Journal des débats 1984-nov-13 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: This actually concerns the government House leader, and I simply draw his attention to the point of order. In the past, we in the two opposition offices have been informed by the minister's office of the lists of ministers who would not be attending question period. This is extremely useful, of course, in putting forward questions and in planning for an exchange.

I am now told this information is not going to be forthcoming. Is that a fact? If so, can the minister indicate that we might renegotiate this matter so this information can be made available?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that we were working on a system, because of certain events that are happening over here, whereby we would get an indication of the ministers to whom members opposite wished to address their questions and then attempt to have those ministers here. Somehow it was felt that this might obviate the need for the lists we had exchanged before.

I would be quite happy to look into the matter. I think our staffs have been exchanging the lists. We can certainly talk about it. We would not want to do anything that would interfere with the opportunity the opposition parties have to question the government of this province.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest that perhaps we can put this on the agenda for Thursday's House leaders' meeting.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: Before embarking on the regular business of the House, I would like to introduce to all honourable members the new pages who have come to work with us for the next few weeks.

Sarah Andrewes, Lincoln; Heather Baptie, Wellington South; Philip Campbell, Perth; Robert Carter, York North; Katie Corkery, Peterborough; Rosa De Pinto, Beaches-Woodbine; Jonathon Doan, Elgin; James Dunsmore, York Mills; Christine Hatt, Essex North; Kelly Hurlbut, Oxford; James Klodnicki, Muskoka; John Knotek, Leeds;

Naen Lamarche, Welland-Thorold; Natalie Long, Yorkview; Jason Lorenzon, Windsor-Sandwich; Ramona Mikelenas, Halton-Burlington; Kevin Morris, Port Arthur; Rosemary Nagy, Kitchener; Jo-Elle Nelson, Northumberland; Patti-Jo Park, Lambton; Graham Robertson, Cochrane North; Jason Vincze, Oakville; and Ian Watson, Chatham-Kent.

I would ask all members to join with me in welcoming our new pages.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that Ontario Hydro announced this morning it is immediately beginning a program to develop promising pollution control technology at its Lakeview coal-fired generating station in Toronto.

Mr. Bradley: At last.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I will wait for the applause from the other side.

This is Hydro's positive and direct response to a series of extensive discussions initiated by my ministry in our continuing efforts to combat acid rain.

Hydro has advised me of its decision to install a prototype dry limestone injection scrubbing system on one 300-megawatt generating unit, along with state-of-the-art, low nitrogen oxide burners. As experience with the technology increases and it is proved feasible on a 300-megawatt unit, it will then be applied to similar 500-megawatt units at Hydro's other coal-fired station at Lambton, close to the great riding of Sarnia.

With this system, Hydro expects to achieve significant reductions in the emissions of the main ingredients of acid rain, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.

As members are aware, Hydro's sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions have been under a nonappealable government regulation since early 1981. The object is to reduce these emissions by 43 per cent by 1990.

Hydro must have its acid gas emissions from coal-fired plants down to 450,000 tonnes by 1986, and is not to exceed that level in 1987, 1988 and 1989. After 1990, the allowable limit drops to 300,000 tonnes. We do not mandate technology; we regulate maximum emission levels. How Hydro reduces its emissions is entirely up to it, but do it, it must.

As members know, Hydro is heavily committed to expanding its capability of generating electricity from nuclear plants. It is a world leader in that field. The nuclear plants do not contribute to the acid rain problem and, therefore, are considered to be a major part of the strategy to reduce the overall contributions to acid rain through power generation. Coal-fired plants in our province provide the necessary backup; they will likely be with us for the foreseeable future.

The scrubbing of pollutants by means of dry limestone injection is a technology well suited to the coal-fired generating stations operating during periods of peak demand. Powdered dry limestone is injected directly into the furnace where it reacts with sulphur dioxide and reduces the amount that goes up the stack and into the air. The byproduct is collected with the fly-ash by electrostatic precipitators or baghouse filters.

The initiative announced today will advance the technology to control acid gas emissions from coal-fired generating stations and provide a demonstration of an alternative means of controlling acid gas emissions.

I welcome this very tangible expression of Hydro's determination to advance the technology of sulphur and nitrogen removal from thermal generating emissions. I know my colleague the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes) shares this viewpoint. Both of us are concerned that emissions from all sources be substantially reduced so Ontario can continue to play its role in the reduction of acid rain.

In this regard, I should point out that Hydro may well be required to make further reductions by 1994, by which time Canada and the eastern provinces have agreed to limit emissions to a total of 2.3 million tonnes. That decision will be reached as the allocation of reductions is worked out by the provinces in the eastern part of the country and the federal government. If we could achieve a similar commitment internationally, we could have the problem of acid rain under control.

2:10 p.m.

BIRTH OF MEMBER'S GRANDCHILD

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, prior to my formal statement, perhaps I can exercise my privilege as Minister of Health to bring to the attention of the members of the Legislature the fact that the member for Brock (Mr. Welch), the Deputy Premier of Ontario, on the weekend became a grandfather for the first time to Katherine Elizabeth Jayne Kerley. She was born on Sunday, November 11, at St. Catharines General Hospital. We offer our congratulations to the family.

HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, later today I will be introducing three bills to amend various health-related statutes.

The first bill, an amendment to the Health Protection and Promotion Act, 1984, responds to the government's commitment in the throne speech to encourage the provision of French-language health care services in those parts of the province with significant francophone populations.

As the honourable members are aware, the Health Protection and Promotion Act now requires all boards of health to provide or ensure the provision of a minimum core of basic public health services. The proposed amendment will guarantee that these mandatory programs are accessible to French-speaking Ontarians in their own language in designated areas of the province.

Under the amendment, the specific boards and areas will be designated by regulations under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. It is our intention to define the areas parallel to those now designated to receive provincial government services in the French language. I am pleased to note that most of the health units that will be affected by this amendment report that they already have sufficient French-speaking staff to meet the new requirement.

Mon ministère s'est engagé depuis longtemps à offrir une gamme étendue de services de santé en français à la population francophone de l'Ontario. Considérant l'importance croissante de la promotion de l'hygiène et de la prévention des maladies dans notre province et les mesures que mon ministère adopte présentement pour favoriser cette croissance, la prestation des services de santé essentiels en français doit maintenant avoir la priorité.

Mr. Wrye: He is the fifth man.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I do not regard myself as being on the fringe.

Mr. Rae: I understand it is better than anything he said in English.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Thank you very much for this show of support.

My ministry has a long-standing commitment to offer a wide range of French-language health services to francophone Ontarians. With the growing importance of health promotion and disease prevention in our province and the steps my ministry is now taking to encourage that growth, the provision of key public health services in French is now to be given priority.

IMMUNIZATION OF SCHOOL PUPILS AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the second measure is an amendment to the Immunization of School Pupils Act. It will extend the grounds for exemption from the immunization requirements to include grounds of conscience. It will also provide a penalty for those parents who fail to have nonexempt children immunized.

At present, exemptions from compulsory immunization are allowed only on medical grounds or because of religious beliefs. A few children in the province have been excluded from school because of parental convictions that, though not religious, represent strong and deeply held philosophical views. We believe the law should respect these personal convictions.

This amendment is particularly appropriate in the light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of conscience and religion. We are advised by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) that the broader exemption provision would be more consistent with the letter and the spirit of the charter. As members are aware, it is government policy to bring all Ontario legislation into conformity with the tenets of the charter.

I am pleased to inform the House that because of the diligence and dedication of local public health workers, the immunization campaign has made excellent progress. As of the end of the academic year this June, 80 per cent of the school population had been assessed and, among this group, immunization levels had reached 93 per cent or higher. The remaining school pupils will be assessed in the current year.

We do not expect this broader exemption provision to affect the overall efficacy of the immunization program. Religious exemptions thus far represent only one eighth of one per cent of all the pupils assessed.

On the basis of the experience of other jurisdictions, we expect that the combined exemption rate for both religion and conscience should not exceed one quarter of one per cent, a level that would be compatible with the protection of public health. I would also remind the House that medical officers of health will retain the right to exclude all nonimunized pupils from school in the event of the outbreak of a disease.

To deter frivolous use of the exemption procedure, the bill provides that the statement of conscience or religious belief must be in the form of an affidavit. As the law currently stands, the only sanction for nonimmunization is suspension from school. This penalizes the child when it is the parent who is properly responsible for the child's immunization status.

Therefore, to encourage parents to carry out their responsibilities, the bill will establish an additional sanction. It provides for a fine of up to $1,000 for parents who fail to ensure that a child meets the immunization requirements.

In short, the bill will ensure fairness in the implementation of the universal immunization campaign while advancing the goal of safeguarding community health.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the third and final bill proposes amendments to several statutes governing various health professions. The major provision will extend to nine health professions, the government's authority to make, amend or revoke a regulation in the event that a governing board fails to do so at the request of the Minister of Health.

Cabinet currently has this power to act in the governing board's place under the Health Disciplines Act, which covers five major health professions, and under two other statutes. The proposed amendment will embed this authority in the remaining five regulatory acts affecting professions such as chiropractors, ophthalmic dispensers, psychologists and physiotherapists.

While the need to use this authority has arisen infrequently, the ministry is accepting the advice of the health professions legislation review that we establish regulatory control across the full spectrum of health care disciplines.

The remaining provisions of this bill are essentially housekeeping amendments. Several changes pertain to the nursing part of the Health Disciplines Act. The council of the College of Nurses of Ontario will be empowered to make regulations on record-keeping tailored to the variety of settings within which nurses practise.

The discipline committee of the college will be expanded from 10 members to 24, of which four are to be lay representatives appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The bill authorizes discipline panels with lay representation to be established in order to expedite the disciplinary proceedings of the college.

The amendment will provide for the investigation of alleged professional misconduct or incompetence. It also obliges all persons engaged in the administration of the nursing part of the act to preserve confidentiality. These new sections parallel existing provisions for the other four professions under the Health Disciplines Act.

Among other changes, the Dental Technicians Act will be amended to authorize exemptions from any provision of the act or the regulations. Under the Ophthalmic Dispensers Act, the age requirement for registration is being repealed.

I am confident these bills will promote the smooth functioning of the regulatory process within our health care system, a process that is an essential component for protecting and continuing the high level of health care that we know in this province.

2:20 p.m.

CONGRATULATIONS TO JAMES ALLAN

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, today I have a very pleasant and agreeable task to perform for the House, one made even more satisfying by the fine individual it involves. I would like the honourable members to join me in wishing a very happy 90th birthday to one of the most outstanding parliamentarians ever to serve this province, Mr. James Noble Allan, or Jim Allan, as he was much better known in this chamber.

I was never that young when I was around this place, but I might say it was 15 years ago today, when I was a relatively young back-bencher in the back row, that I took the opportunity to bring to the members' attention that it was Mr. Allan's birthday, at that time his 75th, and that he was just beginning his fourth quarter century of public service to this province.

Jim is with us today in the members' gallery, as the members have seen, along with his son Harvie and his daughter Jean, although he would probably feel much more at home down here on the government benches, for he made many friends on both sides of this House during his 24-year career in this Legislature. Quite a few people here will tell you Queen's Park has never been quite the same without his warmth and wit.

We would like to try to repay Jim, at least in part, for those many years of dedicated service. Therefore, as a small gesture towards the role he played in shaping this province's recent history, we have chosen to rename the twin spans of the Burlington Bay Skyway in his name.

We feel it is a fitting tribute in the light of the fact Jim played a very instrumental part in developing Ontario's excellent network of roads as Minister of Highways from 1955 to 1958, including, I might say, the time when most of the construction of the first Burlington Bay Skyway took place. I can personally testify that he has left a considerable legacy behind.

Jim Allan was Minister of Highways during a particularly prosperous time in Ontario's past, an era when road-building was one of the province's top priorities. If one needs confirmation of his achievements, all one has to do is take a look at the Ontario road map. Many of the province's major highways were either built or initiated during his term.

He handled his portfolio with expertise, efficiency and the commitment that characterized his entire 56-year career in Ontario politics, from the time he was elected to Canborough township council in 1919 through to his five-year stint as Ontario Treasurer from 1961 to 1966. No matter how heavy his cabinet duties became, he always had time for his constituents in Haldimand-Norfolk.

We have much to thank Jim Allan for, but I hope he will be pleased with the modest honour we are bestowing upon him. The Burlington Bay Skyway has become a landmark in southern Ontario. The current project under way to build a second span will make it an even more integral part of the provincial highway system. Thus, it seems only fitting that it should be named the James Allan Skyway.

I am convinced this project will be one Jim Allan will be proud to have his name associated with, just as we are proud to establish this lasting tribute to a fine citizen of Ontario.

I might mention to my honourable colleagues that Jim and his son and daughter will be with us briefly this afternoon, but he will not be able to stay too long as he must rush to get back to Niagara Falls where they are hosting a 90th birthday party for him this evening.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the present member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) is going to have a few words to say in a moment, but on behalf of my colleagues, I want to join with the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) to express our very best wishes to Jim Allan on his 90th birthday and our appreciation for his good example and his friendship over those years.

It is characteristic of the modesty of the man, either that or the inefficiency of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, that he is sitting in the shadows in the back row of the gallery on a day when we would like to see him out in the front. He never did put himself forward. He always did a good job whenever he was asked to do so.

I want to say something about that because as minister of transportation -- it was Minister of Highways in the good old days -- he supervised a budget that expanded year by year as the economy of the province expanded. Those were the days when we were serving all parts of the province with the kind of highways we wish we could afford now. Somehow or other the present minister does not have the clout with his cabinet colleagues --

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: I think I had better let that one go.

In that connection, I would feel much safer riding on the James Allan Skyway than on the James Snow Parkway. At least the former minister kept his personal views out of these things.

We are delighted that this recognition for Mr. Allan is being brought to the House today. I sat with him in this House for about 13 years and we shared the responsibility of representing the fine people of the then county of Norfolk, which went out of existence as a county not too many years ago.

As Treasurer he also set a great example for those people who have had the responsibility subsequently. He did not balance the budget every year, but he was able to do so almost every year. In the years when there was what he called a shortfall -- that is a word we do not hear very much from that side; they talk about net cash requirements now -- it was because the money was spent for good roads and even more good roads.

Jim Allan goes back in the community a long way. He graduated from the Ontario Agricultural College in about 1913 or 1914. His roots in the agricultural community are very deep and he continues to command a good deal of respect in that way.

After he was more or less demoted from the ministry by the powers that be, he was still an extremely effective back-bencher. There are a few people here who might listen to what he was able to accomplish as a member of the public accounts committee. That was when the public accounts committee was resurrected with its strength and leadership from the opposition, at least in part. Jim Allan as a government spokesman, and particularly with his experience as Treasurer, was often in the forefront of those who could bring his former colleagues in the cabinet before that committee to answer questions that effectively indicated his concern about the public purse.

He also ran a very effective campaign for the leadership of his party in 1971 --

An hon member: It was 1961.

Mr. Nixon: Yes. It was the time Mr. Robarts won. In that connection, it is interesting to see that his involvement in politics has continued. His breadth of vision has been maintained. He is still chairman of the Niagara Parks Commission and I understand he is going back to Niagara Falls for a meeting of that commission later today.

He is so up to date on the issues and is such an effective politician that if I were a Tory looking at the timorous and reactionary alternatives offered by the present contenders for leadership, I would be tempted to turn to Jim Allan and suggest he should look at the leadership again.

Jim Allan was a very good friend of my dad when he was a member. He is a very good friend of mine. We were political opponents. I used to work hard against him in elections and he used to work hard against me. I will not talk about our various successes, but he was a worthy political opponent. More than anything else, he was an outstanding politician with the very best motives a politician could ever have.

He is a man who is proud of his family connections in Dunnville, a man who realized that friendships transcended political boundaries and divisions, a man we on this side are very proud to call our friend. We look forward to riding on his skyway with confidence and we wish him many years of health, happiness and public service.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the member for Oakville and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) in paying tribute to an outstanding Ontario citizen. I had the privilege of watching him in action during my earlier years in this House. It was obvious back then that he showed leadership, compassion and the abilities that all of us in this assembly should try to emulate.

