario would be happy with the federal government's approach. But I am not sure that is what he is saying. There does not seem to be any consistency among Tories and Liberals, whether they happen to inhabit the House of Commons or the Legislature of Ontario.

There is one thing, though, that one does find when looking for consistency. Both MacEachen and the Treasurer have a basic approach to economics, an approach that one magazine writer has described as the "TV evangelist approach" to the economy. What they basically say to the taxpayers is, "Send us your money and we will pray for you." They certainly do that well.

They raise taxes but they do not raise the taxes that are not progressive. They do not do anything at all with that tax money, when they get it, to stimulate the economy and produce jobs for the people who are unemployed or to lower interest rates and help the home owners or businessmen or farmers who are in trouble as a result of those high interest rates. Not one thing has been done in this budget.

The NDP in Ontario made a number of proposals prior to the budget which we did not honestly expect the government or the Treasurer would accept. However, they were alternatives we thought should be considered and we hoped for some response from the Treasurer.

The Leader of the Opposition also made some sort of proposal which was not nearly as detailed as ours. What he said, basically, was that he did not want taxes to go up, he did not want the deficit to go up, but he wanted all kinds of services to be improved.

That is a very strange kind of arithmetic. We used to talk about the "Liberal restraint package." I suppose, if one is opposed to the deficit going up, that is in line with restraint. One could also argue that keeping taxes lower might be in line with restraint. But could they please explain to me how one improves and increases services without increasing either the deficit or taxes?

The Liberals always go around saying, "Well, if one were to get rid of Suncor, for instance, or sell the jet or get rid of land the government has purchased, we could then save so much money that we could increase services without increasing the deficit or taxes."

Again, they have these queer blinders on when they say that kind of thing, because they ignore the fact that the Liberals at the federal level do the exact opposite. I suppose they can defend MacEachen and his approach to financing and budgeting, but it must be difficult for them. I suppose that is why they do not like to be called Liberals. In our view, it does not make any sense to say that you have to increase services without either increasing the deficit or increasing taxation.

Mr. Boudria: But you are in favour of increased deficits.

Mr. Wildman: That is right; we are. It seems to us that at a time when the economy is in serious trouble, when people are out of work, when the country is facing a terrible downturn, to say that we should be lowering government expenditures across the board is to say that we do not care about the poor. It would be to say that we do not care about the people who are living below the poverty line, the senior citizens and the disabled, because if we were to assist them and increase their benefits and the money that flows to them so they could be brought up just to the poverty line, we would have to increase taxes or deficits.

This is a very unfeeling approach that the party to my right has taken. One cannot expect to deal with the major problems that have been neglected by the Tories for years, that have led us to this serious economic problem, without doing something that means expenditures.

You probably are aware, Mr. Speaker, that if the people who are now living below the poverty line and are receiving benefits were brought up just to that poverty level, it would cost Ontario approximately $500 million.

Mr. Boudria: That is less than the cost of Suncor, and you want --

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wildman: It would cost $500 million because of the Conservatives' years of neglect of the elderly and the single mothers who have to support families. They do not care. They make all these grandiose statements about how they support the family, but they have neglected to give families the resources they need to help them stay together; and so it would cost us $500 million. Honestly, we do not think we could redress that in one year, that would be irresponsible.

But to say, as do the Liberals, "We do not want to do anything for those people because we do not want to increase the deficit or increase taxes," is even worse.

Mr. Boudria: That is not what we said.

Mr. Wildman: Well, no; what they said was, "We want to increase the benefits for those people but we do not want to increase the deficit or the taxes." That is new math if I ever heard it.

The Acting Speaker: I draw the honourable member's attention to the clock. I wonder whether this would be an appropriate time to adjourn the debate.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have some comments to make about our proposals, about what we think it is necessary to do in this province and about the lack of reaction by this government to those needs, but it will take me some time.

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

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

21 mai 1982