I had the privilege of sitting on a good many committees with him, and of watching him perform in the House. My colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) reminds me that as recently as a few days ago Mr. Allan, as chairman of the Niagara Parks Commission and as a member of the Niagara Bridge Commission, spent a whole day giving evidence before a committee of this House. He was well listened to. Whenever he spoke, he had something to say. He was as sharp as a tack. For all his 90 years, it is obvious that he is still making a very significant contribution to the life of everybody in this province.

I had the pleasure of travelling with Jim Allan to northeastern Ontario during a members' tour in 1972 when we had the opportunity to spend a few hours up on Holly Lake. I see my colleague the member for Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch) smiling because she has something to smile about. She and Jim Allan spent most of that time in a canoe going up and down Holly Lake.

Interjections.

Mr. Stokes: They were the most successful duo at catching fish, more successful than anybody else in this entire Legislature and certainly more than anybody who was on that trip.

Another thing I envy Mr. Allan for is that as chairman of the Niagara Parks Commission he was able to persuade the Treasurer of this province that the water rentals that would normally accrue to the consolidated revenue fund in Ontario should not go into that fund. They now go into a special fund that Jim Allan has some responsibility for. I am told it amounts to something in the neighbourhood of $2.7 million a year which helps with that beautiful creation we have, called the Niagara Parks Commission. I want to speak privately to Jim to find out how he did it because I want to do the same thing for something I hope will ultimately be known as the Nipigon parkway commission.

I know that anybody who has known Jim Allan will appreciate the tremendous contribution he has made not only to his area of the province but to the entire province, because I am told he is probably the last Treasurer in this province who ever came into this House with a balanced budget.

I would like to join with the member for Oakville and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk in thanking him on behalf of members of this party for the tremendous contribution he has made and to wish him many years of peace, happiness, good health and contentment in the future.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, I also would like to take this opportunity to congratulate James N. Allan on his 90th birthday today, November 13.

As one of Haldimand-Norfolk's most distinguished citizens, Mr. Allan was first elected to the Ontario Legislature as the member for Haldimand-Norfolk in 1951 and held that position until 1975. He was appointed Minister of Highways, January 5, 1955, and Treasurer and Minister of Public Works, April 28, 1958. He relinquished the Public Works portfolio on December 22, 1958. He was Provincial Treasurer from November 8, 1961, to November 24, 1966, and was appointed Minister without Portfolio on November 23, 1966. He gave up that position on January 19, 1968.

Last night I delivered a scroll to his home in Dunnville on behalf of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the province, only to find he was at the horse races. I just want to say to the members that I hope we are all as healthy as Mr. Allan when we attain the age of 90, because he still drives a car and is very active in the community.

I would like to wish him a happy birthday and offer my congratulations to him on the naming of the James Allan Skyway, the former Burlington Bay Skyway, after him.

PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, on June 22, 1984, I advised the House I would be bringing forward legislation to convert the office of the public complaints commissioner from a pilot project to an ongoing part of the administration of justice. I am pleased today to table legislation in accordance with my commitment.

As I stated in June, the pilot phase of this initiative has been an outstanding success. I will be tabling along with this legislation an analysis of the first two and a half years of the project's life, together with two annual reports, a preproclamation report and the special Morrish Road and holdup squad reports. All of these documents demonstrate how important this office has been to police-community relations in Toronto in the past three years.

As I indicated in June, continuation of the project was supported by the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, the senior management of the police force and the president of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association. I am pleased to say the new Metro chairman, Dennis Flynn, has also advised me of his support.

The legislation I will be tabling later this afternoon is philosophically identical to the existing act, in that it establishes a public complaints system which places initial responsibility for investigating and resolving complaints with the chief of police. The police investigations and resolutions of complaints are monitored by an independent civilian agency that has its own powers of investigation and the ability, when it is in the public interest, to refer cases to independent civilian boards of inquiry for adjudication.

This new bill makes a number of changes, all of which, I believe, will improve upon the existing act. I am pleased to advise the House most of these changes were developed by the present public complaints commissioner, Mr. Sidney Linden, QC, as a result of his experience during the three-year pilot phase and in consultation with community groups, the police association and representatives of the senior management of the police force.

I know the proposed revisions represent a fair compromise and pay full respect to the views of the participants. The principal changes reflected in the bill are fully summarized in the explanatory notes to the bill, and I will therefore not take the time of the House to review them at this point.

I look forward to early consideration of this legislation by all members of the Legislature.

RED MEAT INDUSTRY

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable members know, the red meat industry is a cornerstone of Ontario's agricultural economy. The difficulties those in this business have encountered over the last number of years and the challenges and opportunities they face are also well known.

Earlier this year I announced my ministry's comprehensive, forward-looking plan to help secure the industry's future. As part of this, I appointed two commissions. These were to examine all aspects of the current marketing systems for beef and sheep in this province. Having done so, they were to bring forward plans for the future.

I am pleased to report that both commissions have fulfilled their mandates with dedication and thoroughness. I have with me today, and will table later before this House, two reports -- the report of the Sheep Marketing Agency Commission and the report of the Beef Marketing Agency Commission. Both are extremely detailed and thorough and are the result of considerable consultation with producers. The beef commission conducted 22 public meetings across the province and the sheep commission 13. Hundreds of written and oral submissions were presented to both. Out of this has come a wide-ranging series of recommendations.

2:40 p.m.

I am making copies of the commissions' reports available to members as well as releasing them to the media, the Ontario Cattlemen's Association and the Ontario Sheep Association. In addition, the recommendations of both commissions will be published in the next issue of my ministry's publication OMAF News, which goes to all farmers in the province.

A good deal of thought and hard work went into these two reports, and at this time I should like to commend the members of the beef and sheep commissions. These individuals are well known to members.

The Beef Marketing Agency Commission was chaired by Mr. Henry Davis, vice-chairman of the Ontario Farm Products Appeal Tribunal. Its members were Mr. Murray Gaunt, a former Liberal member of this House and a TV commentator with a diverse agricultural background, and Mr. Ralph Barrie, a beef farmer and former president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

The Sheep Marketing Agency Commission comprised chairman Jack James, a sheep producer and breeder and former president of the Ontario Sheep Association. Its members were Mr. Walter Renwick, a sheep producer and vice-chairman of the Canadian Sheep Council, and Mr. Garth Noecker, a sheep producer and chairman of the marketing committee of the Ontario Sheep Association.

These six individuals have performed a valuable service for their respective industries, and a number of them are in the Speaker's gallery today along with, in a few instances, their spouses. On behalf of the members of the House and the two industries, I want to thank them here today for their work.

In releasing these reports, I am asking the Ontario Cattlemen's Association and the Ontario Sheep Association to be responsible for the consultative process with Ontario producers. These two organizations represent those producers most affected by the commissions' proposals. In giving this mandate to the OCA and the OSA, I am conscious of the need to ensure that all beef cattle producers and all sheep producers clearly understand the commissions' proposals before any decisions are taken.

As the members know, I took action on establishing a financial protection program for the beef industry a little more than two years ago. I did so because of the urgency of the situation then and in the absence of what I believed was a consensus among producers on the issue. The matter before us today, though, will establish the course of the red meat industry for years to come. It is my belief that government should not dictate that future.

I wish to assure all producers and the members of this House that no action will be taken without an expression of opinion, in the form of a vote of producers, on the matters raised in these reports.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB SECURITY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. He was here. Has he disappeared again, or can someone assist me?

Mr. Bradley: He is polling.

Mr. Peterson: He is polling. Has he disappeared for a long period of time? Can you assist me in this matter? Can I stand here and wait for him?

Mr. Bradley: Phil, is he back there?

Mr. Peterson: Will the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) take the question for him?

Mr. Nixon: The member for Brantford is co-chairman.

Mr. Bradley: The member for Brantford could take the question.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, has he been summoned? Can anyone assist me in that regard?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you can proceed with another question to another minister.

Mr. Bradley: Here he is. The member has smoked him out.

Mr. Peterson: I cannot tell. There is a mystery there about who is going to come out.

Mr. Nixon: The Treasurer should get all the help he can.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, please.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Treasurer with respect to the economic statement of the federal Minister of Finance of last week. In that statement we heard a great deal of talk about the new federal-provincial cooperation that was supposed to set the new agenda and the new tone in this country.

The Treasurer will be aware that Mr. Wilson had an econometric model of the number of jobs lost in the country -- at least he revealed that after his statement -- but he then failed to share that information with the people of this country. How many jobs is that statement going to cost Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, quite clearly, taken in total, that statement will create hundreds of thousands of jobs in Ontario.

Mr. Peterson: It is obvious the Treasurer has tied his little wagon to that statement. Is he telling me that he does not agree with Michael McCracken of Informetrica, who has forecast nationally a loss of at least 40,000 to 50,000 jobs as a direct result of that statement? That would translate into between 14,000 and 20,000 jobs that are going to be lost directly in Ontario. Who is speaking up for Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I guess the people speaking for Ontario are the people who stood in this House last May and said we would have 4.7 per cent growth, which actually produced 5.2 per cent growth, while other people across the floor, led by the Leader of the Opposition, predicted there was no way we would have 4.7 per cent growth.

I guess the people speaking for Ontario are the people who are somewhat responsible for the fact that of the 32,000 jobs created in Canada last month, 29,000 of those jobs were created here in Ontario.

Finally, I think the people speaking for Ontario are the people who endorse policies at the national level when indeed sometimes they hurt a bit. But after 16 years or so of an administration that the Leader of the Opposition himself heartily endorsed and campaigned for, those people who stand on this side of the House say: "Those policies are long overdue. Those policies will create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the long term and are policies that, in the words of the federal Minister of Finance, will return the future to the people of Canada." That is whom we support.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer must know that taking more than $4 billion directly out of the Ontario economy in expenditure and hundreds of millions more in taxes is not good for jobs, for growth or for the economy of this province.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Can the Treasurer tell us why his ministry has not prepared any figures on the impact on this province? Why has he pulled his punches now, when at any other time he has always been prepared to come forward, give the figures and give the information? Why is he hiding the information now? Why is he pulling his punches just at a time when this province and the workers of this province need defending?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, let me be quite clear about it. What the workers of this province need is not the kind of policies the leader of the third party advocates, which in essence say that government capital projects and government spending is the way to create jobs and to rebuild our economy in the longer term.

What the workers of this province need is politicians like my Premier and this party, who will have the courage to stand up and say: "Yes, the increase in the price of oil will hurt Ontario in the short term. It will not be helpful." Equally, it will take some degree of political courage on this side of the House to stand up and say: "In the best interests of Canada, in the best interests of rebuilding this economy, we must have the courage not to stand up here and take simplistic, narrow positions but to stand up for the better good of everyone in Canada."

Simply, this side of the House reflects the difference between narrow, government-based, short-term decisions and broad, strategic, private-sector-based, courageous, long-term administration. We support that over here.

Mr. Peterson: Is the Treasurer saying that his Premier and his own predecessor, now the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller), attacked the budget of then Prime Minister Joe Clark and his then Minister of Finance, John Crosbie, on his 18-cent increase in energy prices? Is he saying that when they were putting that different position from the one they are putting now, they were being simplistic and narrow politicians?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There are very great differences between the oil price increases at an earlier time and oil price increases today. Let us look at them.

Mr. Reed: Explain it to us.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am going to explain it to my friend. He should listen carefully; it will help him a bit.

First, this is part of a move to market price in the energy industry. Quite simply, that will mean that as the price for oil moderates up, logically the price of --

Mr. Foulds: Moderates up?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Unlike that party's standing in the polls, it will moderate up.

Mr. Foulds: How about convoluting around this, Larry?

Mr. McClellan: Moderate off, Larry.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: While the price of oil moderates up when there is a return to the market, equally that means --

Mr. Ruston: Your gas tax is going to moderate up a little too.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I heard there were 400 people against my friend at the nomination meeting in his riding. He should be careful.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am prepared to wait, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Surely those of us who are elected here to represent the rights of others must respect the rights of others in this chamber.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Imagine what their caucus must be like.

Equally, at the same time, the natural gas price, like that party's standing in the polls, moderates downwards. That makes this oil price increase significantly different from previous ones.

Second, in 1973, an increase of $1 per barrel in the price of oil represented a 24 per cent increase. Today, because of the variety of changes in the economy since 1973, an increase of $1 per barrel in the price of oil implies an increase of 2.8 per cent, not 24 per cent as was the case when these oil price increases were originally opposed.

Those are examples of two of the dramatically changed circumstances. A third dramatically changed circumstance is that this oil price change is part of a comprehensive series of steps taken by the federal government --

Mr. Bradley: The Treasurer is being flat-lined.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: My friend should talk about being flat-lined. If I were in his party, I would settle for being flat-lined. I would settle for flat-lining at 23 per cent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr. Peterson: Give him a chance, Mr. Speaker. Let the man speak. He is moderating down all the time. Let him finish his answer.

Mr. Speaker: New question, please.

FEDERAL TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, let me continue to discuss this question of the new federal initiatives.

The Treasurer has invented some new words and some new concepts today, but I suspect they will not get him out of the trouble he is in. As I understand it, he has completely crawled into bed with Michael Wilson and the federal Tories, and he is here supporting whatever they do.

My question to the Treasurer is very serious. He is aware that Mr. Wilson said, about transfer payments, "The growth of these payments has been steady and rapid," and that he is now talking about cutting those transfer payments to the provinces. Is the Treasurer going to support the cuts he will make in transfer payments for health, education and social services in this province or is he going to stand up and speak for Ontario? Which position is he going to take?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, last Friday night the --

Mr. Sargent: Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Last Friday night the federal Minister of Finance invited the provincial ministers of finance and their deputies to join him in Ottawa for a four- or five-hour meeting.

Mr. Peterson: Was it a nice dinner?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will tell the Leader of the Opposition why it was a nice dinner. In the time I have been serving in cabinet, it was unheard of for federal Ministers of Finance to call us together for a constructive consultation.

Mr. Peterson: Does nobody else invite the Treasurer out for dinner? Is that his problem?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will tell them what the history has been.

Mr. Peterson: He takes the Treasurer out to dinner and then to the cleaners.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Where was the Leader of the Opposition when Allan MacEachen cut the transfer payments?

Mr. Speaker: Order; supplementary question. We are spending far too much time.

Mr. Peterson: When the six and five program came in, the Treasurer squawked that he was losing $41.7 million last year. The government squawked it was losing $95.6 million this year that should have been coming to Ontario. It squawked then; why is it not squawking now?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the honourable member reads the statement carefully, he will see the transfer payments to Ontario have not been cut. Unlike the era of Monique Begin, Allan MacEachen, Marc Lalonde and Pierre Trudeau, which the member supported on the hustings, in this House and in the media, Michael Wilson has undertaken a dialogue with his provincial colleagues and is discussing things with us.

He has not cut those payments implicitly or explicitly, by threats, by fiat or by order. All those things were the hallmarks of the people the member himself referred to as his millstones. He campaigned up and down the country for those people who unilaterally cut the transfer payments to this province without consultation, driving up tax rates and deficits in this province and, incredibly, not even reducing their own deficits. Those are the people the member clearly endorsed.

This administration in Ottawa invited us there to talk about the future and to discuss transfer payments. Every finance minister from the 10 provinces told the federal government that cuts in transfer payments were unacceptable, that this had already been done by the previous administration, that it was untimely and could not be taken on by the provinces; that we had done our share and that transfer payment cuts, simply put, would be fought well, carefully and at every turn by every province.

This government is speaking for the people of this province, regardless of party affiliation. The members opposite are the people who campaigned proudly for their millstones -- to use the member's word -- who got the pattern of transfer payment cuts with no consultation, punishing the province for their own sins. The member should be the last to rise in his place and speak on that issue.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, what the minister is giving us today is nothing more or less than ideological claptrap. He is asking us to believe --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We listened to three days of ideological claptrap.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: Moderate off.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You moderate down.

Mr. Speaker: I presume the honourable member has a question.

Mr. Rae: I do, Mr. Speaker.

The Treasurer talks about fighting the cutbacks in transfer payments to Ontario. Why would he expect Ottawa to listen to him when his government is engaged in precisely the same kind of mean-spirited, Dickensian, reactionary policies with respect to transfer payments to its own municipalities, hospitals and schools in Ontario?

Does he not realize that he is now caught up in the whirlwind of this Reaganite counterrevolution that nobody endorsed and that the government itself is now reaping the whirlwind it began to sow?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, did the honourable member use the words "ideological claptrap"? If I can borrow that phrase for a moment, let me say quite clearly to him that all the rhetoric and invective that the member's caucus office wrote for him to use in that outburst are totally wrong. There is nothing of substance to back up those epithets.

Let me be clear. Some time next year he can take -- to borrow the member's words -- his ideological claptrap to the public, and this government, under whoever succeeds in January, will take its version of belief in free enterprise and the private market out there to the public. I am willing to bet the member that there will be Tories sitting over on the opposite side of this House, all right, but they will be the overflow from this side of the House. Let us test the public on ideological claptrap.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to know about this dinner discussion on Friday night.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: I would like to read to the Treasurer what Mr. Wilson stated in his document on Thursday night. Referring to transfer payments, he said: "The growth of these payments has been steady and rapid. If the federal government is to contain its expenditures in general, it is appropriate to ask whether transfers to the provinces should be insulated from policies of restraint. The answer is not simply to top up federal or provincial funding for health and post-secondary education. The answer is not simply more money.

From his discussions over dinner, would the Treasurer be good enough to tell me what that means?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It means Mr. Wilson put out that policy paper and invited us to Ottawa to receive the documents and to have some preliminary discussion about them. There is nothing in there that says they have decided to cut transfer payments. In fact, my colleagues the Premier and the Minister of Industry and Trade and I sat at many first ministers' conferences in Ottawa after transfer payments had been cut without the slightest suggestion of consultation or dialogue.

There is no question that those words were in there and there is no question that this was discussed at the meeting Friday night. Let us be clear about it. If the member wants to try to criticize this government for not fighting those words, he cannot, because I told the federal Minister of Finance -- and I have nine other provincial finance ministers joining me in this -- that further transfer payment cuts hard on the heels of the unilateral ones that the friends of the member opposite put in three years ago were unacceptable and would be fought at every turn by this province.

So let me be clear before the member goes out somewhere else and suggests that we are not fighting transfer payment cuts. The federal minister raised those items in that discussion paper. Ten provinces said we were prepared to fight hard on every count if there was any suggestion that transfer payments would be cut.

If the member wants to criticize the federal government for even discussing it, he should feel free; I have criticized them for it. But he should not go out and suggest that we are not fighting transfer payment cuts. Indeed, he should not suggest that transfer payment cuts have been made, either. Both of those statements would be inaccurate, and I know the member would not want to be, once again, inaccurate.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning the outrageous decision by Black and Decker to close its plant in Barrie. Six hundred jobs are being lost.

If an individual, with or without a union contract, is fired and if that individual sues for unjust dismissal, the company has to produce before a court documents giving reasons and explanations and has to give a cause for dismissal before a court. Can the minister then tell us why it is that when a company decides not to fire one person but to close down an entire plant, in this case affecting 600 jobs, it does not have to give any explanations, does not have to produce any justification and does not have to go before a tribunal to justify that kind of unwarranted decision? Why the double standard in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, Ontario is not unique; in fact, there is not a jurisdiction in North America that has legislation in place that would cause a company to go before a tribunal upon closure, to open its books or to justify its reasons for closing up shop. Ontario is not unique in that respect.

Mr. Rae: I always thought Ontario was the best in the world. We hear from every other minister that this is the best place going, that we have things going here that nobody else has. Why can the minister not match that in terms of deeds?

Is the minister aware that on the 8K form for 1983 that General Electric filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, because they do have some requirements in terms of information down there, the Canadian housewares division was reported as having pretax profit of $6.6 million? That was in 1983 when that company was Canadian General Electric.

Now that its housewares division has become Black and Decker, company officials of Black and Decker have told the Globe and Mail, told me and, I am sure, told the minister, that the plant has been losing money for several years. Does the minister not think it would be wise, and fair to the employees concerned, that there be some tribunal established that requires the company to come forward and reveal its financial information and the kind of information that is going to result in the hardship for Barrie that is being produced by this decision?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I share the concern of the leader of the third party in respect of the conflicting stories. The union officials have referred to some documents from the United States. Meanwhile, a number of weeks ago and since then, the senior officials of the Canadian company have provided me with completely opposite information. I do not believe this is the place and time to debate who is right and who is wrong because I am sure there is a measure of justification in both positions.

What I am setting up at the present time is a meeting with the senior American officials of this company. We would meet them here in Toronto and I would like to invite representatives from the union and from the municipal government in Barrie who are anxious to meet with the US officials. We could also have two representatives from each of the parties opposite; we would be happy to have them. We could sit down and decide who is right and who is wrong as to the financial circumstances of this company. We are in the process of setting that up right now.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, there are some policy aspects as well, both federal and provincial, that the minister must be involved in. My understanding of this case is that it was approved by the Foreign Investment Review Agency but a number of the jobs were exported to Brockville and a number of jobs from Brockville were exported back to one of the US plants.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Would the minister not agree that this is not a time to hold open season on any Canadian company that may lose jobs to the US, but that this is a time to make strong representations, both federally and provincially, and that he is the minister responsible for keeping those jobs here in Canada?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the member is correct when he states these jobs are going back to the US. I understand 100 to 200 of the present employees at Barrie will be provided with employment opportunities at Brockville.

It may be of no solace to anyone and I do not say it for that reason, but simultaneous to the closing down of the plant in Barrie there was a closure involving 800 workers in Allentown, Pennsylvania. The company is rationalizing its operations both in Canada and the US; it is not rationalizing in Canada so as to be able to hire additional people or do additional production in the US. That is not the case at all.

Mr. Rae: The minister has been through this routine before. He has sat down with company officials and sometimes they even refuse to comment or give him the information he needs. Does he not feel, as Minister of Labour, that he needs a stronger body of law, so as not to go on his knees and talk to company officials but to require them to come forward and produce some basic information to protect the jobs and interests of Canadian workers?

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Lyons, who moved on to Black and Decker, talked in an annual report in October 1983 about the success story when he was with General Electric. He talked about the fact that production on the skillet line had gone up 700 per cent in two years. He congratulated the workers on how well they had done. A few months later, he announced that the whole operation was shutting down.

Does the minister not think we need some laws and not simply requests and cap-in-hand sessions with company officials in order to protect the jobs of workers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I will repeat what I indicated earlier. I am not comfortable with the information that is coming forward and I want to get more clarification of it. I want to get clarification of it in company with the other interested parties. I do not just want to have a closed-door meeting between myself and my officials and officials from the company; I say again, I extend an invitation to the opposition parties to get involved.

The leader of the third party talked about going cap in hand and being refused. I am very distressed to say we deal with these matters all too frequently. Sometimes there are periods when we are doing it on a daily basis, but the figures are improving. Again, that will not be solace to anybody, but the figures on closures for the first eight months of this year are down something like 33 per cent over last year. Last year as a whole was down something like 66 per cent over the prior year, both in the number of closures and the number of people affected.

I do not say that in a defensive way, nor is that intended to be any sort of solace to anyone, because it is not. We still have too many of them and we are still wrestling with each and every one as they come about.

I apologize for going around the corner on this.

The point I started out to make is that, with one or two exceptions, I have had nothing but excellent co-operation from companies, unions, civic officials and everybody involved. There have been free and open discussions. I have not had to go cap in hand and except on one or two occasions, I have not had to use a heavy hand. We have been able to get the necessary information we required in each and every case.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. It follows from the information I discussed with the minister last week about comparing the number of accidental deaths in nursing homes with the number of accidental deaths occurring in homes for the aged.

We have now followed up with the coroner's office and we understand that falls are the most frequent initiating cause of the death of residents. In nursing homes, there were 113 deaths initiated by falls in 1982. In homes for the aged, the number was 38. In 1983, the figure for nursing homes was 150, and 41 for homes for the aged.

Is the minister aware that in 25 per cent of nursing homes, inspectors found that residents were not being given nursing care in accordance with their needs? In 107 homes where violations of the Nursing Homes Act were found, inspection reports show unacceptable floor conditions, loose tiles and worn carpets. Is the minister aware of that? Is he prepared to do what is necessary to reduce the number of accidental deaths in nursing homes?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the question the leader of the third party asks is one to which he already knows the answer to a large extent, particularly the latter part.

When it comes to any infractions of the regulations under the nursing home legislation in this province, of course we take action. We have taken major steps within the last year alone to further increase our capacity to respond decisively and quickly in dealing with any situation where there is any deficiency.

I think the honourable member is treading on rather questionable ground if he is leading up to the kind of suggestion he engaged in last week, where he draws some parallel between incidents in homes of a particular type and the way in which they may be operated or managed. I think it is important he also bear in mind -- and I have some staff in my own ministry checking into this at the moment -- that there may be a number of other factors involved, such as the level of care required by certain residents and the types of problems some residents perhaps have in greater concentrations in certain kinds of accommodation.

Mr. Rae: We are talking about accidents, about unnatural causes of death. Is the minister aware of the tremendous discrepancy? Frankly, I do not think it can be explained in terms of the degree of care required. I do not think that totally explains the discrepancy.

For example, is the minister aware that last year ministry inspectors found 222 homes where there took place at least one violation of regulation 5(2), which requires nursing homes to be free of "anything that could pose a hazard to a resident's health"? Practically two thirds of the private profit nursing homes in this province have at least one infraction of that regulation.

Is the minister aware of that? Will he, at the very least, as of today declare a moratorium on new beds allocated to private profit homes and restrict the allocation of new beds to charitable and nonprofit institutions, which is what the Canadian Medical Association and Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities have been calling for, and which I think is fully justified by the information found in the coroner s report?

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is very easy to take statistical data and use them to one's own purposes, as the member is attempting to do at the moment.

He knows that the regulations under which nursing homes operate in this province are strict and that the kind of infraction he cites is one that would have to be recorded even if, for example, it were finding so much as a single insect in an area where food happened to be stored, because that could constitute a threat to someone's health. That is the kind of situation one may very well find frequently in one's own home.

It is not necessarily a matter of a major infraction. Rather than having his researchers simply tally up the number of infractions on a point-score system of some sort, if he would look seriously at the kind of infractions he is describing, he would understand that his description distorts the facts.

The short answer to the member's question about whether I am prepared to call a moratorium on allocation of nursing home beds, other than to a particular prescribed group, is clearly no.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicates to us his sensitivity about drawing parallels between accidental deaths and the kinds of homes. That is understandable.

However, will the minister also agree that, with the waiting time to gain a nursing home bed in just about every part of this province, he really does not have an alternative for those people when he finds a situation or a series of infractions so bad that changes need to be made?

The minister is almost powerless to close down a home or facility when things are so bad that he feels they should be closed down, because there is no place else to put those people. If the minister does not provide additional beds in every community in this province, that problem is going to continue. Will the minister not agree that is a problem, and that he has to do something about it and do it fast?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there are requests for nursing home beds in most parts of the province, supported by the opinion and advice of the district health councils, that cannot be met in a short period of time because of a number of factors, not the least of which is the lead time required to engage in the necessary construction.

However, I caution the honourable member in his description of our inability to act in cases where it would appear that residents' health or safety may be at risk. There is an example in an old wing of a nursing home in Metropolitan Toronto at the moment, where we have forced the operator to undertake steps immediately to replace it. I believe, if I am not mistaken, the figure was something in the order of 75 residents who, with the assistance of the staff of the Ministry of Health, were relocated in other nursing homes and related facilities within the general area. So we do, when necessary, have the capacity to act in spite of the fact that there is pressure on the system.

ACCESS TO MEDICAL TREATMENT

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health.

On October 4 at about midnight, Allan Richard Hodgins suffered a brain haemorrhage at his residence at St. Vincent Street in Barrie. He was admitted to the Barrie hospital at 1 a.m. on October 5. The Barrie hospital does not have the equipment to conduct brain scans.

The doctor tried to have Mr. Hodgins admitted to the trauma unit at Sunnybrook Medical Centre. He was informed there was no one at the Sunnybrook hospital with authority to admit the patient and there were no beds available for Mr. Hodgins. The same doctor made calls to Toronto General Hospital and was informed there were no beds at that hospital.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Mancini: On October 6, Mr. Hodgins was admitted to Wellesley Hospital. At 4:30 a.m. on October 6, Mr. Hodgins died.

Will the minister conduct a thorough and complete investigation into this very unfortunate matter and inform the House why the medical facilities of this province were not made available in this case?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes, I would be glad to look into the matter for the honourable member if he would give me whatever information he has that would help in identifying the case.

I would point out that one of the things that comes to mind immediately is, if this was an emergency and identified as such by the physician, under the law of this province the hospital cannot legally refuse to admit the patient. If there was a refusal on the part of a hospital to accept an emergency patient when it was the only facility that could care for the patient, then there may well have been an infraction of the law.

Mr. Mancini: Shortly after Mr. Hodgins was admitted to Wellesley Hospital, the staff there immediately wanted to take him off the life-support equipment and remove his organs, which was very distressing to the family. I would also like the minister to investigate that point. Also, I would like the minister to obtain the autopsy report, as the family has not yet received one and has been asking for one.

Hon. Mr. Norton: As I follow up on this for the member, I will look into that as well. It is my understanding that the family ought to be entitled to a copy of the autopsy report and I will try to ensure that they get it.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Canadian Porcelain, a Hamilton plant which produces large industrial porcelain insulators, is in grave financial difficulty. It employs 72 workers in the bargaining unit and has 20 nonunion staff. It is up for sale, there are no buyers and the deadline for closure is January 18. The minister may know the workers have been trying to learn the status of their pension plans and the financial capacity of the company to meet severance pay requirements, etc., and there are very grave doubts about the capacity thereof.

Will the minister tell us what he is doing to protect the workers in that plant, and whether he has been able to find out anything with particular regard to their special concerns?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, we are doing exactly the same with that plant as we do with every other plant in a similar circumstance. Our people have been involved. I cannot give the honourable member an exact up-to-date report at the moment, but I believe everything to be in order. I will be happy to provide him with a complete report within the next day at the most.

Mr. Allen: Could I impress upon the minister that this is not just a plant closing? This plant is the only one in Canada that produces insulators that are used by some of the major utilities in this country. Therefore, when it goes, there goes the industry in Canada. The minister may be aware that it is facing a deluge of cheap imports. He may also be aware that when this plant closes, if it does, the prices of those imports will rise to meet the original Canadian price; they will not stay at those low levels.

Is the minister consulting with the Minister of Industry and Trade? Is he consulting with officials in Ottawa with respect to the import situation? What is he doing to protect the industry itself as distinct from the workers in particular, and how is he going to keep that plant open?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The answer to all of those questions, such as consulting with the Minister of Industry and Trade and so on, is yes.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, in response to the first question, the minister stated he is doing what he usually does in these cases of plant closures; he is obtaining information. We would really like to know what the minister is doing.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Mancini: Is he trying to find jobs for the most senior workers, who are going to have a terrible time right now trying to find new work? Is he going to ensure that the equipment at the porcelain plant stays in Canada? Is he going to follow up the case of each particular worker to see exactly what happens to these people? Or is he just going to say, "We are doing what we usually do," which is absolutely nothing?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am just not going to say anything. I really have a great deal of respect and affection for the honourable member, but that question is really -- well, never mind.

Let me go back a bit. Whenever there is any hint whatsoever of a closure, of a plant that is in difficulty or whatever the case may be, the very first thing that happens -- the honourable member says nothing happens -- is that officials of the employment standards branch get involved to make sure the rights of the workers are protected in every possible way.

Then we have a very capable plant closure review and employment adjustment group, headed by Bob Joyce, who is respected by labour and management alike. His people, who are extremely qualified, go in to see exactly what can be done. They get the other ministries involved, such as the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

The member talked about counselling. There is a manpower counselling committee set up for each and every one of these cases. However, in this case we have not set it up yet because there are a lot of things we want to do first to keep the place open. We have not accepted the situation as a fait accompli, as the honourable member apparently has.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Now that the minister has refused to allow a debate on his policies recommended to cabinet on the Niagara Escarpment plan, can he tell us whether he plans to reinstate the 20,000-ton limit for wayside pits in the escarpment protection area, in view of the comments of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, which has written to the minister, stating: "The commission's experience with wayside pits over the last five to six years strengthens the conviction to maintain the 20,000-ton limit. For example, wayside pits proposed in Halton and Peel regions have an average size of 250,000 tons, and applications have been made for up to one million tons. The effect would be to encourage pits and quarries under the wayside process to locate in the escarpment protection area, contrary to the goal of that designation."

Does the minister plan to reinstate the 20,000-ton limit?

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, first, I should make it clear that when the honourable member brought forward an emergency resolution relating to the Niagara Escarpment, I did not refuse to discuss or debate the plan or any aspects of the whole process. I indicated to this House, and I think the House found, that there was no emergency associated with the member's resolution at that time.

Second, in terms of the 20,000-ton limit on wayside pits, I think it should be noted that the 20,000-ton limit was put in the last and final report of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. It was never the subject of the hearing officers' deliberations because it was not contained in their original plan back in 1979.

The inclusion of the 20,000-ton limit, or any alterations to policy in relation to wayside pits, will be a matter for the cabinet to decide as a whole, not myself. It is under active consideration by the cabinet now. I cannot predict or indicate what the final resolution of the matter will be until those deliberations come to a close.

Mr. Reed: In regard to what the minister has said, I would ask him what emergency there was in 1983 when we debated the Niagara Escarpment, when no policy was tabled. There was nothing brought forward, and yet the minister agreed to a debate at that time. What was it about that period in 1983 which was an emergency, but is not at this time when the material is in and is before cabinet for a decision?

I would also ask the minister whether he is going to recommend the 20,000-ton limit?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: There is no difference between 1983 and 1984. I think I indicated both times I was quite willing to discuss or debate the issue. When the motion was brought forward this year, I think I mentioned I would be most willing to debate the issue if it was a decision of the House leaders to have such a motion brought forward.

I indicated in 1983 I did not think it was an emergency, but I was quite willing to debate it under an emergency debate at that time, because the House leader said we had an opportunity to do it that afternoon when that emergency motion was brought forward. So the House went ahead.

With regard to what I am recommending or the position I am taking within the walls of the cabinet, I think the member well understands I cannot divulge my position. I will have to decide to stay with what the cabinet finally decides in the matter. I will be taking my position with regard to this particular debate as I do with any other debate.

I do not know all the proposals that will be brought forward about a 20,000-ton limit or some other kind of restriction associated with wayside pits. They may be involved in a larger policy decision than just dealing with whether it will be 20,000 tons or not.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, will the minister not recognize that the interpretation of wayside pits has changed dramatically in recent years, primarily because of the Pits and Quarries Control Act and the procedures that the aggregate producers have to go through to get a new pit or quarry under the act?

Recognizing that wayside pits can now perhaps provide for the extraction of one million tons, does the minister not realize that these kinds of pit will pock the escarpment and destroy its preservation? Because of this change, will he not still recommend to the cabinet that there be a limit put on wayside pits, preferably the 20,000-ton limit, which are inside the escarpment plan?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I think I recognize, as does any other member in this Legislature who has a riding where licensed or wayside pits are located, the scar they leave on the landscape, whether it be in the escarpment area or outside the escarpment area. I know I have the same kind of issue in my riding in eastern Ontario.

Whether we deal with a special policy for wayside pits within or outside the escarpment plan, as I indicated to the other honourable member, it will have to be a matter for discussion within cabinet. Of course, I will be participating in the discussion on wayside pits, as will every other member of cabinet.

I have published my recommendations; they have been public as of July 31. I have put my position on the table at this time. As I indicated to the member, it will be a matter of discussion, because there have been some appeals to cabinet on this issue, and I will be very much involved in the debate.

ASSISTIVE DEVICES PROGRAM

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health regarding the assistive devices program. I would like to outline two cases very briefly.

Mr. Al Pizzacalla of Thorold, aged 35, had a swimming accident in 1966. He is on a disability pension from this province of less than $400 per month. For the past 17 years he has had to be responsible for all the assistive devices he requires because of the accident.

Mrs. Dorothy Misener of Hamilton is also on a disability pension of less than $400 a month. Her most recent acquisition was a walker at a cost of $269 over the year.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Cooke: The minister has been promising for quite some time now that the assistive devices program was going to be extended to cover individuals over the age of 18. When is he going to implement the next stage, which was recommended to him by his advisory committee when it evaluated the ADP? When are these people going to have to stop going to charitable groups that are short of money? When are they going to get assistance through the Ontario health insurance plan or through the government, as they should be entitled to?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the honourable member my commitment stands. Although I am not yet in a position to announce details, I can give the member for Windsor-Riverside the firm commitment that the next phase of implementation will be under way before next summer.

Mr. Cooke: The last time the minister said the program was going to be extended, he said it was going to be in this fiscal year; now we are past this fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Cooke: Why can the minister not extend this program immediately, especially in view of the fact that he did not even spend the budget allocated, according to the estimates, in 1983-84?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Surely if the honourable member had looked seriously or carefully at the implications of the extension of the program, he would realize the underspending to which he refers is a mere drop in the bucket by comparison with what the expansion of the program might well cost. We are looking at a difference in magnitude of something between the present level of expenditure, which I think is in the neighbourhood of $7 million to $8 million, and perhaps upwards of $60 million for full implementation.

That is not to suggest we are not going to proceed. Although the member's solution is simplistically appealing, it is not practical. Even if everything was approved and ready to go tomorrow, the implementation of the program would require several months; so next June or July is not an unreasonable time for implementation.

3:40 p.m.

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, did the Minister of Revenue receive a report from his staff about an allegation made in a recent Canadian Broadcasting Corp. program, the Fifth Estate, concerning two companies that are active in the small business development corporations program he administers? The companies are XTC Electronics Ltd. and XTC Electronics Inc. which, although they are supposedly inactive, received $1.3 million from investors, accompanied by a $460,000 tax rebate from the government of Ontario under the program that the minister administers, even though several of the principals knew nothing about the SBDC involvement.

Is the minister aware that this did not come to light because of any auditor's activities but because the minister sent out a photographer to take a picture of the company principals and, when the photographer got there, they did not know anything about the program, in spite of the fact that the ministry had approved this tax rebate?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is quite right in suggesting this was discovered by a photographer, and I thank heaven it was. But it was discovered, and up to the point where some suspicions were raised, it was a legitimate SBDC. There was no reason to doubt it until personal contact was made, and then subsequent suspicions were raised.

The matter is currently being investigated, and I will be able to report back at that time. I cannot report much more than that at the moment.

Mr. Nixon: We have been keeping a list of these matters that have gone public, such as the case of a Toronto mining promoter, Ralph Lampe, who was convicted of defrauding the province of $450,000 at about the time the Lake Rousseau Village case became public; that of the Medlon and Arcturus frauds, which are part of the record; and the case of the disappearing funds in the Nelma-Hartshorn example.

Is the minister not concerned? Does he not feel that he should follow the advice put forward by Clarkson Gordon, which did a review of the program, indicating there had to be a substantial improvement in the audit capability of the ministry's section dealing with this program? Can he report that the audit function is being beefed up so the taxpayers are not going to be subject to this sort of maltreatment?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: In answering a question from the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) a couple of weeks ago, I did report that the auditing procedure had been increased under this program.

Concerning the cases the member mentioned of SBDCs that have gone sour, in almost all cases the government funding is recovered. It is not a tax rebate, by the way; it is an outright grant, or let us say it is a very long-term loan because, as the member knows, it is recoverable in the event that the SBDC is deregistered, goes bankrupt or whatever.

Mr. Nixon: What about fraud?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: And in the case of fraud. The fund does remain in a trust account, and it can be withdrawn only on approval by the ministry. This requires an audit or a year-end report to find out whether the SBDC is in proper order.

In almost all cases this government money is recovered. I do not think that under any circumstances, auditor or whatever, we could prevent some fraudulent actions from taking place. But I can assure the member that we are keeping very close watch on this, and as a result of the Clarkson Gordon report, as I reported earlier, we have increased the auditing services.

PETITION

VIOLENCE AND PORNOGRAPHY

Mr. Kells: Mr. Speaker, I have the following petition:

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

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

"We, the members of Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic Women's League and parish, wish to convey our very strong concerns about violence and pornography in movies and videos and offer our complete support for Bill 82, An Act to amend the Theatres Act, and ask for its swift approval by this legislative body."

This petition is signed by more than 330 citizens, most of whom are constituents of mine.

MOTION

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, notwithstanding standing order 65(g) respecting the publication of notice of an application for private legislation, that a private bill respecting the town of Iroquois Falls may be introduced and given first reading; and the bill may be considered by the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments upon the applicant filing proof with the Clerk of the assembly that notices have been published at least three times in the Ontario Gazette and in a newspaper having general circulation in the town of Iroquois Falls.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Norton moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Baetz, first reading of Bill 137, An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

Motion agreed to.

IMMUNIZATION OF SCHOOL PUPILS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Norton moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Baetz, first reading of Bill 138, An Act to amend the Immunization of School Pupils Act.

Motion agreed to.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Norton moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Baetz, first reading of Bill 139, An Act to amend Certain Acts respecting the Health Professions.

Motion agreed to.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 140, An Act to revise the Metropolitan Police Force Complaints Project Act.

Motion agreed to.

LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 143, An Act to amend the Law Society Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this bill will increase the efficiency of the discipline procedure of the Law Society of Upper Canada. It will increase the number of benchers qualified to hear discipline matters by restoring the right to vote to life benchers and by removing the 75-year age limit on voting by former treasurers of the law society. It will also reduce the convocation quorum for discipline matters from 15 to 12 benchers who are entitled to vote in convocation.

3:50 p.m.

POWERS OF ATTORNEY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 144, An Act to amend the Powers of Attorney Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amended legislation is to clarify that where a person in good faith acts on a power of attorney that has been terminated, revoked or has become invalid, and the person has no knowledge of the termination, revocation or invalidity, the person is not liable to the donor of the power of attorney.

Although this type of protection has always been the policy of the Powers of Attorney Act, some doubt has arisen as to the scope of the exact language used. Although we could wait for litigation to settle the point, it is unlikely that most of the relatively modest estates that are often administered by a power of attorney could afford the expense of litigation. Therefore, I am introducing this amendment to clarify the scope of the Powers of Attorney Act and to set the matter beyond doubt. I believe this amendment will be of great assistance to persons relying on powers of attorney.

The amendment is made retroactive because it is a clarification of the law and not a change in the law.

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 145, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, last fall we amended the Provincial Courts Act to designate the family court as the youth court during the first phase of the Young Offenders Act, which applied to 12- to 15-year-olds. That designation expires on April 1, 1985, when the federal act expands its jurisdiction to include 16- and 17-year-olds. Accordingly, the primary purpose of this bill is to meet the requirements of the federal Young Offenders Act for designation of a youth court on April 1, 1985.

On the basis of the eight months' experience we have now had with the Young Offenders Act, we are satisfied that our provincial courts can be adapted to the demands of the Young Offenders Act. Therefore, like most other provinces, we propose to establish the youth court at the provincial court level and to give both the family division and the criminal division of the provincial court, along with the unified family court in Hamilton, the power to exercise youth court jurisdiction. By virtue of their appointments, provincial judges already have authority to preside over either division.

These amendments will enable us to meet the needs of the Young Offenders Act within the existing framework of our judicial system. While it is expected that in practice the age groupings in each division will remain essentially the same as they are now, the amendments do not create rigid boundaries of jurisdiction based on age. We will have all the flexibility necessary to adapt existing resources to specific needs and circumstances. For example, a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old jointly charged can be tried together in the same division. Furthermore, we will have the flexibility to plan for further developments of the youth court system.

Although in several parts of the province we have become accustomed to physical separation of the family division and the criminal division, the trend in our new courthouses, such as at St. Catharines, Peterborough and Barrie, is to accommodate both divisions in the same building. In some judicial districts, as in most other provinces, the same judge presides over both the family division and the criminal division. This will facilitate use of both divisions as the youth court.

I wish to make it clear at this time that whenever the criminal division exercises its jurisdiction as a youth court, the youth court proceedings will be held independently of adult criminal proceedings. My officials are meeting with the chief judges of the two divisions to plan the most effective manner for implementing the necessary changes.

The remainder of the Courts of Justice Amendment Act. 1984, makes a number of technical amendments prior to proclamation of the Courts of Justice Act in the new year.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CREDIT RATING

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before following the orders of the day, I thought I should indicate that it has been agreed we will divide the time among the three parties on the order for today, which is the motion of the member for York South (Mr. Rae). Perhaps the table could take care of that division.

Mr. Foulds moved, on behalf of Mr. Rae, seconded by Mr. McClellan, motion 43 under standing order 63(a):

That the government lacks the confidence of this House because of its hasty, ill-considered and shortsighted reaction to the evaluation of this province's credit rating by Standard and Poor's of New York, in particular:

The decision of the government to place a greater weight on the views and priorities of a New York bond rating agency than on the needs and priorities of this province;

The government's decision to cut back on education, health and social services spending which is critical to the future of our province, rather than to bring the spending and borrowing plans of Ontario Hydro under control;

The confusing explanations given by the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) of Standard and Poor's rating review process, as reflected in the following statements of the Treasurer and Standard and Poor's:

Standard and Poor's:

"The fiscal 1985 budget projects a third year of operating deficits and a budgetary deficit exceeding 12 per cent of revenues. However, stronger than expected economic growth appears likely to result in a lower budget deficit this year, and further improvements in fiscal 1986 are anticipated. Improved budgetary results in fiscal 1985 and 1986 are expected to reduce the debt burden." (Standard and Poor's, International Credit Week, third quarter 1984);

The Treasurer:

"The rating agencies are retrospective. They simply look at what has occurred. They do not look into the future and try to figure out what one is likely to do next year, or get any assurance with regard to what one is likely to do because they do not see that as their job vis-à-vis the province, the people they rate or the people who buy bonds based on that. All they are asked to do by the people who buy bonds is to look at the performance to date and assess that against other performance. Having done that, as I indicated last week the entire discussion is retrospective." (Hansard, Monday, October 29, 1984).

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the leader of the New Democratic Party for giving me the honour to lead off this important debate.

Mr. Elston: Which leader?

Mr. Foulds: Unlike the Liberal Party, we actually have one.

It is a mark of the arrogance of this government even in this transition period that at the moment it has one cabinet minister in the House to listen to a debate on a no-confidence motion.

Let us start with the very simple proposition that the Conservative government of Ontario wears as a badge of honour Ontario's triple-A credit rating. Unfortunately, that badge of honour has become besmirched in the past two or three months and has become an albatross around the neck of this government and the people of this province. It is not merely a Reaganomic badge of honour as the Tories would show us by their behaviour; it has become a Bonzonomic badge. As members will recall, Bonzo is the chimpanzee friend of Ronald Reagan that starred with him in many movies.

The besmirching of the government's reputation over this issue has happened for two major reasons.

First, the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Treasurer, neither of whom is here today, have been less than straightforward or direct with the people of Ontario about the nature and purpose of their flying visit in August, to Standard and Poor's of New York, to save Ontario's triple-A credit rating. They have also been less than direct or straightforward over their own false sense of priorities for Ontario.

4 p.m.

Second, it has become abundantly clear that this government's obsession with the triple-A credit rating is such that the economic, fiscal and social policy of this province for the people of Ontario is not made in this Legislature, in the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, in the cabinet office or even in the corner office of the second floor, the Premier's office. The fiscal, social and economic policies of this government for this province are made on Wall Street.

Mr. Rotenberg: It is just not so.

Mr. Foulds: It need not be so.

Mr. Rotenberg: It is not so. That is right.

Mr. Foulds: The voice of the angel to my left, the member for Armourdale -- pardon me, Wilson Heights; I always get you twins mixed up. The member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) will have the opportunity to speak in his dulcet tones at some later point in this debate.

It is time this government had the guts and the courage to say, "We will make the economic, social and fiscal policies of this province in this province." This government has not had the courage to do that since it began to wear as a badge of honour its blind obsession with the triple-A credit rating from Standard and Poor's and from Moody's in New York.

Members will recall the Premier has not denied that he issued a directive to his cabinet that slashes any increases in spending on health, education and community and social services. Because the Speaker is an astute follower of events in this province, he will recall that the Toronto Star carried a story on October 25 which said that the Premier had issued a directive to the province, a copy of which it had obtained, and that sources in the government had indicated that for next year the increases in transfers and public sector wages would range from three to 4.4 per cent. The Premier has not denied that.

Second, that article quoted from the remarks of the Premier to a cabinet meeting, or from a memo -- it is not quite clear which -- and I quote:

"The allocations which I will bring to you will not, unfortunately, be generous. To give the greatest possible flexibility and to avoid having my successor face an early loss of our triple-A rating, it will be necessary to bring in minimal allocations for your approval. Therefore, funding for new initiatives will not generally be possible."

I want to repeat that, because the words quoted directly from the memorandum link the importance of maintaining the triple-A credit rating with bringing in minimal allocations and state boldly that funding for new initiatives will not generally be possible. If that does not mean the economic, fiscal and social policies of this province are made in New York, I do not know what does. I want to point out that the Premier at no time has denied or recanted that statement.

Finally, this statement appeared in the article and has never been denied by this government, "As part of the understanding to Standard and Poor's, the Premier gave assurances that the province will reduce its yearly deficit sharply." It goes on, "Grossman is aiming at reducing the $2.03-billion deficit in his 1984 budget to $1.2 billion next year." Not only was that not denied, but that $1.2-billion figure was confirmed by the Treasurer in this House under questioning by the member for York South (Mr. Rae).

I want to recite two quotations from a further article on October 27 in the Toronto Star, which said: "In New York, Davis gave assurances that his government intended to get the deficit down sharply next year. When he addressed cabinet, Davis made a direct link between the minimal increases to hospitals, schools and municipalities, and keeping the credit rating."

At no time in that memo or those statements did the Treasurer or the Premier talk about their so-called long-held determination to keep the deficit down. There was a direct link. I submit those statements have never been denied.

Members know just how quickly this government reacts and just how sensitive it is, as are any of its cabinet ministers, when it has been reported incorrectly or falsely in the press. When that happens, there are major letters to the editor coined by the public relations department of the ministers involved on behalf of the cabinet ministers. They are sent directly to the papers to clarify the situation. No such action has occurred in this case. In fact, all we have managed to get is continued murkiness both on the part of the Premier and the Treasurer.

What does the obsession with a triple-A credit rating mean to the people of this province? For the average working man and woman, the average person of this province, it will mean no new initiatives in every major field of activity.

For example, in housing construction, we know the vacancy rate in apartments across this province is ridiculously low. In most of the major cities in this province it is less than two per cent. In some of the cities, such as my own, it is less than one per cent.

In a city such as my own, Thunder Bay, we have instances of people moving into new apartments in apartment buildings that are not yet finished. The construction is still going on around them. That is how desperate we are for housing and for places in my city and right across this province.

What it means is there will be no new housing initiatives in the coming year as apartment buildings are torn down on Eglinton Avenue to make way for luxury condominiums. There is no new initiative by this government for cooperative housing, social housing or nonprofit housing which could give an immediate stimulus to our economy, could provide jobs immediately and provide a very real long-term need for the people of this province. All of that will be put on hold because this government is obsessed with a triple-A credit rating from Standard and Poor's and will not dare take any new initiatives in social housing.

There will be no new initiatives in health care. We know hospitals are crowded at the present time with chronic care patients but no thought will be given to providing the funding to create those chronic care beds to free up our active treatment hospitals for the services they should be providing. There will be no new initiatives in the underserviced area program.

We had a slashing of the budget by $600,000 last year, and this year there will be no new increases. In the coming year, we know this government will be severely restrained in carrying out the initiative of this Legislature to provide for medically necessary travel under the Ontario health insurance plan. There will be no new initiatives in the health care field.

We know what the cut in transfer payments to municipalities will mean in social service cutbacks to the ordinary men and women of this province. In Thunder Bay, there are about 30 to 40 young people between the ages of 12 and 18 who live on the streets. They are people who have run away from home and who have run away from school. They are not all normally residents of Thunder Bay, but they are from the outlying districts and some are transients. Because they have, in the strictest interpretation of the present guidelines of the welfare administrators at the local level of this province, no normal residence or no acceptable place of residence, they are denied general welfare assistance. What that means is these people who already, for various reasons, have had some difficulty with the law, will continue to have difficulty with the law.

4:10 p.m.

I do not think my community is unusual in that respect. I would suspect that every major city of 100,000 or more has the same problems. What happens is those young people, because their needs are not being met either by the court system or by the social assistance system, will be forced into lives of petty crime, shop-lifting, burglary, breaking and entering, and even some drug activity. Shameful things are happening in this province because the Premier and the Treasurer have an obsession with a triple-A credit rating in New York.

People are being told by welfare administrators all over this province that they are not eligible for assistance when, by law, they are eligible for assistance. All of us have had cases in our constituency offices where the few people who are sophisticated enough to know they can come to seek help from elected members have come to see if they can right that wrong.

Often we have to take those cases to appeal. In Thunder Bay, we are lucky if we get those appeals within a six-week period. The delay actually saves the municipality money. They are asking for that delay to save them money because this province is not transferring a sufficient amount of money for social services and assistance to the municipal level.

Because of the government's obsession with the triple-A credit rating there will be little or nothing for increased job creation programs in this province. The Treasurer can talk all he likes about trying to create long-term programs, but all the programs announced in his budget, and all the ones reannounced up to his leadership race announcement, have been short-term programs. The 100,000 jobs for young people he promised in this Legislature in June have never been realized.

The number of real unemployed people in total in this province remains at 578,000. That is shameful. How can this government turn its back on them? How can we as a Legislature, and how can the government across the way, ask those 578,000 people to wait another year or two, unemployed and searching desperately for work, while the government desperately, frivolously and rather stupidly takes the steps it has taken to hold on to its so-called precious triple-A credit rating?

The story is shameful, disappointing and unacceptable to us in this party. It is unacceptable that 146,000 young people are still looking desperately for work. It is unacceptable that 578,000 people are still looking for work throughout this province. What the government did not give away in New York, it gave away in Ottawa just the other night when it succumbed to Michael Wilson's financial statement without a whimper, without a protest and in marked contrast to the speech of the Treasurer in this province the day after Joe Clark and John Crosbie announced their economic package in 1979.

It is totally unacceptable that in a city such as Sudbury the unemployment rate remains at 12.9 per cent, in Hamilton at 9.6 per cent, in St. Catharines-Niagara at 9.7 per cent, in Windsor at 10.4 per cent and in my home community of Thunder Bay at 8.6 per cent. It is totally unacceptable.

What happens is the people who need our hospitals, the people who need jobs, the people who need social assistance are the people who bear the scars of this government's determination to wear its triple-A credit rating as a badge of honour. The cabinet, like the generals, gets the glory. Our citizens, like the soldiers, get the wounds, if not death and destruction.

If the triple-A credit rating is so precious and important to this province, the government could easily reduce its deficit by collecting the corporate taxes that have been deferred, postponed and delayed and are outstanding; not by levying any additional taxes but simply by collecting the taxes it is owed under the tax laws of this province. That alone would get $2.2 billion for the revenue of this province.

The second major issue I would like to deal with for a few minutes is the credibility of the Treasurer. He has tried to tell us that the August meeting was a routine trip. In contrast, the Premier told the press that he went to an appeal hearing. The Treasurer says "the court of appeal" is a term the Premier uses all the time, but the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) did not know what it meant when I asked him about it the other day.

Other speakers in this party will be dealing with the credibility gap that this government, this Treasurer and this Premier have. I just want to say that this government has abandoned the people of Kenora for the Reaganomics of Washington. This government has abandoned the poor of our streets for the bankers of Bay Street. This government has abandoned the youth of this province for the accountants of Standard and Poor's. This government has abandoned the independence of the Loyalist tradition of this province for blatant Americanism. This government has abandoned the people of Main Street for the people of Wall Street.

For all these reasons, we in this party feel that this government has lost the confidence of this House.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, just for the record, in joining this debate I feel it would be appropriate and proper to mention that the Premier is indeed not with us today. Upon proposing to have this debate today, the leader of the third party was informed that the Premier would be meeting with the other first ministers in Ottawa, which is why he is not with us. The Treasurer, however, is in the environs of the chamber and will be joining the debate himself a little later.

Mr. Nixon: What was the former Treasurer talking to you about?

Mr. Gillies: I would not want to share that with the honourable member.

It will come as no surprise to the leader of the third party that I will not be supporting his motion. Frankly, I totally reject the contention stated in the motion that this government reacted in a hasty, ill-considered and short-sighted manner to Standard and Poor's evaluation of the province's credit rating. The government did not react in that manner, and the Premier and the Treasurer have made that clear in this House, I believe, on a number of occasions.

It is the opposition parties, I would suggest, who have attempted to put the New York meetings in that light and to portray the meetings as a panic response to some imagined threat to our triple-A credit rating.

We have gone over this ground again and again in this House. During the past few weeks, in question period and during the estimates of the Treasurer the members opposite have rejected out of hand the explanations offered by both the Treasurer and the Premier, preferring to cling to their versions of events, for which they have not produced a single shred of evidence to substantiate their position.

While I do not believe that a review of the full debate will serve to reduce the resistance of the members opposite to the position of the government and to the facts, let us one more time go through this matter and compare the allegations that the members opposite are making with the statements made by the Treasurer.

First, on the matter of some imagined rescue mission to New York to save the credit rating, one thing for which we have to give credit to our friends opposite is their active imagination. The way they filled up this trip we could make a movie of it. I do not know what you would call it. I would suggest as a title, "Ontario Larry and the Temple of Doom," in which the Treasurer rushes off to New York to do battle with the mean-spirited moneymen in Manhattan.

It does not quite accord with the facts at all. I would refer to the Hansard of October 29, in which the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), who I note is not with us today for this very important debate, said, "It is obvious the financial rating of this province was in some jeopardy and that the Treasurer had to make certain concessions to those rating agencies in Wall Street."

4:20 p.m.

To whom are these alleged facts obvious? They may be obvious to the Leader of the Opposition, but they are certainly not obvious to any impartial observer of the situation. They are certainly not obvious to the Treasurer, who attended those meetings and who, I would suggest, has forgotten more about the economy of Ontario and finance in general than the Leader of the Opposition will ever know.

The Treasurer said on October 29: It is not accurate to say that we suddenly learned the credit rating was in danger. It is not accurate to say I called the Premier and said, 'Drop everything and rush down here.' That is not at all what occurred."

These alleged facts about the credit rating being in jeopardy are obvious only to the members of the opposition. I would challenge the member for London Centre or any other member of the opposition to substantiate that claim with factual evidence, if indeed such evidence exists.

Do they have any documents? Do they have anything told to them by officials of the rating agency that would substantiate that the credit rating of Ontario, of which we are justly proud, was in jeopardy? I think we on this side of the House deserve proof of allegations that are so obvious to certain members of the opposition.

As the Treasurer said, every year representatives of the government meet representatives of the bond rating agencies after the provincial budget. They did so last year and this year and they will again next year.

This year one bond rating agency, which incidentally I would hazard a guess has had a boom period of a couple of weeks' more free publicity than it will ever have again, decided to review the ratings of all the provinces in Canada. The Treasurer has said that on a number of occasions, and so has Mr. Roger Taillon, who is known to the House as the managing director of Standard and Poor's. As such, even the members opposite would have to agree he has a certain amount of credibility with regard to what exactly his firm is doing.

As the Treasurer told the House on November 1 in reading a transcript of an interview with this gentleman, "In this case, considering the slower recovery in the economy than perhaps we had been expecting before, as well as the levels of budget deficits in a number of provinces, we made it a special point to do a thorough review of the debt ratings of all of the Canadian provinces at one time."

As we have been told, under these circumstances the Treasurer thought it advisable that he and the Premier go to New York to ensure that the policies and the fiscal position of the province were duly and thoroughly understood by that bond rating agency. I would suggest to the member for York South that this showed prudent fiscal management on the part of the Treasurer. I think he deserves the support of the House for undertaking such a venture.

One thing the opposition has not questioned, indeed has not mentioned about these meetings -- I would imagine because it pains them to do so -- is the outcome. The outcome with regard to the credit rating is that the triple-A bond rating is intact and the people, the taxpaying public of Ontario, will be saved higher rate of interest payments to the borrowing agencies with which the province deals.

Millions of dollars have been saved by this province by the retention of the triple-A credit rating, as opposed to a lowering to a double-A credit rating. I think that speaks to the credit of the Treasurer and the Premier in undertaking that activity on behalf of the taxpaying public in Ontario.

I hope the members opposite who have been interested in this matter have paid particular attention to the factors on which the rating agency based its decision. I hope they paid particular attention, because it speaks directly to a second allegation made in the House by some members across the aisle, that in order to have the triple-A credit rating reaffirmed, this government made certain commitments and certain concessions to the rating agency.

The member for York South raised this issue with the Treasurer on October 29 when he said:

"Specifically, I would like to ask the Treasurer, were any commitments of any kind whatsoever with respect to the deficit, the levels of spending or the raising of revenues made either by him or by the Premier at a meeting with Standard and Poor's at any time?"

The Treasurer gave a very straightforward answer. He said: "Let me be clear. We did not make commitments." There is indeed a question of credibility that surrounds this debate. There is so much more I would like to say, but time does not allow for it. However, I would suggest it is not the credibility of the Treasurer or the Premier in undertaking these activities on behalf of the people of Ontario, in keeping with good fiscal management supported by the vast majority of the people of this province, which is at stake at all.

I would suggest the members opposite should be looking very closely at their own positions and at the legitimate aspirations of the people of Ontario to reduce the burden of debt that their children and grandchildren stand to inherit if we do not take government deficits seriously.

In this government we have proved we can provide prudent fiscal management for the people of Ontario without endangering those very vital programs of a social, health and educational nature which we believe the people of this province deserve. We will be second to none in the delivery of those services to the people for whom we are responsible. We will be second to none in maintaining and improving the fiscal integrity of Ontario.

This is what the Treasurer is about, this is what the Premier is about and this is what the members of this side of the House are about. We will be proud to stand in our places when the vote is called on this debate to support the fiscal policies of the Treasurer of Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that as the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) was finishing his remarks, three other Conservatives came into the largely empty seats here. I do not know whether it was based on the fact his remarks were ending or whether they heard I was about to begin.

I do feel the fact that the Conservative side is supported by one, two, three, four or five comatose Tories, with two others giggling under the gallery, is an indication either of their lack of respect for this important and time-honoured procedure or that they are not used to a three-day weekend and are still in a recovery stage.

It may be some sort of a plot, and they are not prepared to join the member for Brantford in supporting the fiscal policies of the government. This is their rather strange and peculiar way of precipitating an unexpected election, which we on this side welcome.

With the remarks made by the member for Brantford, it is going to be difficult in the extreme to get those thoughtful Tories, who are even now sitting in the anteroom of the chief whip's office, to leave that amenity and come in here to stand once again, thoughtlessly and without careful consideration, for the support of a policy which has been so disastrous in years gone by in this province.

To begin with, I am very glad Ontario has a triple-A rating. It is true to say that if the rating had been lost, I for one would be critical of the government. This is one side of the coin. I have a good deal of sympathy with the other one as well. I feel very concerned if it is possible that the policies of the government are unduly affected by its commitment to maintaining a triple-A credit rating.

From information that is available, it is clear that any reduction in that by whatever one would call it -- a point, I suppose -- to double A plus would mean we would pay about 0.25 per cent more interest on the money we borrow. Without going through the timetables of these procedures that have already been referred to by the two previous speakers, I think we must come down to the fact that on November 24, Standard and Poor's published the third quarter issue of its journal, International Creditweek, and reaffirmed Ontario's triple-A credit rating.

4:30 p.m.

However, I do think it is important that anybody who might be interested in reading these debates would know what Standard and Poor's said at that time. I quote from International Creditweek:

"The priority concern is the provincial deficit. In both cases, the deficits were higher than in 1983 in absolute terms, but lower as a percentage of budgetary revenues. Improvements in both balances are projected for 1985. Another major concern was the increasing amount of interest the province must pay on the deficit.

"The budgetary stress in Ontario has not been felt as much in the level of debt as in the increasing burden of interest payments. As a percentage of budgetary revenues, they have increased almost steadily from 9.9 per cent in 1980 to 11.9 per cent in 1984 and are projected to reach 12.6 per cent in 1985."

There is no way for us to determine what was said to the Treasurer and the Premier during the special meeting at the office of Standard and Poor's, which was described by the Premier as an appeal tribunal. He then made light of that phrase in his efforts not to embarrass the Treasurer who is, as we know, in the throes of a leadership campaign and who cannot stand any embarrassment at this stage.

We should also realize that on October 17 the Premier made a rather public address to his cabinet colleagues at a special cabinet meeting at Niagara-on-the-Lake. This is after Standard and Poor's had an opportunity, if not to summon the Premier to New York, to have the Premier travel to New York to hear their views on Ontario's credit rating and their criticism of the level of interest payments, which are projected to be 12.6 per cent of our revenues next year.

The Premier stated as follows: "The allocations which I will bring to you will not, unfortunately, be generous. To give the greatest possible flexibility and to avoid having my successor face an early loss of our triple-A rating, it will be necessary to bring in minimal allocations for your approval. Therefore, funding for new initiatives will not generally be possible. Accordingly, I will ask all cabinet committees to defer consideration of major new or amended policies and programs, particularly those with significant expenditure levels."

That is clearly what the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) mentioned in his early remarks. I want to join him in that concern. I reiterate that I am very glad we have a triple-A rating because it is saving us money, but the fact that the policies of the government, as enunciated in general terms by the Premier, mean that his cabinet colleagues are put into a sort of a fiscal straitjacket is a matter of serious concern.

We know from the past records of this government that an addition to the debt never bothered it when it was in an election year. My memory goes back to 1975 when the then Treasurer brought in a plethora of new programs which increased the deficit by about $600 million. In 1984 dollars that would be very close to an additional debt of about $1.8 billion. He was prepared to do that in order to shore up the sagging political fences of the Tory party.

The record of this Tory party has been clear to all of us to observe. They are prepared to dip into the coffers of the province and do damage to the credit rating if additional funds are needed for them to look generous and progressive in the few months before an election.

It is difficult to know what the present Treasurer will do if he is successful in winning the leadership of the party. While he is not here now, he had the co-chairman, one of five co-chairmen of his leadership committee, give the principal address in his defence. No doubt he will be here to give a few condescending words of defence in the latter stages of this debate.

One thing that concerns me is that not only has the Premier indicated in his reported comments that he is prepared to respond to the warnings delivered to him on Wall Street, but the Treasurer himself, in his statements and projections to this House and the people of Ontario, has also clearly shown he is responding to the Standard and Poor's whip. When they snap at him, he jumps.

He makes projections in this House that Ontario is recovering from our recession more rapidly than are most other jurisdictions. I hope that is true, although it seems that he is particularly optimistic when he looks into the future, into his leadership crystal ball. It is also true that in the recent edition of Ontario Finances he points out that our revenues were larger than expected.

I want to spend just a moment, Mr. Speaker, before you nod off completely, in indicating where some of those additional funds came from. To begin with, the revenues from tobacco tax, which had been estimated this year to be $583 million, jumped by $20 million, so he now thinks he is going to take in $603 million in tobacco tax alone. I know you would not want me to continue my remarks without pointing out that this is almost twice the amount of money the province spends on all its agricultural programs. I say this as a farmer, as a representative of the tobacco growing area and, I hope, as an effective critic of government policy.

It is probably a more general approach when I point out that the profits of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, which were estimated to be about half a billion dollars, are going to jump by $46 million to $600 million. These increases are all associated with the decision of the government of Canada, a government that concerns itself with sacred trusts, to allow the one per cent increase in sales tax at the federal level, which it had criticized as an engine for recession, to go forward in spite of its previous promises. We all know that, with our ad valorem taxes in Ontario, these increases give us a windfall additional tax profit in this instance of about $86 million.

I should also point out that payments from the government of Canada of an additional $30 million and from a number of other sources of revenue have indicated, since the budget was brought down, an additional $223 million of revenue appears to be in the offing.

It seems to me that the Treasurer is making all he can of these special additional revenues to respond to the complaints put forward by Standard and Poor's that our revenues are inadequate for the size of the payments we are called upon to pay to meet our interest requirements.

Perhaps in passing it is interesting to note that the government of Canada is making transfer payments this year of $4,218,000,000 and that, in addition, the authority of the government of Canada collects our provincial income tax, which we expect this year to earn us $6,952,000,000. The new pages here, who are very quick at arithmetic, will be able to add those figures up and know that the government of Canada is responsible, by way of revenue spent out of the Treasury of this province, for $11,170,000,000.

This amount is really collected by the government of Canada. It comes to this Treasury without strings attached and then is used for the political purposes of the government of Ontario to complete Highway 403 and send out special cheques to youth employment programs in the city of Brantford and certain other programs that are designed exclusively for the aggrandizement of local members such as the member for Brantford and, by default I suppose, myself, and for the credit of the Progressive Conservative Party.

With the federal government contributing almost $12 billion to the revenue of Ontario in a budget of $26.8 billion, I should also point out that our rich uncles in Ottawa are really meeting 41 per cent of our provincial budget. As the days of federal Liberalism briefly fade, with the new masters in Ottawa wining and dining the provincial Tory treasurers, it looks to me as if the thrust of the reduction of these federal transfers, which we expect to take place, is going to be more severe even than we expected.

When Standard and Poor's see that federal policy, in an effort to reduce the transfer payments to the provinces, is going to move our interest payments well above 12 per cent of our revenues, then we may very well lose our triple-A credit rating because of these ill-advised initiatives taken by the political friends of the government of the day.

4:40 p.m.

The Treasurer said he went up to Ottawa and was taken to dinner by the Minister of Finance, and the Prime Minister probably dropped in. As the Leader of the Opposition said earlier today, the government of Canada is taking our Treasurer to dinner before it takes him to the cleaners.

It seems to me the real threat to our credit rating lies in the profligacy of this government in entering into programs that are nonproductive for the good of our people. I point to the purchase of Suncor two years ago for more than $600 million. We are still paying the interest on that. That is a heavy load indeed on our taxpayers.

The other thing that is threatening our credit rating is the ill-advised initiatives taken by the government of Canada, which I predict will mean that our ratio of debt servicing charges to revenues will go well above the 12 per cent level. That will mean Standard and Poor's will have the Premier down over Christmas for another lunch and another, let us say, session of descriptive politics.

Our time is limited, and the last point I want to make is that once again Ontario has abandoned the public borrowing markets completely. The current issue of Ontario Finances states quite clearly, "The budget plan to finance net cash requirements entirely from nonpublic sources of borrowing remains on target. That means we really do not have to borrow any money from New York at all. We simply have to underwrite the borrowing programs of Ontario Hydro.

I have already explained to the House in a compelling speech, which was only repeated three times, that Ontario Hydro already has us in a substantial fiscal mess. I will not spend time listing all the serious errors of decision and omission, and in fact bad luck, that have been associated with Ontario Hydro over the past decade. It is sufficient to say that its requirements for money, more than anything else, have put our credit rating in an area where it is definitely under attack and under unusual and unnecessary stress.

My view is that the Treasurer has to do something about the improper expenditures of the province. I say "improper" in the sense that they are ill-advised. He has to do something about the announced policies of the government of Canada, which will end up reducing transfers to this province and to other provinces. He will also have to take very stringent action to bring the business aspects of Ontario Hydro under more adequate control.

If he does that, I suggest, our historic, top-level credit rating will be reinforced, and the flexibility and freedom of action a government in this province must have will be re-established. That flexibility and freedom of action will remove the straitjacket imposed on the government of Ontario by the outgoing Premier. It will mean that the government here will be able to examine new and progressive alternative policies that will be for the good of this province and without which our economy and quality of life will stop moving forward.

This is going to be a principal issue in the election campaign, which may be next spring or next fall. In my view, the fact that the government does not have this freedom of action for the provision of new policies is going to mean the end of more than 40 years of Progressive Conservative government and, at least, an opportunity for the Liberal opposition to have the respect of the community as we put forward an alternative that will maintain our credit rating and resume the economic expansion of Ontario which we believe is earned and deserved.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we owe a debt of gratitude to the Premier for having stepped down and precipitated a leadership contest, since it was obviously as a result of the rivalry between the various leadership camps that the memorandum that prompted this debate first saw the light of day. It is an interesting comment on how leadership campaigns tend to destabilize governments. It is obvious the secret cabinet memorandum was made available to the public in an effort to undermine the candidacy of the Treasurer. I have to say that tactic has been successful.

What we are talking about, with respect to the kind of understanding that this government obviously came to in New York with the bond rating agency Standard and Poor's, is summed up in the words of the Premier that all new expenditure programs will have to be deferred. In his own words, the Treasurer indicated on November 5 that he intends to stabilize the public debt at about $1.2 billion.

In other words, the Treasurer admitted, conceded, confessed, told us, came clean on November 5 that he was talking about something in the order of $800 million in an attempt to stabilize the public debt. This amount was obviously part of the understanding reached by the Premier, the Treasurer and the representatives of Standard and Poor's in New York.

It reminds me of some Third World country having to kowtow to the International Monetary Fund. I think the analogy is exactly parallel. To preserve its sacred triple-A rating, Ontario has yielded to precisely the same kinds of limitations on public expenditure that former colonial countries in the Third World are required to obey as a matter of routine with respect to the IMF. Wall Street simply serves as the financial master for a set of budgetary decisions that are now taken on our knees in New York City.

The impact of the understanding that was reached, the decision to curtail some $800 million in expenditure to stabilize the public debt, will be widespread and felt for many years to come.

It is important to focus at least for a minute or two on the nature of the kinds of cutbacks we are talking about. We are not unfamiliar with constraints and cutbacks in Ontario. We have lived with them since the Henderson report in 1975, but I think we have a new draconian urgency imposed by Wall Street and accepted by the Treasurer and the Premier. We understand it will result in an imposition of something in the order of a three per cent ceiling on expenditure increases.

As I said, that is more draconian than anything that has taken place in the past, but we understand from what has happened previously that when this government engages in social and human service cutbacks, it moves in the direction of commercialization, privatization and turning public sector social services over to private entrepreneurs to be run on a profit-making basis.

We have a report, released in October 1984, called Caring for Profit, published by the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto. It is useful to run through the litany of privatization that has taken place in this province over the course of the past few years, because this is precisely the kind of cutback regime that will be imposed with a vengeance on Ontario as a result of this new set of understandings between the bond raters and the government of Ontario.

The social planning council report is a useful snapshot of where we are at. According to the report, more than 90 per cent of the province's 332 nursing homes are operated for profit. More than half of Ontario's beds for elderly people are provided for profit, compared with 27 per cent in the rest of Canada.

Almost half of Ontario's 70,000 licensed day care spaces are in the commercial sector. One of every three residential beds for children in Ontario is provided for profit compared with one of 10 in the rest of Canada. Half the contracts for homemaking services purchased by Ontario's local home care programs are with commercial agencies.

More than 6,300 people in the homes for special care program are in for-profit nursing or residential homes. Most of Ontario's estimated 450 rest homes or retirement homes are commercial enterprises. For-profit corporations are now being given the lucrative opportunity to manage public hospitals in Ontario.

4:50 p.m.

That is the kind of scenario that is represented by the kind of budget-setting process we are discussing this afternoon. This is what has happened to many first-class services in this province over the course of the past number of years, and we can look forward, as time progresses, to the gradual transformation of even more first-class, nonprofit, community-based, public sector human services into second-class, third-class and fourth-class private enterprise services. There is a clear relationship between quality of service and the question of profit versus nonprofit. That is a matter simply of empirical observation.

There is another side to the picture as well, and that is the threat of the Premier -- or his promise, his commitment or his understanding with the bond raters -- to defer new programs and services. That means we will have no opportunity for serious nursing home reform in this province. We will continue to have a first-class residential care service system in place for the elderly in the Ministry of Community and Social Services run on a nonprofit basis and a second-class, third-class or fourth-class system run on a profitmaking basis in the Ministry of Health. This government obviously will do nothing to change that.

We will not have an extension in the health care field of the prosthetic appliances program. We will not do anything for former psychiatric patients in this province. We will not honour the commitments made with respect to the implementation of the Gerstein report. We will not provide housing accommodation for the thousands of chronic mental health patients who are currently living in slums, on the streets and, as the former Minister of Health, now the Treasurer discovered, in all-night doughnut shops.

Nothing will be put forward to alleviate these tragic, critical problems.

In the area of social services, nothing will be done to redress the shameful fact that Ontario ranks ninth out of 10 in the level of its monetary expenditures for social assistance recipients.

Nothing will be done to rescue the 2,500 developmentally handicapped people who are wrongfully living in homes for special care and in nursing homes. Nothing will be done to implement the promising provisions of the new child and family services bill. Nothing will be done to make it a reality that there will be meaningful preventive services and community support services in place to prevent family breakdown before it occurs.

Nothing will be done to honour long-standing commitments to provide a full range of community-based home support services for the elderly. Nothing will be done to provide proper attendant care for the physically handicapped.

Nothing will be done to solve Ontario's housing crisis. Ontario will continue to be able to boast proudly that in the midst of the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression, in the midst of the worst housing crisis that many of our people have ever experienced, Ontario since 1978 has spent the magnificent sum of two cents on every dollar expended by the federal government towards the construction and development of new, affordable housing. Nothing will be done to change that.

Nothing will be done in the field of education to develop proper skills training, trades training or apprenticeship programs. Nothing will be done to stop the erosion of our post-secondary educational facilities. Nothing will be done for the unemployed. Nothing will be done for elderly laid-off workers.

In short, nothing will be done. Everything will be deferred all in the name of worshipping at the shrine of the bond rating agency Standard and Poor's, and this is a government that expects to have the confidence of this House and of the people of this province.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to have the opportunity to remind the electorate of the fact that this province maintains the highest possible credit rating, which is a direct reflection of the quality of management and economic leadership provided by this government.

Charges have been made that this government sold out the people of Ontario, that this government made commitments and concessions to a bond rating agency to have our rating affirmed. Not so. This government is committed to reducing the deficit, to stabilizing the public debt interest. These are commitments made to the people of this province. These are objectives which enjoy a high level of public support because they are in the public interest.

It is all very fine for members of the third party to claim that when a Tory government makes these commitments, it has made concessions to rating agencies. But what do they say when similar objectives are pursued by a New Democratic Party government, a party which we all know operates with only the purest of motives and intent?

If one takes the time to read the 1984 budget of the government of Manitoba, one will discover that Mr. Pawley and his New Democratic Party are just as concerned about reducing the deficit and the public debt in their province as we are in Ontario. Has Mr. Pawley sold out? Has Mr. Pawley betrayed the people of Manitoba? I think not. He is simply pursuing a rational economic policy which appreciates that the more money one spends on servicing a debt, the less money one has to spend on providing services.

I want to know what the member for York South has to say about the report on the fate of the proposal made by the New Democratic Party government of Manitoba to freeze hydro rates. Given the third party's obsession with electrical power generation, I have no doubt its members are familiar with this incident; if they are not, they should be because it is most instructive.

Before he introduced his 1983 budget, Mr. Pawley made it very clear that he would not let Manitoba's public affairs be run by New York moneylenders who had placed the province on financial alert. In spite of that, the government of Manitoba abandoned a planned hydro rate freeze when Manitoba Hydro suggested it was bad business after Standard and Poor's had assessed the province's financial position. The conspiracy is spreading. Standard and Poor's must be running all of Canada.

Aside from its debt levels, another issue related to Ontario Hydro which has attracted considerable negative comment in this House is the investment in nuclear energy. While the entire nuclear program has come under attack from time to time, the Darlington project in particular has been criticized as being unnecessary, too costly and poorly managed.

Given the picture of Ontario Hydro's nuclear program which is so often painted by the members opposite, I was interested to read an assessment of Hydro's nuclear program which appeared in the Wall Street Journal over the summer.

In case any member wants to take the time to check this article, it was published in the July 23 edition and was written by one of the Journal's staff writers, who as far as I know is not a member of the Progressive Conservative Party or an employee of this government.

The article, noting that Ontario Hydro operates 11 of Canada's 13 reactors, uses our utility program to illustrate why nuclear power programs have been much more successful in Canada and why nuclear power is much more accepted in Canada than in the United States.

The short answer is better management, better project management and better financial management. The conclusions reached are that we have a better product, the Candu reactor, a better regulatory system, better quality control, better public relations and have always stressed the importance of safety and training.

All these characteristics are illustrated by reference to the performance of Ontario Hydro. For example, the article points out that Canadian reactors take half as long to build as American reactors and that this is due in part to the fact that Canadian reactors are not subject to delays caused by design changes and poor workmanship.

The article also points out that Ontario Hydro, which is described as "a big, well-run utility," keeps tight control on the construction of all its plants and maintains permanent inspectors at the plants of manufacturers who build nuclear equipment.

Mr. S. David Freeman, who recently retired as a director of the Tennessee Valley Authority, is quoted as saying that unlike American utilities, which bought reactors as if they were items in a Sears-Roebuck catalogue, Canadian utilities, such as Ontario Hydro, have the in-house capability to deal with them.

The regard for Hydro's management of its nuclear program in the international nuclear industry is such that Mr. Geoffrey Greenhalgh, a consultant to the nuclear industry in Britain, can say, "My guess is, whatever reactor they decided to operate, they would have made it a success."

That is quite a tribute from a disinterested expert in the nuclear industry and is certainly a refreshing change from the type of comment we have all too often heard being made by some members on the western shore of this House.

5 p.m.

It is that quality of management which largely explains why 105 American reactors have been cancelled since 1972. No reactors have been cancelled in this country. The management of Ontario Hydro has never inflicted on the people of this province something like Diablo Canyon, where the cost of the project came in at 877 per cent above estimates. We have not had to endure a case such as Midland in Michigan, where construction is nine years behind schedule and its costs have risen from a projected $276 million to $4.4 billion, an increase of more than 1,500 per cent.

Nor do we have a Marble Hill, where after an investment of some $7 billion the reactor was abandoned half completed, although some over there would like to make Darlington our Marble Hill.

As for safety in training, Ontario Hydro's record in these areas is unsurpassed. Hydro's in-house nuclear training program is the oldest and best-known of its kind. According to the director of the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations in Atlanta, the retraining, even for maintenance staff, is impressive. The results have been equally impressive, as indicated by the fact that, just this July, Hydro's nuclear staff set a record of 100 million man-hours of work without a fatality.

As for reactor performance, in 1983 four of Ontario Hydro's reactors were among the top 10, with Bruce 4 ranking second with a gross capacity rating of 94.6 per cent. In 1982, five of the top 10 reactors in the world were operated by Ontario Hydro, with Bruce 3 running at a gross capacity factor of 96.8 per cent.

Even these few simple comparisons serve to indicate that Ontario Hydro is a financially sound and well-run utility. The facts as I have detailed them support that conclusion and they are facts we will not often hear mentioned in this House. I believe the managers and employees of Ontario Hydro are doing a good job for the people of this province, and they deserve to be told that from time to time.

As a member of the standing committee on public accounts which received and reviewed the auditor's report on Hydro, I was impressed by the number and quality of corporate cost-control mechanisms Ontario Hydro has developed to monitor its projects. In my view, it is these mechanisms that stand between Darlington and Diablo Canyon and have ensured that Darlington has remained not only a necessary project but a financially viable one.

I have a lot more other information that I would like to put on the record, but unfortunately my time has run out.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, your invitation to speak is always so vigorous that I feel I have an obligation to respond with equal vigour. I know my friend the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) would agree with that.

I want to address my remarks to the chair on this important matter that has been put before the Legislature by my friend the leader of the New Democratic Party. It is an interesting debate. I was not here to hear it all, but I have enjoyed the observations of my House leader and the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and, of course, the most recent contribution by the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn), who certainly brought a very dispassionate, disinterested, measured assessment to these sometimes partisan questions.

It is difficult to know what happened in New York City that steamy day in late August 1984. I see my eastern Ontario friend the member for Carleton East (Mr. MacQuarrie) is advising the last government speaker on this matter. Perhaps we will have the benefit of the wisdom of my friend from Carleton East.

It is difficult for those of us who were not there --

Mr. MacQuarrie: Let us hear about Chalk River.

Mr. Conway: The honourable member reminds me of Chalk River. In fact, it is wise that I should be reminded of Chalk River and Deep River --

Mr. Nixon: The finest speech I ever heard about atomic energy came from this member.

Mr. Conway: Exactly. I am glad to hear that from my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon).

It is difficult for those of us who were not there to know for sure what actually happened at that meeting in New York City late in the summer of 1984.

We do, as my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk observed in his speech, have three versions of the event. We have the Treasurer's version; we have, as a party at least, the testimony of Ms. Marie Cavanaugh, an Ontario analyst with Standard and Poor's; and we have the view of the first minister, the Premier.

As my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk properly pointed out, the views of the first minister and the Treasurer are at some very considerable variance in this matter.

When I assessed the comments of the Treasurer, compared them to the comments offered by the Premier and took into account what Ms. Marie Cavanaugh told our staff, I came to the conclusion, on the basis of the evidence, that the Premier's version appeared more likely and more credible.

My friend the member for Carleton East will understand I make that judgement on the basis of the evidence.

Mr. Nixon: A nice way to put it, too.

Mr. Conway: I do not suggest that we have all the evidence. My learned friend the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) says, "some of the evidence." It is difficult, as members will understand, to try to pry open all the doors of a government that is 41 years and three months old. It is not easy. The tendencies towards secrecy and playing it close to the vest are great and apparently getting greater all the time, but when our Premier, a very distinguished member of the Law Society of Upper Canada, says he went to New York City to appear before "an appeal tribunal ," I really believe the first minister meant exactly what he said.

One can criticize the outgoing Premier for a lot of things, but I do not think it is fair or reasonable to criticize him for using imprecise language. I think when he said he went to an appeal tribunal, he believed that he went to just that.

I have very good sources inside the Ontario government who came to me privately and clandestinely after the fact and said, "By the by, you were right. The Premier was telling the whole truth and the Treasurer was telling..." whatever members have to conclude as a result of the first statement.

Mr. Nixon: Does the honourable member mean his credibility is not triple-A?

Mr. Conway: I do not think, quite frankly, that the credibility of the Treasurer on this question is triple-A.

One of my sources in Treasury said: "It was rather strange for us that the Treasurer handled it the way he did. We thought, quite frankly, that he and the Premier did a bang-up job in New York City. A preliminary decision had been made to downgrade the credit rating of Ontario, and Larry Grossman and Bill Davis went down on very short notice and made a very impressive and compelling case that was successful."

According to my source in Treasury, there is a fair measure of incredulity in Treasury that the Treasurer did not want to take any credit for the success of his mission. That was an interesting observation from within the government itself.

It is interesting to note this division of opinion across the way on the front bench of this government. I will not get into other divisions developing as a result of other happenings in the Progressive Conservative Party, but I think it is important to state at the outset of these brief remarks that on the basis of the evidence, the reasonable citizen has to conclude that the Premier is more likely to be believed than his junior minister the Treasurer.

Beyond the politics and the intricate matters of finance necessarily involved in this question, my electors in Renfrew North want to know what it all means. What does it mean that the Treasurer and the Premier had to make a special trip to New York in late summer to appeal a preliminary decision by one of the credit rating agencies to downgrade the credit of Ontario?

5:10 p.m.

We can deal with that very important question in a number of ways. The member for Bellwoods very properly drew our attention to a number of very serious impacts that will be felt by the citizenry of this province as a result of the private deal struck in the oak-panelled corridors of Wall Street on that steamy day in August 1984.

However, in the first instance, I suspect Standard and Poor's expressed even more concern about the financial management of the affairs of Ontario. I suspect Standard and Poor's expressed great concern about the voracious appetite for public funds that is associated with our gargantuan public utility, Ontario Hydro.

I say that because the evidence of some years ago, which Mr. McKeough offered to this Legislature, would have a reasonable citizen conclude that financial agencies and credit rating bodies in New York are always interested in and usually concerned about Ontario Hydro's apparently endless appetite for funds.

I suspect that beyond the very great appetite of Ontario Hydro for funds, Standard and Poor's is concerned about the deficit position of the Ontario government. I am sure the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk might want to share with some the idea that maybe somebody at Standard and Poor's remembered that in 1977 then Treasurer Darcy McKeough said the budget of Ontario would be balanced by 1984. Maybe somebody at Standard and Poor's remembers that. Maybe that is part of its concern.

Maybe somebody at Standard and Poor's agreed with the Treasurer's view, as expressed in the race the other day, that Suncor may not have been a very good investment. Maybe somebody at Standard and Poor's agrees with the Treasurer that it did not represent very good financial management on the part of a province that is struggling to meet many of its more basic and human service requirements.

Maybe somebody at Standard and Poor's agreed with some of the four horsemen in this, if not apocalyptic race, leadership race, that Suncor was not very good news and they ought to be concerned about it. Maybe somebody at Standard and Poor's was worried about the three quarters of a billion dollars in inventory the Ontario government now has in the land banks. Maybe this is the kind of financial management Standard and Poor's is concerned about.

Mr. Ruston: That is called Tory mismanagement.

Mr. Conway: We will never know for sure. Members can be certain the vests have been drawn very tight at Standard and Poor's and at the Cabinet Office level here in Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: Next year, we will draw back the curtain.

Mr. Conway: The curtain will be drawn back and the windows will be thrown open. I think only a change of government will give the people of Brockville, Wilson Heights, Lakeshore, Stoney Creek and Moose Creek the opportunity they have long sought for a clear look at the books of this province.

Maybe somebody at Standard and Poor's has been doing some cost accounting of the dreams of John White. Maybe somebody at Standard and Poor's has been up to that kind of calculation. If they have, I am not at all surprised they might be very concerned about what they found.

About cutbacks, of course the member for Bellwooods is right when he draws our attention to the fact there are going to be cutbacks, particularly in the social programs of this government, as a result of this secret concordat agreed to by both parties on that steamy late August afternoon in New York City.

I suspect members are already in possession of some of the relevant information. For the past year, the Minister of Health has been telling me he was about to announce some additional funds for the expansion of our extended and chronic care facilities in my home city of Pembroke, to give credit to a commitment entered into about 17 months ago by his predecessor in the Ministry of Health and now our Treasurer.

Do members know what the Minister of Health keeps telling me? He says he cannot do it this day in July or August, or September, or October or, worse still, even now in November, almost a year and a half after the Treasurer made that commitment when he was Minister of Health. Why is it the Minister of Health cannot give the money to make good the Treasurer's commitment? He says, "I do not have my allocation from the Treasurer." I have to believe the Minister of Health is telling the truth when he tells me that.

What the people of Pembroke are seeing is that holdback is a direct result of a kind of arrangement that was struck in New York some two months ago. We are seeing a kind of legislative legerdemain, if I can be bilingual in the spirit of the Minister of Health earlier today. We are seeing sleight of hand. We are going to see cutbacks in the old Tory way. That which was supposed to be released in the first quarter of this year will be held back to the last quarter of this fiscal year so it can be charged against next year's account.

The Conservative mentality and practice in this province, Mr. Speaker, as you know well from your Markham and Vankleek Hill experience, is one of great subtlety and nuance. There will not be any place where the member for Bellwoods or the member for Renfrew North can go to try to get a good picture of what is actually going on.

It will be incrementalism at its Conservative best, but the net result will be exactly what we are seeing now in chronic and extended care facilities for the people of Pembroke and Renfrew North. It was promised a year and a half ago, and now we are still being told there is no allocation. What balderdash. How can there be no allocation when we are almost halfway through this fiscal year and these commitments go back a year and a half?

The reasonable citizen would have to agree with the member for Bellwoods and others who have properly drawn our attention to the cutbacks now taking place and which are going to continue as a result of undertakings given by the first minister and his junior minister of Treasury at that Wall Street meeting two and a half months ago. That was all before the knife of Michael Wilson was dug deeply into the corpus of the Ontario citizenry.

Imagine it; fantasize with me what blood there will be on the floor when Mr. Michael Wilson is finished with his surgery. How pathetic it is to see the junior minister of Treasury standing here today saying: "It is not really a sharp increase in gasoline prices. Gasoline prices are just going to moderate upwards." I have not heard anything as pathetic since I heard United States Secretary of the Treasury Donald Regan say: "We do not talk about tax increases in the Reagan White House. We are more particularly concerned about revenue enhancement."

My friend Jean Chrétien has said it will not be long before the dishes fly in the kitchen of Conservative Canada. I think I hear the sound of china breaking. I see cups and saucers flying about me, and it has only just begun.

Mr. MacQuarrie: The cupboards are bare.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Carleton East might feel the pain of this more quickly and deeply than anyone else on that side. The member for Carleton East knows that only too well.

I heard the Treasurer say today he had dinner with the Minister of Finance for Canada the other day and he felt he made progress. Let me reiterate what the Minister of Finance for Canada said Thursday night: "The growth of these payments," meaning federal transfer payments, "has been steady and rapid. If the federal government is to contain its expenditures in general, it is appropriate to ask whether transfers to the provinces should be insulated from policies of restraint. The answer is not simply to top up federal or provincial funding for health and post-secondary education. The answer," said Mr. Wilson, "is not simply more money."

Is that not interesting? Last year about this time the then Treasurer of Ontario, the current Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller), said, when federal government cutbacks were being discussed, the problem was just money.

I know in her heart at least the Minister of Education understands exactly what Mr. Michael Wilson intends by that statement of last Thursday evening. I am sure that when the minister of all education takes aside the junior Treasurer and Minister of Economics, as she must have done in the recent past or will do in the very near future, she will want to ask on behalf of the people of Ontario, "Did you back Mr. Michael Wilson up to the back wall at Meech Lake and say, 'There will be no cuts; there will be no slowdown in the rate of transfers from Ottawa to the provinces'?

"As minister of all education," she would have to argue, "I am embarrassed to a fault when my senior advisory body" -- namely, the Ontario Council on University Affairs -- "has just reported that the government at Queen's Park now has about the worst record of support for higher education in the universities of all the provinces in the Dominion of Canada."

Someone must spare this minister of all education from any further embarrassment about being 10th and last in the level of support for the universities of this province. But what is Mr. Michael Wilson threatening? He is threatening that there will be cutbacks and significant caps on federal transfers for higher education.

In conclusion, let me say it has only just begun. The kitchen door and window are now open, the china is flying and breaking. I have a feeling that from Sudbury to Brantford people in this province are soon going to understand that the Conservative meal tastes decidedly worse than it might have appeared some happy weeks ago.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a very few words in this debate and to congratulate my colleagues the members for Port Arthur and Bellwoods for putting the case as clearly as they have.

There are really two issues at stake here and they have been covered by other speakers. The first is the question of credibility. Time does not permit me to go through the chronology again to show how the story has changed, how the account has changed and how the words have changed in describing these meetings and the meaning of these meetings.

I would make just one point. I dealt with the Treasurer when he was the Minister of Health and we had several very tough exchanges on several issues. In those exchanges and in dealing with him in this Legislature and in committee during that time, I have gained some assessment of what kind of person he is, what kinds of tactics he uses and what kinds of strategies he uses. He is not a slouch. He is a very effective debater and a very effective politician.

I suggest that if the account contained in Mr. Hoy's article in the Toronto Sun had been completely off base and had been substantially and totally untrue, the Treasurer would have done a couple of things. He would have called a press conference on Monday morning and would have said, "This is absolute, arrant nonsense and has no truth in it whatsoever." He would have made a statement at two o'clock in this Legislature and said, "On a matter of personal privilege, there has been a statement made in the Toronto Sun by a reporter whom I would ordinarily regard as reliable which is completely and utterly untrue."

That is exactly what he would have done, but that is not what happened. What did he do? He disappeared. He could not be found. He was unavailable for comment. We had to bring this Legislature to a complete halt. The House had to be adjourned, the bells had to ring, three people had to get thrown out and finally we dragged the Treasurer from a couple of doors away.

We brought him into the Legislature where he and the Premier gave the longest, most complicated song and dance I have heard in a long time. It compares favourably for straightforwardness with anything Paul Martin or Allan MacEachen ever said in the House of Commons in Ottawa. It did not add up.

That is the first thing I want to say. It does not add up. They cannot say the whole exercise is retrospective one day and then have the evidence from Standard and Poor's that shows it was not retrospective. There was a projection of what the budget deficit was going to be. Then we had the Treasurer finally admit he was talking about a $1.2-billion figure, which represents a cut of $800 million in the size of the deficit.

It would be wrong to think this debate and this issue are simply about credibility, though that is an important question. That is not all it is about. It is about choices and priorities and a government making choices and establishing priorities.

We are going to have an argument in this Legislature, and I hope it will continue politically for some time to come. It is not just an argument about deficits, debts, bankers and credit ratings. It is an argument about the purpose and role of government. It is an argument about what the job of a government is at a time when our economic recovery is sputtering, to use the word of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay). That is his word, not mine.

At a time when our recovery remains fragile, when plants are closing, as we witnessed in the discussion here today, when poverty is on the increase in this province and indeed across the country -- there are more poor people today than there were four or five years ago; there are more people living below the poverty line today than four or five years ago -- that is not the time for a government to be focusing its attention on reducing its own deficit and level of investment in the provincial economy. That is a wrong-headed move.

As the government of Ontario does that simultaneously with similar steps being taken in Ottawa, it is going to level a crippling blow to the possibility for recovery in this province. It is going to ensure more meanness, greater hardship and a tougher time, frankly speaking, for ordinary people.

No one likes debt and no one likes to be in debt. I want to suggest very bluntly, and I put it in as simple and straightforward a way as I can, that the Treasurer is buying his financial respectability at a price that is unacceptably high. It is a price we should not be asked to pay in this province, one that makes no sense economically, morally, socially or politically. It is a price that means the average, ordinary Ontarian will go deeper into debt.

The government is going to go around saying it has a triple-A credit rating, but that will be bought at the cost of more farmers and ordinary consumers going into debt, more people being unable to buy homes or afford mortgages. That is the price of Tory policy.

5:30 p.m.

I want to make it very clear that debts and deficits are important. These are things that have to be kept under control. They have to be watched and dealt with, but what we are witnessing today is a government armed with a self-righteous and wrong-headed philosophy, comforted by the fact that it is a philosophy shared by more and more provincial governments and a federal government in Ottawa that is simply going down the wrong road. It is a road that will cost jobs, opportunity and fairness.

I think the issue is joined. It has been joined already on the question of credibility, and I think that has been dealt with. I take a common-sense view, as many people do, on whether I think somebody is telling the truth or whether the story adds up. In my judgement, the Treasurer's story does not add up. Like the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), we all have our sources. I have had enough confirmation from sources I rely on to believe we are on the right track and that the Treasurer is being less than completely frank.

Fundamentally, it is an issue that is more important than what the Treasurer may or may not have said or what he may or may not have meant. The fundamental question is, is this the time to be purchasing a triple-A rating and financial respectability at the cost of ordinary people? I say this is not the time.

The price is simply too high and the priorities have now been set in the wrong direction. The cost has been set out by my colleagues, the member for Bellwoods and the member for Port Arthur, and I think the cost is very clear. Saying to the people of this province, "There will be no new initiatives in social or economic programs," which is what the Premier said in his statement to cabinet, is a declaration of bankruptcy on the part of the government of Ontario. It is a statement saying, "There is no hope for those who need hope and those who need help." Frankly, I do not think that is good enough, nor is it what the people of this province want.

In answer to a question, the Treasurer said, "We will have a whole election on free enterprise and how we are going to set enterprise free." We are not holding back the free enterprise system. If capital formation wants to grow, let it grow. If private companies want to invest, let them invest. If they want to take charge of the economy and invest in new jobs, let them do it. Nothing we are saying is holding them back.

What we are saying is, "Stop the ideological claptrap that says 'We are going to stop spending' and magically the private sector is going to grow like a flower in the desert." That is arrant nonsense. The Treasurer must know it is nonsense. It is something for which the government has to be called to account.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I have read the motion under debate. Indeed, I listened to part of the debate this afternoon. I always take what is worth listening to and take seriously what should be taken seriously, which limited part of what I listened to on behalf of the third party this afternoon.

As I look at the motion, it has statements that clearly do not reflect reality, do not reflect the discussion in this House and, incredibly, premise a motion of no confidence on statements that just are not accurate.

Let me read the motion. It says the motion is being moved on the basis of "the decision of the government to place a greater weight on the views and priorities of a New York bond rating agency than on the needs and priorities of this province."

As I refer members back to discussions in this House by this Treasurer, the Premier of this province and even by the people at Standard and Poor's, there has not been anything in those statements to indicate we place a greater weight on the views and priorities of a New York bond rating agency than on the needs and priorities of this province. That would be impossible to say, particularly in light of the fact that the allocations process in this government this year, as in every year, is just being undertaken now.

Let me go further. The motion refers to "the government's decision to cut back further on education, health and social services spending which is critical to the future of our province, rather than to bring the spending and borrowing plans of Ontario Hydro under control."

Let us look at that premise of this motion, "the government's decision to cut back further on education." As I reflect back on our budget, the events flowing therefrom and the funding decisions made therein, I have to report to members that we have in this province an inflation rate of just over four per cent. We have a circumstance in which transfer payments to post-secondary institutions range from 6.4 per cent to 7.5 per cent, with an inflation rate of 4.4 per cent.

About the alleged cutback on health, right now I would estimate that from the 1984-85 budget for the Ministry of Health -- and let us just talk about hospitals for a moment -- hospitals will end up accounting for perhaps an eight per cent increase in funding this year in a 4.4 per cent inflation environment.

However, the motion is premised upon "the government's decision to cut back further on education," which I have dealt with, on "health" to which I have just referred, "and social services spending." I refer to the alleged decision on social services spending.

I am standing here, I guess just two or three weeks after my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) announced not a cutback in social services spending, not a maintenance of the status quo in social services spending, but an increase in social services spending -- that is, in welfare -- this coming year of 4.5 per cent. That is hardly consistent --

Mr. Nixon: What about unemployment?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I am reading the motion. The member can talk about unemployment whenever he wishes.

The motion states, as I remind members, "the government's decision to cut back further on education, health and social services spending." There is not the slightest shred of evidence to indicate either that a decision has been made to cut back or that there were earlier cutbacks, because a look at our budget and a look at our spending estimates for 1984-85 would not sustain that statement. It is just not true.

I have listened to the debate this afternoon. I have had a summary of some earlier comments offered me. There has been no evidence offered this afternoon to indicate that there has been a decision made, or that there were earlier decisions made, to cut back. It just will not be sustained.

With regard to a current decision, let me say quite clearly that the allocations process is undertaken in the fall of each year; it is commenced in late September. It is under way now. No decisions have been made. It would be incredible for members of this House to stand here and suggest that there has been a decision by the government to cut back on these items for next year when the government is several weeks yet away from making decisions on those items.

Mr. Nixon: You have accepted a lower deficit.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is true, but this year we reduced the deficit and increased spending in these areas. We have shown it can be done.

Mr. Ruston: You forgot about the federal Liberals giving you $350 million.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let the member watch. I will be in one of these seats in two years and we will chat about it.

Mr. McClellan: Keep the flim and the flim-flam up.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let us keep the member in his caucus where he belongs.

I should tell members, too, that as we begin the budget allocations process every year, it commences quite properly and responsibly with all the priorities of the government with respect to increased spending on the table for discussion. Let us look at those priorities. Health, education and welfare spending, referred to in this very motion, comprise well over 50 per cent of all the spending we do.

One of the items of spending is public debt interest. Indeed, it has been one of the highest growth areas in the provincial budget for several years and that is a problem. How do we deal with that high growth area of the government's expenditures?

There are two ways. One is to reduce the deficit. We consider the need to reduce the deficit and, hence, decrease public debt interest spending. As part of the allocations process, it is implicit in that process. But there is a second way to do it. We make an implicit decision with regard to how much we are going to be willing to pay in interest payments and what priority we place upon the interest rate we do pay.

5:40 p.m.

How does that prioritize against other spending? Implicit in making that decision is a discussion of whether indeed we want to have the credit rating go down to perhaps double-A plus. It would then still be among the best in the world, I remind members, but it would imply a higher rate of interest.

If the government were to undertake the allocations process every year and say, "Let us discuss the spending of a lot of ministries, but let us ignore the second-highest growth item in the provincial budget," which is public debt interest, we would be doing an incomplete, careless and sloppy job in the allocations process.

How does one take that into account? Quite properly, one takes it into account by beginning the process, writing every ministry in the government and inviting it in to what the Premier euphemistically describes as "the court of appeal."

Mr. Martel: He is too careful. The Treasurer should not play with us. The Premier has never taken a word out of context.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will invite the member to attend the court of appeal some time in 1985. We will see how he does.

Mr. Rae: If the Treasurer appears before a court of appeal, they will close their books.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will all appear some time next year and we can see how we do. We will start with 56 per cent, the members opposite will start with 23 per cent and we will go from there. I have news for them: We will end up higher than 56 per cent and the members opposite will end up lower than 23 per cent.

Mr. McClellan: The Treasurer will not be here. He will be somewhere else.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will be here.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: He will be working in a legal aid clinic.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I say to the member for Bellwoods that if I am working in a legal aid clinic, I will look after his problems anytime. He can come right on up.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, please.

Mr. Conway: Is the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) not suing?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Suing whom?

Mr. Conway: The member for Bellwoods. He needs a lawyer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would not take that case. The member for Bellwoods is sure to lose. He is absolutely right; he needs a better lawyer than me to defend him. He is going to need the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), but the Attorney General will still be here.

Mr. Martel: He has a losing record too.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is better than 23 per cent. Did we have 23 per cent or did they have 23 per cent? I forget.

Mr. Speaker: Now back to the resolution.

Mr. Conway: And if the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) wins?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Whoever wins over here it will not be as bad as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) winning. My friend should remember that.

Mr. Conway: I have $100 in US funds that says if the member for Muskoka loses, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) will not be around. The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick is doing well.

Mr. Speaker: Back to the resolution, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will accept that wager.

Mr. Kolyn: I will take it. What odds is the member giving?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Unfortunately, we will not find out, but that is a different story. I wager only in Canadian funds.

Stuart Smith would want me to say that whoever wins over here will get a fair shot to govern, will not get knives in his back and will be here for a lot more than one or two elections. Stuart would want me to offer that.

Mr. Breaugh: Remember Joe Clark?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Remember Stuart? He is what the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk would call double-dipping. He would want me to remind my friend of that.

An hon. member: No, surely not.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, it is true. Who knows, twelve months from today the Leader of the Opposition could be double-dipping, and the member for Renfrew North could have the next chance at the leadership. Who knows?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: What the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick says about my former leader is true. But it is also true that compared to Allan Grossman, Stuart Smith is the little dipper.

Mr. Speaker: Now back to the resolution.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I want to say quite clearly that, compared to my father, indeed Stuart Smith is a little dipper. Let me make that very clear. I agree with the honourable member. Mind you, I should correct the record. I am not sure their former leader is double-dipping; I do not think he is eligible for a pension.

Mr. Breaugh: He was not here long enough.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is exactly the point. They get rid of them so young and so quickly over there that he probably is not eligible for a pension. There could be a long list of those. I guess Andy Thompson is double-dipping too, is he not? He is another former leader. Did he go to the Senate?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: So he is getting a cheque from Ottawa and a cheque from here.

Mr. Speaker: Now back to the resolution, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am losing count of former leaders. You will forgive me, Mr. Speaker. There is a never-ending list of former leaders over there.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is an honourable list; the members should read it.

Mr. Conway: What about John Yaremko, Allan Grossman, Lincoln Alexander, Willis Blair?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Where is Mike Bolan today?

Mr. Conway: Where is Mike Bolan today? I think he is in Brampton.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, he is. He is sitting on the bench.

Mr. Breaugh: A fifth candidate has just arrived, the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea). Did a quinella come in? Is that why he is wearing a tuxedo?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: My colleague has just returned from New York. When Ontario goes to New York, you dress properly.

Mr. Kolyn: He is the fifth candidate. He is announcing tonight.

Mr. Conway: We have $100 on this, and the member for Lakeshore holds the money.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member is covered.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now once more, back to the resolution.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, you will remember the resolution.

Mr. Speaker: I do indeed.

Mr. Martel: How many times do you think you should warn him, Mr. Speaker? You have been up five times.

Mr. Speaker: Three.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I hope the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) is not back in school if he counts that badly.

Mr. Martel: How many chances do you give him?

Mr. Conway: He is going to get more chances in this House than he will get at the convention.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bradley: How were the delegates at St. Catharines?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Very good. It was a good meeting last night.

Mr. Speaker: I trust you are going to proceed.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is certainly my plan, Mr. Speaker.

We have made it quite clear in terms of our discussions in New York and, more important, our budgetary plans, that there has been no evidence or suggestion that this government trades off anything, except a sensible decision with regard to where it is going to spend its money, field against field, ministry versus ministry.

In assessing those requirements, I repeat that it would be absolutely careless if we did not take into account the price we pay when we borrow money. That is not to say we sacrifice anything. Indeed, the record will show that what happens in this government is that there is a proper allocation between ministries serving the public and, in all the areas mentioned, serving extremely well with a wide variety of services. It has succeeded, almost uniquely in Canada, in maintaining a triple-A credit rating, which has kept down the cost of borrowing for the public of this province.

A very important discussion might well be held in this assembly with regard to whether we should increase our public debt interest by running up larger deficits and paying more in interest rates. I would be very straight. All my colleagues, I think, and I would disagree with the view put forward by members opposite. It is a view which I read in journals sometimes, which is that we should run up large deficits, not worry about credit ratings and hope and pray that in the long run we will be able to catch up to that deficit and pay down the interest.

Perhaps the former federal government followed that policy. It now finds that one third of all its tax revenues is going simply to service debt. That is not something we subscribe to on this side of the House. We think it is important that we do not have to do some of the things that the former federal government had to do, such as cut the very areas that are being expressed as areas of concern today, and do so unilaterally.

Just contemplate health and education, two areas that the former federal government slashed without warning or notice and without consultation with the provinces. I remind the members opposite that we have not had to do that. We have not done that in this province.

I suggest the balance is an absolutely appropriate one.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Haggerty: You are going to close down a lot of hospitals.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What was that?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Do not pay any attention to him; carry on.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have not gone through any cutbacks in health, education or welfare.

Mr. Foulds: The minister is flat again, just like his announcement for the leadership: boring.

Mr. McClellan: Bring on the old Larry. This is too dull.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let us hear the member's economic claptrap again, to use his phrase. I will tell the member what makes --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As Jim Laxer says, "At some stage you guys have to come into the 20th century and change your policies." That is the same thing the member for York South was saying in the House of Commons seven years ago. How times have changed.

While times change, there are some things that do not change. One thing that does not change is the dedication of this government to try to balance budgets, to reduce deficits and in doing that to maintain and -- indeed, my colleague in the tuxedo here would be able to attest to it at first hand -- improve education, health and in particular social spending to the point at which it, together with our triple-A credit rating, is the best in Canada.

5:57 p.m.

The House divided on Mr. Rae's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Laughren,

Lupusella, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Philip, Rae, Reed, Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McEwen, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Piché;

Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Ayes 38; nays 61.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

13 novembre 1984